Christmas is saved

[MiaMarshmallows]

So happy that my partner and big family can all be together this year. We are all really close and get on brilliantly. So pleased at the news today!

Boris is being damned because no matter what position you take, for or against lockdowns he managed to bungle it hopelessly.

@Alexafrost the main thing with Mr Johnson has been the responses have been far too late. The four weeks of restrictions in England should have been in October.

There was still no undertaking not to send people with Covid from hospitals to care homes, and testing of staff there will not be there for another fortnight.

The official figures I looked at were around 55k and those are still deaths of people who had the virus not who necessarily died of it. For instance, I'm sure my relation who just died will be recorded as a Covid death as he caught the disease at hospital. However, his late stage terminal pancreatic cancer is the most likely cause of his death.

Last month my mum died of covid pneumonia, caught in hospital. One day she was ready for discharge the next she had a positive test. Regardless of her other life limiting health conditions covid killed her. The consultants from different departments spent time considering carefully the cause of death, it delayed the death certificate 2 days.

Where do you draw the line between someone who could have died anyway from other life limiting illness in the next few weeks/months and a covid death? Are you suggesting those extra weeks/months of life they would have had have no value? It is morally abhorrent to suggest those with life limited illness who died from covid should be removed from the official figures used to measure the impact of this virus.

I have no doubt Covid killed your mother. The virus has a devastating effect among the elderly, especially those who are already sick. As does flu. Nevertheless, it remains a fact that many deaths are recorded as of Covid regardless of whether someone died of it or merely tested positive for the virus.

I'm not drawing any sort of line on anyone's life. I and many others, including many scientists are questioning the wisdom of locking down entire countries when the virus has a very low death rate except among the elderly and sick. Given that the long term deaths caused by lockdown are likely to greatly exceed than those from the virus it seems to be a suicidal policy on every level.

There's absolutely no evidence that lockdowns are a solution to the virus as you cannot hide from a pandemic. All they can do is temporarily delay infection rates, although evidence for that is weak. The best you can do is shield the most vulnerable which we spectacularly failed to do.

No lockdown in the UK would affect the death rate from Covid no matter when it started unless shutdown was total with no movement whatsoever which isn't practical. All lockdowns do, even if effective is delay the inevitable and make things very much worse on every other level.

It is morally abhorrent to suggest those with life limited illness who died from covid should be removed from the official figures used to measure the impact of this virus.

I'm sorry about your mum. No I don't think they should be removed from the official figures. But it is important to distinguish between those who were more likely to die of covid because of a life limiting illness and those who aren't. That needs to be reflected in the figures. My husband has pneumonia as one of the things listed on his death certificate that killed him. Was it the pneumonia? Well kind of, but if he hadn't had the limited life expectancy and no immunity due to the cancer and chemo he was having, then I doubt the pneumonia would have killed him. We need to separate it out so the vulnerable groups are shielded and protected, but that people that are not at significant risk can go out, go to work, and live their lives.

it remains a fact that many deaths are recorded as of Covid regardless of whether someone died of it or merely tested positive for the virus.
I thought that death certs state cause of death - and if Covid is a factor it is marked in the additional factors part. This is how it is, and was explained to me, on my mum's death certificate.

There has been a lack of consistency in approach and I know from experience death certificates are not very reliable without a post mortem. Often it's a best guess scenario.

My dad was 98 when he died back in May. He Tested positive in his care home and nearly shook it off for two weeks , but couldn't. He was tested again in hospital two weeks later and was negative but died after one night in there on oxygen. Covid is on his death certificate because the Medical officer at the hospital said it contributed to the organ failure.
He had dementia and a few people have said to me that covid ' couldn't have contributed' but I believe it did in his case despite being negative after two weeks.
The doctor said that being a novel virus he couldn't shake it off as he had done with other infections.

Haven't managed to RTFT but is there any guidance about 'doing Christmas' as safely as possible? It's nice to know that potentially our usual three-household (PIL and their two kids and their families, all live locally, 10 in total) might be able to go ahead. But it's blatantly obvious that the virus PIL have been hiding from since March is not going to care that it's Christmas and power itself down just for 25th December.

Now if all four DC are in childcare/school right up until Christmas, and the four adults (me & DH, SIL and BIL) are in work and mixing with others (one of us works in a hospital) right up until Christmas, it would be daft to say, 'Yay, let's go and do our usual Christmas'. But if we could all effectively self-isolate for 10-14 days before 25th December, we could meet up for Christmas fairly confident that none of us were carrying the virus. For some families this will be impossible. For some, completely possible. Different decisions about mixing at Christmas should therefore be made.

This is what they're doing for university students - switch to 100% remote learning towards the end of term to allow students to completely self-isolate for up to two weeks before returning to the parental home. Why not a mass offer to switch schools (at least secondary upwards) to remote learning just for the last week of term? It's not like huge amounts of valuable learning are normally done in the very last week before Christmas anyway? Teachers isolate at home and teach online. Students isolate at home and learn online. Everybody then has two weeks before Christmas Day to make sure they're virus-free and go to see Granny on 25th December without posing any risk to her.

I just don't get why so many people see it in such black and white terms. Have we completely lost our ability to risk assess and plan for ourselves? 'Doing Christmas' will be perfectly safe for some people, and a terrible idea for others. All depends on family makeup and circumstance.

Even if the population figure for the vulnerable was as high as 20% it would still make more sense shielding them than locking down the country and devastating the economy. In many countries the care home deaths amount to around 70-80% of deaths from Covid. Lockdowns are not a solution. You cannot hide from a virus. It will still be there when you go back to living normally. It just drags out the inevitable at enormous cost both financially but also in lives lost due to lockdown

I have seen so many hundreds of posts, setting out these arguments. The question I ask, which never seems to get answered, is why then has almost the whole of Europe, with its access to the best expert advice, gone down the lockdown route, despite the damage they cause? What are all these governments and their advisers missing that you and other posters aren't?

This is a genuine question, not a snarky one. We won't ever really ever know whether lockdowns were the right option, because we will never know what would have happened without them (although it's not hard to hazard a guess IMO).

This is a genuine question.

Alexafrost It is not true that the WHO do not recommend lockdowns, that is a complete misrepresentation that has been seized on by the likes of Trump.

khn.org/news/fact-check-world-health-organization-did-not-change-its-lockdown-stance-or-admit-president-trump-was-right/

@MercyBooth

Can you imagine if a kid's grandparents decided to ignore the restrictions, came over, then later died of Covid? With the "don't kill granny" rhetoric that kid would be mentally scarred for life. The kid would blame themselves,. That is deeply DEEPLY sick!!!!

Is the emotional blackmailing and abuse of children the new tool in the fight against Covid?

It would be awful if a grandparent did become ill and die but there's a simple solution. Keep the grandparents away from you and celebrate when they've been vaccinated.

Most people were outside during these times. Less risk. Not sure how many are planning Xmas dinner in there gardens.
Not everyone has room to keep social distance inside. So most likely will be increase infections after.

@Alexafrost

There has been a lack of consistency in approach and I know from experience death certificates are not very reliable without a post mortem. Often it's a best guess scenario.

Agreed. Covid causes heart attacks, strokes, and pneumonia but lots of those deaths, especially in the early days of the pandemic, won't be recorded as Covid.

So in fact it's quite possible that the 70,000 figure is an underestimate.

[quote pinkearedcow]Alexafrost It is not true that the WHO do not recommend lockdowns, that is a complete misrepresentation that has been seized on by the likes of Trump.

khn.org/news/fact-check-world-health-organization-did-not-change-its-lockdown-stance-or-admit-president-trump-was-right/[/quote]
Yes this.

And of course it's all very well for rich right wingers to put shortsighted greed before long-term economic health and lives. Unlike Joe public, Trump had access to a guaranteed hospital bed and very expensive in short-supply treatments.

Good luck shielding the sizeable proportion of the essential workforce. The 20% of the population who are vulnerable include many healthcare workers and teachers and other school staff.

Btw. Lockdowns do, work. If done properly. Australia, New Zealand, the Isle of Man, Taiwan, Singapore, Hong Kong, Japan, Vietnam, much of Africa. All took effective containment measures. Varied approaches to lockdown - but the key common denominator is restricted borders with proper quarantine.

We failed to do what more sensible countries did. Like you say, the Westminster government bungled it. Badly. They didn't even learn from March mistakes. We had a second chance in the summer/early autumn. We squandered it. Hence our need for on off on off lockdowns.

Try keeping the schools and essential shops open and accessing any medical care with completely unchecked Covid rampaging through the population.

So many people who are openly (or secretly) disappointed that they are going to feel pressured to meet with family and thought they would get a year ‘off’ I’m lots of cases I think this is the cause for the miserable moaning about the news today rather than genuine concern for covid

Can grandparents not make their own minds up if they want to take that risk or not? Their 70 year olds with a life time of experience, not toddlers?

Lockdowns cannot work to permanently prevent people from becoming infected as all they are doing is hiding from the disease which is still there when you come out of hiding. All they do is delay the inevitable and cause economic hardship which will certainly kill people in the longterm. There is a reason why poor countries have a much worse life expectancy than rich ones.

As soon as you open the borders and go back to normal infections rates will rise. Why does this basic fact escape you? Do you imagine the virus will disappear on its own?

The deaths from Covid are massively over represented by the over 70s and very few of those are essential workers. It is nothing like 20% of the population who are at serious risk from the disease.

The death rate from Covid for anyone not elderly and sick is low and doesn't justify the huge dangers of devastating the world economy.

The WHO has soft pedalled on lockdowns. It admits the devastation they cause but isn't brave enough to say they are the disaster they obviously are nor that they are a gross overreaction to a virus which has a death rate comparable to flu.

We don't need on/off lockdowns we just need to shield the most vulnerable and get on with life which we will have to do eventually as the time will come when all governments and pro-lockdowners like yourself are forced to see how many more people die of the lockdown than Covid. Unless there really is a vaccine with a much higher success rate than the flu vaccine then we have to learn to live with the virus as well as the next pandemic that comes along.

@Time2change2

So many people who are openly (or secretly) disappointed that they are going to feel pressured to meet with family and thought they would get a year ‘off’ I’m lots of cases I think this is the cause for the miserable moaning about the news today rather than genuine concern for covid

Perhaps you're right! They hate their families... That's why we, unlike Australia, New Zealand, the Isle of Man, Taiwan, Japan, Singapore, etc, can't safely meet up with family for Christmas.

Thinking about it..every year, lots of Brits do tend to moan about family get-togethers at Christmas, don't they.

That's why Brits fought so desperately against containment measures. I couldn't work it out but you've nailed it. They didn't want a happy Christmas!

"I have seen so many hundreds of posts, setting out these arguments. The question I ask, which never seems to get answered, is why then has almost the whole of Europe, with its access to the best expert advice, gone down the lockdown route, despite the damage they cause? What are all these governments and their advisers missing that you and other posters aren't?"

I cannot answer that question because I do not know why governments have taken leave of their senses and adopted one suicidal approach as a religion. However, it's not as if I am alone in despairing of their madness.

Plenty of scientists are opposed to the gross overreaction to Covid and many have pointed out the false figures the UK government and its medical advisers are still using to push through these authoritarian laws. Possibly fear of being seen to have killed people indirectly through not doing enough to protect people made politicians panic. Once one country adopted the measure it became a trend and now no-one is prepared to admit they overreacted and they double down to save face.

Politicians can always blame all the deaths caused by lockdown and the economic depression on Covid, not their own terrible policies. At this point I think they are desperately betting on an effective vaccine which is very high stakes gambling. Lethally high.

It is well known, even among lockdown advocates that they won't magically cure the virus. They were instigated to protect health services based on grossly inflated predictions of the death rate. Added to that few countries acted to shield the genuinely vulnerable. Even Sweden which didn't lockdown let the care homes be devastated just as we did and Spain did which had more stringent restrictions than us.

You only have to look at the advice to wear masks to realise that people don't know what they are talking about. Cloth masks will not stop you contracting a virus. Scientists have known that masks don't stop viruses for decades and this has recently been reconfirmed by the recent US study. So why are we mandated to wear them?

What nonsense Alexafrost

as soon as you open the borders and go back to normal infection rates will rise
So we do as other countries are doing - and don't open them until the vaccines are rolled out. We can live without foreign holidays for a year. The planet will likely thank us too, for the healing environmental break.

We have vaccines pretty much ready.
So close, yet some people would prefer to see tens of thousands of avoidable deaths and many more (working age) people left long-term disabled.

Economists at Deutsche Bank have warned about the economic consequences of Spread Covid for Christmas. Like they say, it will give an initial very brief economic boost - but at the cost of economic devastation in the new year. Basically, shortsighted greed.

You certainly don't appreciate our hardworking NHS staff, do you. ICU nurses were sectioned after the first wave. What a way to repay our frontline healthcare staff for looking after us all. More trauma and pressure.

So you're betting on the vaccine. What if it's only as effective as the flu vaccine which is roughly 50% effective and still leaves thousands, sometimes tens of thousands dead in the UK alone every year?

How many deaths and untold misery from poverty resulting from a devastated economy will you accept to win some ludicrous fight against a virus which doesn't have a particularly high death rate? Will you want another lockdown when the next pandemic comes along in a few years?

You are so naive, ignorant and arrogantly clueless about the dangers of crashing the economy it is beyond belief. I'm guessing you are not in personal danger of seeing a business you built over many years being destroyed in a matter of months or losing your job at one of the many larger companies that will also struggle to keep going after taking such a hit. You wouldn't talk so glibly if you were.

People living without foreign holidays for a year means unbelievable damage to tourism, hospitality, airlines, airports and all that work in those sectors which will take many years to recover from. It will lead to very high unemployment and a loss of tax revenue which funds the health service you are so keen to protect. Add to that retail outlets, cinemas, theatres, gyms, cafes, restaurants etc. etc. etc.

A compromised economy will lead directly to a compromised health service as well as cutting foreign aid etc. The money has to come from somewhere to fund it. That's how capitalism works. It's why rich countries have lower death rates than poor ones. Lockdowns will kill more than they save.

The only economic danger is locking down not opening up again. The death rates have never been high enough to justify the measures taken to protect the health service. It was never overwhelmed in the UK.

Do you think the economic experts at Deutsche Bank are 'naive, ignorant, and arrogantly clueless', when they warn of the economic dangers of uncontained Covid?

Don't be so negative
Have faith in the world's medical and scientific experts.

We've had very positive results from 3 separate vaccines in the past two weeks.
Effectivity of around 90%. 20 million doses of the Oxford one ready to distribute, several million more of the other two, and millions more of the Oxford due to be delivered over the coming months.

The end is in sight. It would be dreadfully foolhardy - economically and health-wise - to do anything that leaves us starting the new year heading to a 3rd wave - all for the sake of a couple of days knees (and likely bust) up over Christmas.