To think we have gone collectively insane in our response to covid

[PlumsAreNotTheOnlyFruit]

This is something I have thought for a while. I feel like we are in the grip of insanity when it comes to our response to covid.

We seem to be prepared to destroy our economy, get into massive debt, surrender our freedom and mess up our children's education over covid.

It's a virus which can and will spread, and now seems more virulent than ever. Unless you have a total eradication policy, which is impossible for the UK to implement now anyway, then only mitigation is possible.

All of Europe whatever their policies have been now have many cases. Why do we have to suffer covid AND watch our businesses go under with a potential decade of economic misery.

How many lives have been saved by our policies? Has anyone even done an analysis? We reject cancer drugs because we say they are too expensive for the number of years of life saved. We allow polluting diesel vehicles to drive in urban areas despite the 40,000 who die each year from the effects of air pollution. Why is covid different?

I am cross that we haven't thrown everything at expanding health care capacity since March and instead have spent our money paying people not to work after closing things down.

Right now I feel that the virus will continue to spread whatever we do and that that our focus should be on shielding the most vulnerable until they can be vaccinated. I realise that isn't likely to be 100% effective but neither are our present policies.

@lovelylittlepanda sorry, I was agreeing with you, the rest of my statement about being selfish was sarcasm! Just didn't come across how I typed it compared to in my head lol.

@17days

Thank you for responding.

I've referenced the high death rates in Sweden versus other Nordic countries a number of time on this thread as I'm really interested in their response. The vast majority of deaths in Sweden were the elderly. What will happen to the same elderly population in the other Nordic countries when they stop being sheltered? They will die, like elderly people die from respiratory illnesses each year.

Why can we not compare Sweden's deaths to the UK or other European countries? They are similar in lots of ways, within the same continent. Without billions spent on furloughed staff and unemployment benefits.

I heard the parents of a child who had died from a brain tumour the other day speaking about how worried they were about the fact that research and clinical trials into conditions like these has been paused and/or discontinued in the past 9 months. They also said that the funding situation for research into some childhood cancer treatments isn't great and if even 2% of amount of funding for the Covid vaccines was available for this research, their son's cancer might have been able to be treated.

@ValancyRedfern

Haven't rtft but vickyp00llard I agree with. Currently society is choosing to protect the elderly and vulnerable from Covid, over and above other groups of people and other concerns. It's a choice. It may be the right or the wrong choice depending on your perspective, but it is not inherently less selfish to protect the elderly from Covid than to protect those who are lonely, mentally ill, losing their jobs, losing their homes, in abusive relationships etc.

But restrictions are in place in order to protect all these groups.

It is not just to save a few 80 year olds who are dying anyway. (Nice)

Not just to save sick people who are dying anyway (nice.)

Not just to 'save the NHS'.

It is to try to arrest the exponential path of an extremely contagious virus that kills a minority that ends up as huge numbers overall and causes long term damage in hundreds of thousands more.

It is to arrest this path exactly so that these other things we see breaking down in society can somehow be kept as little affected as possible. If we really didn't bother with restrictions, all of these things would be so much more affected. Mental health, businesses, education - all more decimated if that virus path was not slowed down.

Sweden - can't compare to UK, Italy etc. Compare it to its neighbours as we do to ours. So many factors such as population density and the level of compliance to restrictions, whether officially called lockdown or not. It's all out there to see.

With/of covid, ONS stats make it clear that more people have died with covid as main cause than daily numbers (under 28 days) show. More than makes up for the small percentage of those recorded with covid who did not die of it as a main cause. And yes to pp, do people think doctors just stick it there on the death certificate for the hell of it?

I'm done. I give up.

What do people think would have happened to social care, mental health services, cancer services etc if the virus had been allowed to just progress - you think they’d be working well with higher numbers of staff infected and more staff dying? So it’s not a choice between saving “old and sick people” and having functioning services for everyone else. We wouldn’t have functioning services even without these restrictions, but for different reasons.

If we really didn't bother with restrictions, all of these things would be so much more affected. Mental health, businesses, education - all more decimated if that virus path was not slowed down.

Is that really true though? Lots of countries around the world didn't do lockdown, or did but now can't afford any more after the first one. They don't have bodies piling up or trashed economies (and if they did, surely we would know - everyone can film on their smartphones these days). This just sounds like total scaremongering. All the graphics I've seen seem to show that lockdown or no lockdown, most countries end up on a similar trajectory w.r.t. deaths and cases. In fact lockdowns could be detrimental as people get fed up with rules and socialise quietly in their houses, rather than in cafes/pubs where there are hygiene measures in place.

@Ocsetldil

We should have a police state and then we might respect the rules of lockdown. Everyone in isolation should wear tags which are applied and then released by the police. People arriving at airports should be tested properly and isolated properly. Wuhan is back to normal. Our half arsed liberalism has ruined this country.

Read the threads about people breaking lockdown on this site. Is it alright to have a party on the street and let the children play together? No it friggin isn’t.

I hope you’re being sarcastic. Have you read 1984 by Orwell? Do you know what it’s like for poor people in North Korea and Russia? If the government introduces this and we accept it, the restrictions on our freedom of movement and speech will never end.

The lack of integrity of this thread is sad. No matter what way it is dressed up some people would prefer the death of another over being locked down. People have a vision in their head of this little old lady (as it's always a frail old lady isn't it, granny, seen as worthless, no good for anything) as the person that their life is being disrupted for.

If the government introduces this and we accept it, the restrictions on our freedom of movement and speech will never end.

You can see how fascist governments happen - people are literally welcoming more restrictions with open arms and can't wait to dob in their neighbours for having family round for Christmas.

@vickyp0llard which countries? The only one similar to ours that have decided to just let the virus rip is the US - and from w
Hat I can see it doesnt look great - from either an economic or social perspective. And their hospital resource is greater than ours.

@Comfortzone

I've been 100% until now, but now am wondering why shut the economy, cripple millions of businesses - to JUST save an NHS which can be propped up anyhow by government and public taxes if it needs cash or funding for a recruitment drive. Other businesses DO NOT have this backup. Doesn't really make sense anymore.

But you're not saving the NHS as a business model, we are taking steps to effectively keep the NHS open as far as we can. The more the virus spreads the less the NHS can do to help both those effected and those who require treatment for other things. Currently it's close to being overwhelmed and people aren't receiving the treatments they need for non covid illnesses (as I understand it) and that is with strict measures. If we don't 'save the NHS' what happens to all the patients? The non covid services aren't being cut because of lockdown, it's because the hospitals don't have room to treat the patients on top of the existing ones already in there and expected to be in there due to COVID surely?

@porcupineinwaiting most non-EU countries. All of the Asian countries, India, Eastern Europe, Brazil, South Africa. The middle-east. Most of the world isn't wealthy enough to be able to afford repeated lockdowns or a furlough scheme, yet hasn't turned into a massive graveyard with a decimated economy.

@PlumsAreNotTheOnlyFruit

This is something I have thought for a while. I feel like we are in the grip of insanity when it comes to our response to covid.

We seem to be prepared to destroy our economy, get into massive debt, surrender our freedom and mess up our children's education over covid.

It's a virus which can and will spread, and now seems more virulent than ever. Unless you have a total eradication policy, which is impossible for the UK to implement now anyway, then only mitigation is possible.

All of Europe whatever their policies have been now have many cases. Why do we have to suffer covid AND watch our businesses go under with a potential decade of economic misery.

How many lives have been saved by our policies? Has anyone even done an analysis? We reject cancer drugs because we say they are too expensive for the number of years of life saved. We allow polluting diesel vehicles to drive in urban areas despite the 40,000 who die each year from the effects of air pollution. Why is covid different?

I am cross that we haven't thrown everything at expanding health care capacity since March and instead have spent our money paying people not to work after closing things down.

Right now I feel that the virus will continue to spread whatever we do and that that our focus should be on shielding the most vulnerable until they can be vaccinated. I realise that isn't likely to be 100% effective but neither are our present policies.

I haven't RTFT but your Op is exactly what I've been thinking today.

It has killed healthy children. Not many ... But surely more than 1 is too many? Surely more than 1 healthy adult is too many?

I don't suppose PPs want anyone to die, but I'm not sure we have the luxury of thinking "one's too many" any longer - not with the collateral damage this is causing

The physician decides whether it is responsible for the death or not, and these figures only are recorded in the death figures

Just wondering how this stacks up with those who died without ever being formally tested and were diagnosed as having Covid remotely? Admittedly this was back in spring before widespread testing, but surely it would still have increased the numbers of supposed Covid deaths?

@Icenii But the options are not just die of Covid or else never die?! The people who are dying , unfortunately, would die of another illness unless they were artificially shielding?

The people who are on this thread for the most part, are anti-lockdowns but not anti-restrictions. I'm sure there are lots of creative solutions we could come up with to minimise contacts and protect the vulnerable. No one wants anyone to die, but until someone invents a magical elixir, people will still die.

Ok, great thanks for sharing.

Moving on

I'm sure there are lots of creative solutions we could come up with to minimise contacts and protect the vulnerable

And I’m all ears when they do as I’m sure many governments would be.

@vickyp0llard dont know where you are looking but "a graveyard with a decimated economy " describes Brazil pretty well right now.

Taking this to a totally left-field position, what things overwhelm the health service more than anything?

Cigarettes, alcohol and unhealthy food leading to obesity ( I know there are many roads that lead to obesity, but just to pick on element) Cars also cause lots of deaths and admissions to ICU because of brain damage.

Why don't we ban all those things? The nation would be healthier, people would have to walk/cycle everywhere, no crap to buy in the supermarket and no deaths from smoking or alcohol.

So why don't we do that? If our actual aim is not to overwhelm a health service and prevent deaths?

Why don't we ban all those things? The nation would be healthier

Because they don’t pose an immediate danger to our health infrastructure and people have argued that it’s their right. There are many people who would like to outright ban tobacco and alcohol fwiw.

@hollyangel Quite. Yet more hypocrisy of people that were quite happy to be super-morbidly obese, or smoke/drink to excess, with all the risks to life that was known to cause - yet now demand that other people shut themselves indoors to "protect" them and their bad choices, otherwise they are selfish.

@Cornettoninja Why not pay the elderly and vulnerable a living wage to shelter at home rather than imposing another national lockdown for months like in March and also like is about to happen now?
The NHS is already running at a massively reduced level. That's not sustainable and will cause further deaths.
This thread hasn't even touched on the mental health issues, suicides and increase in domestic violence, all caused by lockdown. Missed cancer screenings. Less money for cancer research. What about all these issues?
It's like plugging only one hole in a dam, what about all the other holes?

OP I agree with you 100%.

I haven’t found any particular joy in lockdown at all. I had a new born during the first lockdown and I’m yet to fully celebrate my baby’s arrival, as I feel that we have missed out on so much. However, I also know that my needs can’t come before this battle with the virus.
I believe the lockdown has helped minimise the impact to businesses, jobs, mental health, nhs services and deaths.
You really think if the virus was allowed to run free businesses would still be booming? If the virus was allowed to just do its thing most employers/staff would probably be dead or still recovering from long covid. Wouldn’t business be closed then? Some people would be too scared work, all it takes is losing one person you know to this virus to make you realise how serious it can be. The difference would be there would not be financial support from the government when they couldn’t open their businesses. I know that even without lockdown, if deaths were allowed to just happen and the rate was ten times what it is now, a lot of people wouldn’t have chosen to go out and use certain businesses such as pubs, restaurants, clubs and salons anyway. People would have to shield and protect themselves with no support.
Also people with MH, if they become overwhelmed with lockdown and isolation then I can’t really picture them dealing with long covid or losing loved ones any better than dealing with isolation.
As for the people saying deaths from cancer could have been prevented. How? If scientist and doctors are understaffed or dead who would carry out the specialist research and treatments?
OP the only thing I agree with in your original post is that the vulnerable need protecting. I agree, but can you advise how?the vulnerable often live with families so would we isolate them too?
Also don’t forget that the vulnerable aren’t just the old and frail. There are vulnerable people who are young and in very important jobs too. How would we protect them, yet expect the same level of services from the professionals/employers out there?

If the virus was allowed to just do its thing most employers/staff would probably be dead

With a 0.4-0.6% IFR? Hyperbolic much.