How long will people agree to make these sacrifices for?

[DappledOliveGroves]

Inspired by another thread here.

Let's assume the vaccines don't do what they should - either because the virus mutates so rapidly or because our government can't manage to adhere to Pfizer's protocol and a lone dose does nothing to protect people.

Then what?

For all those champing at the bit for curfews, harsher lockdowns, further restrictions on civil liberties - I'm genuinely curious - how long are you willing to maintain this status quo?

Would you be happy to still be in this lockdown in a year? Two years? Five years? Even if the lockdowns are eased and clamped down again, would you be willing to accept rolling lockdowns as a fact of life with no end in sight? At what point would those wanting tougher restrictions decide they can't live like this anymore?

[quote Perfect28]@strawberrylipstickstateofmind

Are you really saying you believe that suicide rates because of the pandemic, over and above what they already average, are going to equate to the numbers dying with covid? And again my point stands, I'm not taking your predictions and suspicions over actual, proveable and calculatable facts.[/quote]
Not in terms of death in numbers but I do believe the number of life years lost will potentially end up being greater. Due to the fact that coronavirus kills mainly the very elderly. It will be young people whose mental health, jobs and homes will have been lost, who will end up committing suicide.

And don't try to make out that I'm a granny killer or that I hate the elderly to point this out. All people matter. All people deserve to be respected and looked after, and no one is more important than anyone else. But the pandemic and its effects are so very complex that I don't believe it's as simple as 'lock down and prevent as many coronavirus deaths as possible'. It would be simple and right to do so if it caused no other harms to society but it clearly does and will continue to cause harm. That's not to say that I am against lockdown right now- it clearly needs to be done and is the right thing for now and to protect the NHS but hypothetically, if it meant locking down for the next two, three or even five years to prevent deaths from coronavirus? Yes I am- because of the enormous harm it does to society overall. There are people on this thread who have said they would lock down indefinitely to protect elderly relatives (who should be vaccinated soon anyway so what is the issue) and I personally find that a selfish attitude- what about the enormous harm this causes to everyone else, particularly the very young?

It isn't just about death. It is about those who are left behind, the world they are left to live in, and kind of life they can expect to live. A pp earlier in the thread mentioned that if this continues into September, that is three years of disrupted learning to our children. Three years of learning and socialisation. That is absolutely appalling and they deserve so much better. We are then denying them opportunities of previous generations and that is wrong.

@PerfectPearl

Takes as long as it takes, 1 year/5 year/ 10 year/ forever, it is what it is.

😱😂

@Ghislainedefeligonde

I think there have been so many mistakes but a big part of the problem is society’s inability to talk about, and accept death as a part of life. Lets face it, any one of us could die tomorrow from sudden illness or accident. All deaths are a tragedy, but they are also part of life. We will all die of something. However the impact of lockdown is horrendous and unnatural. The toll it’s taking on people's mental health is unreal. Our mental health services are overwhelmed now , yet no one wants to talk about that.

The impact on kids and young adults will be long lasting, not to mention the fact that they will be paying for the destroyed economy for their whole lives.
Sweden did not lock down, their deaths are no worse than ours, but they still have an economy, and a society.

We can’t just keep on locking down. We need to know when things are going to be eased off, and once a critical mass of vulnerable people have been vaccinated we need to let people live their lives again.

And finally I’ve seen lots of people die through work, generally older people often frail and with dementia. The vast majority due to pneumonia with underlying conditions being the driver for them developing this. It’s surprising how many die completely peacefully, even without having had any medications. Vast majority will drop oxygen levels, making them sleepy and then unconscious and will die within a few days. As far as modes of dying go, it’s really not a bad way to go. Certainly preferable to dying of cancer with a protracted, painful death with symptoms sometimes difficult to control

@Ghislainedefeligonde excellent post and I agree 100% with you.

Apologies for missing your earlier post, Fidget, but I'm not sure what the thing is about Florida hospitals? I've linked a graphic below which says it's using federal data, and there are just a couple of counties where bed occupancy's over 30%, the rest being considerably below that
Even in the worst hit areas of CA, NM, AZ, NV and TX it's only running in the 50s ...

www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2020/12/09/944379919/new-data-reveal-which-hospitals-are-dangerously-full-is-yours?t=1611261330424

@PerfectPearl

Takes as long as it takes, 1 year/5 year/ 10 year/ forever, it is what it is.

lol

@PerfectPearl

Takes as long as it takes, 1 year/5 year/ 10 year/ forever, it is what it is.

Are you really happy not to see family and friends for that long? Most of my family will be dead by then. No one in their right mind will accept 5, 10 year sacrifices.

[quote Puzzledandpissedoff]Apologies for missing your earlier post, Fidget, but I'm not sure what the thing is about Florida hospitals? I've linked a graphic below which says it's using federal data, and there are just a couple of counties where bed occupancy's over 30%, the rest being considerably below that
Even in the worst hit areas of CA, NM, AZ, NV and TX it's only running in the 50s ...

www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2020/12/09/944379919/new-data-reveal-which-hospitals-are-dangerously-full-is-yours?t=1611261330424[/quote]
Thanks for that link puzzled. It wasn’t a post to you upthread it was to someone else who was saying if we don’t lockdown the country would grind to a halt as we wouldn’t be able to staff our water supplies and utilities and all businesses would go under etc. I mentioned Florida as an example of somewhere with no lockdown and high rates but not experiencing the consequences these posters are suggesting.

I am probably wrong about the hospitals being overwhelmed having looked at your graphic. But the point that not locking down and high covid rates doesn’t mean that all areas of society are obliterated still stands I think.

What that is doing is making staff leave. We’ve had enough as it is. Imagine seeing that outside work every day

'Due to the fact that coronavirus kills mainly the very elderly. It will be young people whose mental health, jobs and homes will have been lost, who will end up committing suicide.'

Any suicide is tragic but really can we stop the announcements that young people are all going to kill themselves in droves.

Coronavirus kills many people of different age groups. We can't just let it rip. Its bad enough with restrictions in place.

I really struggle to understand what you all think the alternative should be.

Many of you who are advocating the 'shield the vulnerable and yet the young crack on with their lives' line are also using an emotive argument from care homes and relatives with dementia who are suffering greatly, unable to see family. And yet they are the very people you are wanting to shield away. If you want to go with extreme shielding, that means no contact with any one apart from carers and those carers would also have to shield.

Some of you also use the emotive argument of people who will commit suicide. And yet a very good proportion of those people are also the very people you want to shield away as sickness, disability and learning difficulties are all strong factors among those who sadly take their lives.

So you want to shield the vulnerable, that means you want to shield away the very people you are using to make arguments against lockdown. You talk about how barbaric it is for elderly people to not see family, and then say that they should be shielded.

Which is it?

The shield the vulnerable argument has no merit anyway, as most scientists have agreed, because there are too many counted in that vulnerable, and they are not all 80 years old.

Ah - sorry, Fidget, I mistook the gist of your post

Definitely agree that few lockdowns/high cases doesn't equal obliteration - at least not in the US - but I doubt it'll suit the frequent anti-American bias on here

Glad you enjoyed the graphic though; guess I'll hang on to it for the next time someone says what a complete and utter mess they're in

PinkSparklyPussyCat I agree but on the other hand if you'd suggested a year ago we'd all have been (mostly) locked down for ten months from March no one would have believed it.

@dappledolivegroves

Why would you think the lockdowns would affect the NHS but not other services?

Society hasn't become massively overwhelmed... Because of lockdowns. That's kind of the point of them.

🙄

@luckylavender

Who am I putting at risk? I'll be continuing to please myself, within reason. Hopefully everyone else will start doing the same.

@GetOffYourHighHorse

'Due to the fact that coronavirus kills mainly the very elderly. It will be young people whose mental health, jobs and homes will have been lost, who will end up committing suicide.'

Any suicide is tragic but really can we stop the announcements that young people are all going to kill themselves in droves.

Coronavirus kills many people of different age groups. We can't just let it rip. Its bad enough with restrictions in place.

Where did I advocate let it rip? Or that young people would kill themselves in droves? Well it depends on what you consider 'droves' because it's clearly going to increase a lot and it's already a terrible number of people who choose to end their own lives.

I didn't advocate let it rip. I said that lockdown is the right thing to do. But I made the point that hypothetically, no I would not support with lockdowns lasting two years, 5 years or whatever.

@StealthPolarBear

PinkSparklyPussyCat I agree but on the other hand if you'd suggested a year ago we'd all have been (mostly) locked down for ten months from March no one would have believed it.

I agree, but I don't think people will accept not seeing their loved ones for much longer, especially if it gets to the stage that we're all vaccinated.

@Honeyhoops - If you don't understand transmission by now then there's no hope for any of us. We all have our part to play.

[quote Perfect28]@dappledolivegroves

Why would you think the lockdowns would affect the NHS but not other services?

Society hasn't become massively overwhelmed... Because of lockdowns. That's kind of the point of them.

🙄[/quote]
So why aren't all the industries that have stayed open throughout been overwhelmed? Supermarkets, utilities, construction sites for example? Given the current virus rate, by your logic, these industries should have collapsed as those working in them got the virus. But they haven't.

Anecdotally, all those I know who have caught Covid have carried on working, at home, throughout, keeping things going. Given huge numbers of people won't know they even have Covid then why would everything collapse?

[quote luckylavender]@Honeyhoops - If you don't understand transmission by now then there's no hope for any of us. We all have our part to play. [/quote]
But what if the cost is too high to pay? Then what do you do?

@DappledOliveGroves

Wow.

Lockdowns reduce transmission across the entirety of society. It's not as simple (as you seem to think it is.. ) that those going to work are more likely to catch the virus, just because they are going to work. Or, that is true- but because those of us who can stay at home are, transmission OVERALL is lower, and so the probability, even for those people is lower.

I'm struggling to explain something so simple and obvious in any other way...

Yes, the infection rate is high. With no measures (lockdowns) it would be even higher. You do understand that right?

@luckylavender

I do understand. I decided the risk of me passing on or picking up covid from any of the people I choose to see is outweighed by the benefit to all our mental healths.

I find if I go more than a week without seeing anyone but my husband and kids I start to feel down. I also feel it would be cruel to not see my dad as he would be completely alone, all day every day.

I am lucky to have never suffered from depression or mental health issues and that I have a happy family life, and we're financially secure. So many others are not and how the hell the government expect people to carry on in isolation living half a life for an indefinite period to "protect the NHS" and a minority of the population is beyond me. It is doing more harm than good.

I've pinched the link below from another thread, but it's interesting as ever to watch the scientists' narrative changing on the vaccines. I distinctly remember it being said that vaccination was the only realistic way to achieve herd immunity, but now some seem to be rowing back from that

Curious ...

www.sciencemediacentre.org/expert-reaction-to-a-preprint-on-vaccines-and-herd-immunity/

But perfect not everywhere has locked down, and I don’t think those places have generally seen their whole society overwhelmed have they?

The effect on mortality and the NHS is bad enough to justify this lockdown, but I just haven’t seen yet examples of where societies have broken down if they haven’t locked down. I’m genuinely happy to be corrected, I’ve asked for examples on a few threads of places that haven’t locked down and have experienced this but not received any yet.

'Yes, the infection rate is high. With no measures (lockdowns) it would be even higher. You do understand that right?'

I dont think the op understands at all. They seem to think it would all magically be controlled and we'd live happily ever after.

It astonishes me that people don't get it.

'do understand. I decided the risk of me passing on or picking up covid from any of the people I choose to see is outweighed by the benefit to all our mental healths.'

'I find if I go more than a week without seeing anyone but my husband and kids I start to feel down. I also feel it would be cruel to not see my dad as he would be completely alone, all day every day.'

If he is alone he is surely in your support bubble. Please tell me you don't have a few bubbles.,