Covid-19 and purity spirals

[DreadPirateLuna]

Covid-19 is a very serious illness which threatens our most vulnerable and risks overwhelming the NHS. We should all do what we can to flatten the curve and save lives. People whose behaviour risks lives (e.g. urban residents traveling out to holiday homes in rural communities) should face criticism and sanctions.

However, I can't help feeling that some of the outrage at some behaviours is less about reducing the spread and more about getting caught in a "purity spiral".

Take all the outrage about people in parks. Fresh air and sunshine is good for physical and mental health, it improves the immune system which is particularly important during an epidemic! Many urban residents have no other source of open space except the local park. The ability to get outside can be lifesaving for victims of DV. Risks of contracting disease are very low if you keep your distance from others outside your household.

Yet I've seen photos of walkers and family groups in parks, keeping far away from others, but accused of selfishness and killing the elderly and disrespecting the NHS. Parks in London have been closed, meaning more congestion of other areas and residents confined to homes, which is damaging for reasons outlined above.

And it's usually (though not exclusively) women and esp mothers who get blamed. Those selfish Karens and their broods.

A more sensible solution would be to allow restricted access to the parks. Maybe allow only locals in nearby flats without gardens. But it seems we're not doing sensible these days.

TheProdigalKittensReturn

The scenes in Italy have happened during lockdown though. How bad do you think it will be with no lockdown? When will the hcps get the chance to breakdown? They'll be working even harder if lockdown ends with no controls in place

BBC interview
"BBC newsreader George Alagiah, who is being treated for bowel cancer, has revealed he's had a mild case of coronavirus.

As a cancer patient, he underwent tests after developing a fever – and a few days later his oncologist rang to say he had tested positive for the virus.

The News at Six on BBC One presenter was first diagnosed with cancer in 2014 but revealed in 2017 that the disease had returned.

"In some ways, I think that those of us living with cancer are stronger because we kind of know what it is like to go into something where the outcomes are uncertain,"

www.bbc.com/news/av/uk-52111754/bbc-s-george-alagiah-on-living-with-coronavirus-and-cancer

MilesJupp Thank you for signposting this. Its worth watching.

My cancer diagnosis was quite a few years ago & Ive been very fortunate to remain NED since. I'm mindful of those going through the trauma of diagnosis & treatments now.

I might have made it up dances

I thought it was a tory ‘promise’ at the last election

They don't have tests though do they?

Or the means to trace.

Yes, it will run through the hospital staff - in their case, let's be realistic, it already is. I'd expect that within a month or two the levels of positive antibodies in medical staff will be very high. Their PPE isn't adequate and even where they don't catch it from a patient they will catch it from each other, from still being out, from still using public transport.

And psychology is a big component - whilst there will be some who rush to the pub for a very messy session as soon as they open many will continue to live like they are in lockdown, or something close, even after it is lifted. I would expect that my office will remain almost exclusively WFH, for example. DD will go back to school but I can't see us going for a long wander round a big busy shopping centre either.

SImilarly, having seen this, people will be more willing to accept some sort of contact tracing as a way out. But there will still be a sizeable minority who won't and so contact tracing will only be so good. You can't force people to carry a phone/wear a device of some kind. And that's before you consider normal life - my MIL regularly goes out without her phone. I do as well tbh. Thinking about our business the staff come in and put their phones in a cupboard for the duration, even though they will then leave the building and potentially come in to contact with others. So it will not be enough to keep it at ultra low levels.

I'm glad you're coping as well as can be expected, MilesJupp. Have some or if either appeals.

Ah ok Rufus

I do wonder how many have been set up. There has been one near me, large city. Not the one my friend has gone to

Honestly you are all being naive.

They've graduated medical students and theirs year nursing students early this year to get troops on the frontline but universities have now closed so 4th year medical students and 2nd year nursing students have had their courses suspended. By the time unis go back September? January? They will be so behind in their training that they won't graduate next summer, let alone early. Where do you think the staff will be coming from to staff all of these temporary hospitals?

They've called retired nurses and doctors back to work, even though they are even more at risk due to age - some of the drs that have died had come out of retirement. There isn't an endless supply of replacement staff. How does "normal" service carry on in the NHS with a depleted staff? You're all busy lecturing me on acceptance, have you all accepted that you and your loved ones will have to accept not having cancer treatment, treatment for heart disease, treatment of strokes, elective surgery, rheumatology, physio, dental treatment?

Schools will reopen, possibly childcare over summer then at least primary schools after summer (or possibly just before in England/Wales). Lots of parents will not send their children.

It’s different in Australia in that the cases are much fewer and in some areas there’s no community spread at all. Numbers of new cases are low and going down where I live.

Everything is closed, but it’s less restrictive and no one gets cross about people buying wine 🍷 or 🍫 or children riding their bikes.

I think schools will reopen quite soon and I’m comfortable with that. Children generally seem to be less affected and not particularly infectious, the opposite to the usual seasonal ‘flu. Infants can get sicker but that’s true for any respiratory virus and infants won’t be at school. There’s a good study from Wuhan about children under 1 year that’s reassuring. I agree lots of children will be kept home by their parents and schools will have to navigate a hybrid distance Ed/face-to-face learning program.

Day care centres haven’t closed here but lots of children are being kept home. However once schools reopen that helps their parents return to work or enables them to work more efficiently.

I think things will re open cautiously with room to back off of cases escalate.

Yes Hooves, a lot of people are going to die.

And psychology is a big component - whilst there will be some who rush to the pub for a very messy session as soon as they open many will continue to live like they are in lockdown, or something close, even after it is lifted. I would expect that my office will remain almost exclusively WFH, for example. DD will go back to school but I can't see us going for a long wander round a big busy shopping centre either.

Agreed. DH and I were talking about this last week and both agreed that the official lifting of restrictions doesn't mean that either of us will be comfortable going back to the way things were right away, and in terms of when normality will return it's not really possible to say at this point. Normally we eat out at least twice a week. If lockdown was lifted tomorrow would we go back to doing that? Of course not, because it's not safe. When will it be safe to do that again, and when will it feel safe to do it, which isn't necessarily the same thing? No idea, that will depend on a lot of different factors and like everyone else we're just going to have to wait and see how things pan out.

There will definitely be some people who rush out and attempt to resume whatever life looked like for them before the moment restrictions are lifted, but in terms of what percentage of people that is I'm not sure.

DD will go back to school

Who will teach her? Currently, 1.5 million shielded and about 17 million people vulnerable. You all keep saying the vulnerable will have to stay isolated. I reckon a fair few teachers will be in that eighteen and a half million vulnerable people.

Everything is closed, but it’s less restrictive and no one gets cross about people buying wine 🍷 or 🍫 or children riding their bikes.

Although much more restricted in some ways, I should add. My local state border is closed for people not travelling for work, the country is closed for non residents and there is strictly enforced quarantine for people coming home from overseas.

Bigger class sizes? Noone us saying that it will be the same as it was

You're all busy lecturing me on acceptance, have you all accepted that you and your loved ones will have to accept not having cancer treatment, treatment for heart disease, treatment of strokes, elective surgery, rheumatology, physio, dental treatment?

Why do you think people don't see this, and that they're being naive? I fully expect that the NHS will not be returning to business as usual at the point where restrictions are being lifted. It's going to continue to be a coronavirus dominated service with other treatment being very much on the backburner. This will cost lives, but it's a horrible inevitability IMO.

The vulnerable aren't required to stay away from work, and a huge proportion of those stated figures are people who don't work generally. It's not 18 million (without checking the figures) out of the workforce.

There will be teachers, there will be fewer and larger class sizes may be necessary - but then the reduction in available teachers may be balanced by the families who will choose to keep their children away from school.

There will be teachers, there will be fewer and larger class sizes may be necessary - but then the reduction in available teachers may be balanced by the families who will choose to keep their children away from school.

DH and I were speculating that the ones who are vulnerable may choose to be the ones who assist children with their distance education.

Good point no longer

@StatisticallyChallenged No not all will be working. But lots of households will have someone vulnerable within them.
Yes the vulnerable are not required to stay off work, but after the government hammering home how it is only people with underlying conditions that need to go back to work, how many do you think will be happy to before it is clear they are not at risk of catching it? None of my bloody family are going back to work or school while there is a real risk they could catch it and die.

I meant to say -
but after the government hammering home how it is only people with underlying conditions that are at risk of dying

Why do you think people don't see this, and that they're being naive?

Because I think the ones preaching acceptance are the ones who think that their lives won't be severely impacted by this. That they think the ones who have to accept aren't them.

I can't see the public accepting when their family members are just left to die at home, or when their child is being taught in a class of what 45,60? I don't believe that a lot of the "vulnerable" group don't currently work, when you look at the qualifying conditions - asthma, diabetes, high blood pressure, pregnancy. Even amongst the shielded I bet a lot of us are working.

There is only so long people can be off work. Eventually people will start starving , and then there could be civil unrest

I don't know how long enforcement is sustainable. It largely has consent at the moment but for how long? I don't know the answer but it's not indefinate

The government cant fund this indefinitely. There isn't a magic money pot.

But lots of households will have someone vulnerable within them.
None of my bloody family are going back to work or school while there is a real risk they could catch it and die

As unpleasant as it is - once the government reduce the financial support they're currently providing then many families won't have a choice here. They're currently suggesting about 10M are on furlough. Family finances are taking an absolute hammering already. Teachers are still being paid because they're working (either from home or in hubs). But once furlough is removed and once the council say that being a teacher requires being in school then many will have to go back to work. I agree with Nolonger that those who are vulnerable could be teaching the vulnerable kids remotely but I suspect this will be reserved for the most vulnerable staff. Those at the lower end of the vulnerability spectrum will probably be sent back to work.

But your plan tests with eighteen million people not going to work at all. How do we find that? And do you not think that mass disruption to services plus thousands of people dying with no medical care won't cause civil unrest?

That's why they have to develop a way of getting back to a far more normal way of life, but with the ability to identify the infected and quarantine them.