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.

Whatever people's opinion about the interpreting of the rules, you are certainly right about the curtain twitching, OP. The term 'purity spiral' is pretty new to me, but it's a really disturbing phenomenon, and one which seems to have infiltrated all walks of life, especially on social media. It's vicious, nasty and entirely self-seeking while pretending to be for the greater good.

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.

Tricky though, if it is true that up to half of people are asymptomatic, coupled with a long incubation period. Literally no way of knowing who is infected and who isn’t

And the feasibility of testing everyone, or a high percentage of people, will vary from one country to another based on population size, wealth, and medical infrastructure. Test everyone in Singapore? Doable. Test everyone in India? Not so much.

@StatisticallyChallenged Yes I agree many people will be forced to go back to work. I am not and neither are my kids going back to school until it is safe to do so. DP will have to go back to work unfortunately but sees very few people at work. I can take the hit if I lose my job.
And if there is a second wave of lots of people dying after they are forced to go back to work, there will be an outcry.

Thank you R0wantrees and ProdigalKitten

The fear I've felt has been visceral, but I continue to find it extraordinary how us humans can adapt to circumstance. I can feel it happening now, but as you say, this adaptation will then make it harder to return to normal.

I miss Brexit and being called a t*rf.

Trump was strongly hinting at one point that he would like to force Americans back to work after Easter, and has had to back off (certain states would in any case have told him as politely as possible to go fuck himself if he hasn't backed off, and those are the states that drive the American economy anyway). Governments do of course have ways to not technically force but economically pressure people back to work by cutting Covid related funding and so on, but doing so might be political suicide in any country that actually elects its leaders.

I doubt that there any political winners in this now. Harder job holding onto trust in democracy.

It won't be 18 million not going to work - it will likely be the most severe.
Of that 18 million:
-approximately 8 million are over 70 (so the vast majority are not going to be working anyway...yes exceptions exist)
-some will be children or students
-some will not routinely work (especially at the most severe end of the spectrum)
-a proportion will be able to work from home
-some will already have had it
-some will be in jobs which are fairly low risk
-we'll probably get better data which will narrow those categories down further.

The number normally working who won't be able to isn't even close to 18 million.

I agree re brexit and terf-ness MilesJupp. It seems light relief by comparison!

Indeed. Don't get me wrong, I'm not taking my eye off what TRAs are up to, but there are a great many things that can wait until after we figure out how to get the pandemic under control.

Just to point out before I go any further, I am not in any way suggesting that people should just suck it up and get on with things. But I was thinking about how the risk of deadly illness as a result of everyday life used to be just...normal. I know Covid 19 is more easily transmitted than something like TB for example, but we do know that a century ago it was well known that certain groups in society (eg those who worked in crowded conditions) were at much higher risk of contracting it. I think that as critical as we may be of how the government have handled this, they are at least trying to do something. Whereas a century ago the idea that the poor, in particular, might be able to avoid crowded places for a few weeks to try to stop the spread of disease would have been considered laughable.

Governments do of course have ways to not technically force but economically pressure people back to work by cutting Covid related funding and so on, but doing so might be political suicide in any country that actually elects its leaders.

Given that we've re-elected the Conservatives after austerity, I'm not convinced it would be political suicide. The messaging would be everything, of course, but they're already making it fairly clear that the economic effects are huge. Amongst people I talk to in real life most are rapidly moving to a "but the economy is fuuuucked" view too. Getting to the end of the current furlough scheme and saying "ok, lockdown is off and most people can go back to work. We'll continue to pay furlough for businesses which are required to close and for those in the shielding group" for example...I don't think would be all that damaging.

I worded that badly, I meant people contracting TB a century ago, due to their working conditions. Not contracting Covid 19, which would clearly have been impossible!

Also, unlike the plague, at least now we actually have some ideas about how to do something, which beats the hell out of not understanding anything at all about how the disease killing people works or how it's spreading.

Literally no way of knowing who is infected and who isn’t

Apart from testing, obviously. Antibody testing, when available there will be immensely helpful. But the U.K. has low rates of those who have been tested at baseline, the lowest of the European counties and 1/2 those of the US and 1/3 of Australia so there’ll need to be a big catch up.

I think it's kind of hard to judge how much the Tory victory this time tells us about what the public will tolerate given the opposition's apparent eagerness to defeat themselves. Though having said that I don't have much confidence in that changing in time for the next election.

I think I caught something the other day that suggested the antibody tests will only work a few weeks after infection (due to the time taken for the antibodies to develop) so you could very easily still miss people who are infected.

isabellerossignol

Quite a lot of things used to kill us a century ago though. Childbirth, bacterial infections before antibiotics, surgery without anaesthetic - not sure anyone would be rushing to go back to Victorian times in terms of other health issues.

We don't seem to have a definitive answer as to how long any resulting immunity might last for either.

Quite a lot of things used to kill us a century ago though. Childbirth, bacterial infections before antibiotics, surgery without anaesthetic - not sure anyone would be rushing to go back to Victorian times in terms of other health issues.

Could you direct me to the part in my post where I said that we should be going back to Victorian times please? Or indeed anything that even vaguely resembled that? Thanks.

I think I caught something the other day that suggested the antibody tests will only work a few weeks after infection (due to the time taken for the antibodies to develop) so you could very easily still miss people who are infected.

Everyone could be tested every two weeks then, work retesting of negative people two weeks after that and so on.

We don't seem to have a definitive answer as to how long any resulting immunity might last for either.

Then start all over again with everyone 6 months later to see who maintains their immunity.

There wouldn’t be time for any other public health measures, mind you.

(Joking obviously).

Why the comparison with tb a century ago then? It has no relevance really what people would have accepted government doing then because we are in a different time. We don't accept government doing many things that were acceptable a century ago

Why the comparison with tb a century ago then? It has no relevance really what people would have accepted government doing then because we are in a different time. We don't accept government doing many things that were acceptable a century ago

Which is exactly what I said.

I don't know whether you simply skim read things and don't bother trying to understand them, or if you are determined to find something to criticise just because it makes your situation feel more bearable, but honestly it is pretty tedious.

Disengage, isabelle, it's very freeing!

(I know it's easy to get pulled in out of irritation but honestly, is it worth bothering?)

(Joking obviously).

I read your "test every two weeks" comment before I saw this and my head had already started doing the maths and exploding!