Coronavirus.

[DarloRich]

You really should wind your neck in. Having had to resuscitate a friend who’s been struggling with their mental health I can assure it’s not secondary or a non issue as others suggest, particularly under circumstances like this.

and you should not presume to understand my history or background. Thank you.

PS this is exactly why I refrain from setting out my views. This is a horrible situation for anyone and you have my sympathies but it doesn't change my view.

 

[Bletchleyite]

PS this is exactly why I refrain from setting out my views

You have been setting out your views. You're doing the rather English thing of saying something a little like "I would make the point that X, but I'd best not"

 

[DarloRich]

You have been setting out your views. You're doing the rather English thing of saying something a little like "I would make the point that X, but I'd best not"

I have gone as far as far as I dare. I don't feel able to answer, truthfully, the question asked above.

 

[edwin_m]

One of the consequences of Covid-19 spreading until it swamps the NHS and social services would be that people with mental health issues will find it even harder to get the help they need, and this would result in more casualties. Not to mention that seeing, essentially, the collapse of civilized society will push many more people into a fragile mental state.

 

[83A]

There is a sea of theories and (facts/not facts) floating around but increasingly on forums and social media the natives are getting restless and are questioning the approach to this virus and their future. Here is a quote (not mine) from another forum which sums up a lot of the chatter I am seeing:

“But it’s been documented that the vast majority of people that die have serious health issues , but the economic and social issues on the rest of the 60 million population will create huge long term health issues , mentally and physically over the next decade . We are burning down our house to get rid of an ants nest.”

I am seeing similar on this forum, some strongly agree/disagree with this kind of comment. But what cannot be taken away is many people are thinking/saying this and the government are going to have to consider how they proceed before the tide of opinion turns against them…

My current thinking on the above is “its complicated” but then I’m working at home on full pay at the moment. I wonder if my thought process would be different if I was out of work and could not pay my bills?

But whatever you think, lets try and keep the debate from decending into insults!

Something I think has to give/change soon…….

 

[DarloRich]

“But it’s been documented that the vast majority of people that die have serious health issues , but the economic and social issues on the rest of the 60 million population will create huge long term health issues , mentally and physically over the next decade . We are burning down our house to get rid of an ants nest.”

I agree with that actually. However the next sentence is that we have no way, yet, to kill the ants without using the aforementioned fire!

 

[Domh245]

I don't feel able to honestly answer that question because my view will not be popular and I will be banned. I would like to but simply don't feel my views would be welcome. My bottom line is that I do not agree that mental health considerations are as important today ( that is not my general opinion btw) as beating this virus. I understand that seems harsh and not popular but remains my view.

Needless to say that whilst you aren't putting a number on it, it's clear the approach you are in favour of. I will just caution against allowing the baby to be thrown out with the bathwater in the attempt to slow the spread of the virus. It's all well and good throwing everything behind slowing this virus now, but it's certainly not impossible to see this causing plenty more issues down the line. The danger being that unlike COVID19 where most people only experience mild symptoms and there are ways of treating the more severe symptoms, there's no way of knowing how much of an impact this will have on individuals, nor effective ways to treat the 'symptoms'. I just hope that nobody that is close to you is affected by mental health issues resulting from this and leave it at that, as you're not going to change your view and vice versa!

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopula.../suicidesintheunitedkingdom/2018registrations

• In 2018, there were 6,507 suicides registered in the UK, an age-standardised rate of 11.2 deaths per 100,000 population; the latest rate is significantly higher than that in 2017 and represents the first increase since 2013.
  
  
• Three-quarters of registered deaths in 2018 were among men (4,903 deaths), which has been the case since the mid-1990s

Every death is clearly a tragedy - suicide is a terrible thing. It is terrible for those associated with the person who loses their life, those who find them. However, it won't be long before the number of Coronavirus deaths of people who are not old, who do not have medical issues, who are healthcare professionals overtake the number of 6507 if Coronavirus is just allowed to spread freely in the population. It isn't just about old people who are 'ready for death'.

Let's not forget the mental health of those who are petrified that Coronavirus is going to get them badly. How about the nurse who is worried about being overworked if the numbers overwhelm the NHS and not having the strength to beat the virus? They have just as much right to fear about their future.

It's good to quantify the base level, although also of note is that those are the registered cases, which lag the event by "many months" and the gap between a suicide and it's registration had been increasing so that number is an under-representation. But there will be an increase above that level as a result of this, and that's only considering the 'worst cases' where somebody has successfully taken their life - there's many more people who will attempt it and suffer lifelong complications from this, more yet will suffer to the extent of being unable to work, etc.

Needless to say, I'm glad I'm not the one making these decisions.

 

[6Gman]

Well if they chose to go there too then yes as they are putting my life at the same risk.

You really don't understand how viruses spread do you ?

 

[Bantamzen]

I don't feel able to honestly answer that question because my view will not be popular and I will be banned. I would like to but simply don't feel my views would be welcome. My bottom line is that I do not agree that mental health considerations are as important today ( that is not my general opinion btw) as beating this virus. I understand that seems harsh and not popular but remains my view.

I'll be honest with you, that does seem harsh because mental health, a bit like the virus, can effect anyone of us at any time. I'm all for doing everything we can to help people be protected against the virus, but not at the expense of absolutely everyone & everything else. Turning the tables and being a bit cold about it myself, the considerable majority of people most at risk are already in a risk category. And this is not just my own personal view, but of many of those I personally know in those same categories.

My point is not that I WANT to say that to people but that we might HAVE to say that.

But my point here is simple, tipping them over the edge could result in them adding to the strain on the NHS. At which point the medical professionals might have to make a decision, prioritise a thirty-something father of two suffering from serious injuries following a suicide attempt, or a eighty-pus year-old with coronavirus & other life-threatening conditions? And to put some context to this, in 2018 over 6,000 people were recorded as taking their own lives in the UK. Throw in all the extra elements that 2020 has to offer, and that number could easily double or treble. It could even exceed the loss of life of those with (note with, not because of) the virus.

The first sign of any trouble will be met with a very serious and violent response by the authorities and could very easily involve the army on the streets.

A brilliant way to seed even more serious, organised unrest. History is littered with this kind of thing.

​

BTW - I respect entirely that you have a different viewpoint and opinion to me. I am very comfortable with that. Both are based on our experiences and background. I simply disagree with it.

And likewise, there is nothing wrong with having opposing opinions.

 

[farleigh]

You really don't understand how viruses spread do you ?

I think I do but feel free to enlighten me further should you wish.

The original statement mentioned that if pubs were open nobody would go. If they were open I would go and I would assume that if anybody else went then they would understand the risk

 

[yorkie]

We can't ignore mental health issues and we can't completely wreck the economy; there has to be a sensible end to the restrictions and it has to take into account all sorts of issues. The idea that all live should be preserved no matter what the cost, even if it means people living miserably, is flawed. I'm not sure what the maximum time we can do these restrictions is, but it won't be as long as some people want it to be, and extending it too long is going to cause so many other problems it would be counterproductive.

I can understand that some measures may need to be in place for a time, but the current measures really can't go on for much longer than the 3 weeks originally planned for. Maybe another week on top, maximum. I'm not saying things need to go fully back to normal then but there needs to be some intermediary stage before too long.

It's just not right or sensible to say that the wider picture shouldn't be looked at; in fact it's very dangerous.

You really don't understand how viruses spread do you ?

It's unclear what you are saying but the issue is that the virus is going to continue to spread; the issues are
1) we need to try to reduce the rate of spread at this moment in time; but
2) any measures to reduce the rate of spread should not ignore the bigger picture and should not make other issues so much worse as this would be counterproductive; there needs to be a limit on any measures to avoid causing too many other problems.

 

[Bletchleyite]

My prediction would be that the current measures will last about 2 months, with possibly a short period of 1-2 weeks with tighter measures i.e. "no going out at all" if the NHS does get overwhelmed. I would predict some form of social distancing to last 6-12 months, and international travel to be disrupted for 1-2 years.

 

[DarloRich]

My prediction would be that the current measures will last about 2 months, with possibly a short period of 1-2 weeks with tighter measures i.e. "no going out at all" if the NHS does get overwhelmed. I would predict some form of social distancing to last 6-12 months, and international travel to be disrupted for 1-2 years.

I agree.

We can't ignore mental health issues and we can't completely wreck the economy; there has to be a sensible end to the restrictions and it has to take into account all sorts of issues. The idea that all live should be preserved no matter what the cost, even if it means people living miserably, is flawed. I'm not sure what the maximum time we can do these restrictions is, but it won't be as long as some people want it to be, and extending it too long is going to cause so many other problems it would be counterproductive.

I can understand that some measures may need to be in place for a time, but the current measures really can't go on for much longer than the 3 weeks originally planned for. Maybe another week on top, maximum. I'm not saying things need to go fully back to normal then but there needs to be some intermediary stage before too long.

It's just not right or sensible to say that the wider picture shouldn't be looked at; in fact it's very dangerous.

Needless to say that whilst you aren't putting a number on it, it's clear the approach you are in favour of. I will just caution against allowing the baby to be thrown out with the bathwater in the attempt to slow the spread of the virus. It's all well and good throwing everything behind slowing this virus now, but it's certainly not impossible to see this causing plenty more issues down the line. The danger being that unlike COVID19 where most people only experience mild symptoms and there are ways of treating the more severe symptoms, there's no way of knowing how much of an impact this will have on individuals, nor effective ways to treat the 'symptoms'. I just hope that nobody that is close to you is affected by mental health issues resulting from this and leave it at that, as you're not going to change your view and vice versa!

I'll be honest with you, that does seem harsh because mental health, a bit like the virus, can effect anyone of us at any time. I'm all for doing everything we can to help people be protected against the virus, but not at the expense of absolutely everyone & everything else. Turning the tables and being a bit cold about it myself, the considerable majority of people most at risk are already in a risk category. And this is not just my own personal view, but of many of those I personally know in those same categories.

But my point here is simple, tipping them over the edge could result in them adding to the strain on the NHS. At which point the medical professionals might have to make a decision, prioritise a thirty-something father of two suffering from serious injuries following a suicide attempt, or a eighty-pus year-old with coronavirus & other life-threatening conditions? And to put some context to this, in 2018 over 6,000 people were recorded as taking their own lives in the UK. Throw in all the extra elements that 2020 has to offer, and that number could easily double or treble. It could even exceed the loss of life of those with (note with, not because of) the virus.

I can and will ignore everything else if it means we beat this virus and people I love and care about survive and i get to see them again. That is my blunt position and I don't care if you disagree or think i am an ogre.

 

[Bantamzen]

My prediction would be that the current measures will last about 2 months, with possibly a short period of 1-2 weeks with tighter measures i.e. "no going out at all" if the NHS does get overwhelmed. I would predict some form of social distancing to last 6-12 months, and international travel to be disrupted for 1-2 years.

If that were the case, I'd say that by the end of this month that unrest would be rapidly on the increase, especially amongst those waiting for the HMRC to make furloughed grant payments. This would be further enhanced if a "don't go out at all" instruction be issued.

As for social distancing, enforced for more than a few more weeks it will start to rapidly break down.

I can and will ignore everything else if it means we beat this virus and people I love and care about survive and i get to see them again. That is my blunt position and I don't care if you disagree or think i am an ogre.

And I equally love and care about the people that might be adversely affected by these measures, and I do not wish them to suffer & die as a result. Check.

 

[hwl]

We can't ignore mental health issues and we can't completely wreck the economy; there has to be a sensible end to the restrictions and it has to take into account all sorts of issues. The idea that all live should be preserved no matter what the cost, even if it means people living miserably, is flawed. I'm not sure what the maximum time we can do these restrictions is, but it won't be as long as some people want it to be, and extending it too long is going to cause so many other problems it would be counterproductive.

I can understand that some measures may need to be in place for a time, but the current measures really can't go on for much longer than the 3 weeks originally planned for. Maybe another week on top, maximum. I'm not saying things need to go fully back to normal then but there needs to be some intermediary stage before too long.

It's just not right or sensible to say that the wider picture shouldn't be looked at; in fact it's very dangerous.

It's unclear what you are saying but the issue is that the virus is going to continue to spread; the issues are
1) we need to try to reduce the rate of spread at this moment in time; but
2) any measures to reduce the rate of spread should not ignore the bigger picture and should not make other issues so much worse as this would be counterproductive; there needs to be a limit on any measures to avoid causing too many other problems.

Realistically nothing much is going to change until they have got the testing (both sorts) required sorted and there is lots of data about prevalence in the community that has so far been unrecorded.

Any restrictions will be rolled back gradually. Activities that involve lots of people mixing and spreading the virus without a decent level of economic value will be very late in the queue to get rolled back e.g. pubs, restaurants, sporting venues, festivals and churches might be closed for longer.

Any early reopenings will also be predicated on hygiene changes to operating practices e.g. a lot will depend on more hand sanitiser* (e.g. new Ineos production) becoming widely available to allow more factories warehouses, offices and construction sites to reopen.

*ditto glove and mask availability outside healthcare

 

[Darandio]

allow more factories whorehouses and offices to reopen.

Quoted for posterity, we need a laugh in these times.

 

[DarloRich]

And I equally love and care about the people that might be adversely affected by these measures, and I do not wish them to suffer & die as a result. Check.

Indeed. But it doesn't change my view. My people are more important to me just as yours are to you. We wont agree on this.

BTW - usually I would be right behind your views on mental health. I cant do that right now because of what is at risk. I am truly sorry and upset about that. I really am.

 

[Bantamzen]

Indeed. But it doesn't change my view. My people are more important to me just as yours are to you. We wont agree on this.

BTW - usually I would be right behind your views on mental health. I cant do that right now because of what is at risk. I am truly sorry and upset about that. I really am.

I understand that we won't agree right now, I respect your views & it does not make me think any less of them.

 

[ainsworth74]

I think it might be time to move on here. We're going around in circles at this point. People have been able to express their view one way or another on which approach is better or should be followed and it should be obvious to all that no-one is changing anyone's minds on this subject. Rather than risk it descending into insults and hurt feelings I would ask that we leave it there and move on whilst we're all still friends (and god knows we need them right now).

As such any further posts after this one about the above discussion will be deleted.

Thank you in advance,
ainsworth74

 

[hwl]

Quoted for posterity, we need a laugh in these times.

the dangers of typing fast, auto correct and not doing a careful check read

 

[Bletchleyite]

Any restrictions will be rolled back gradually. Activities that involve lots of people mixing and spreading the virus without a decent level of economic value will be very late in the queue to get rolled back e.g. pubs, restaurants, sporting venues, festivals and churches might be closed for longer.

I can see that restaurants may be able to roll back sooner based on strict conditions, e.g. a layout which keeps everyone at least 2m apart, provision of hand sanitiser, only pre-booked customers, only allowed to remain for the period of food service. Other countries have done similar things.

Pubs I doubt, same with the others.

 

[The Ham]

the dangers of typing fast, auto correct and not doing a careful check read

Count yourself luck that you're not a respected theologian who once miss read a verse in the Bible to a large group of people (circa 4,000) and didn't say "being your tithes into the storehouses" and didn't have the benefit of being able to blame technology on the error.

 

[hwl]

I can see that restaurants may be able to roll back sooner based on strict conditions, e.g. a layout which keeps everyone at least 2m apart, provision of hand sanitiser, only pre-booked customers, only allowed to remain for the period of food service. Other countries have done similar things.

Pubs I doubt, same with the others.

With restaurants potential having far fewer seats and tables it may not be economic to reopen for far smaller customer numbers as the required headcount may not scale effectively (especially in the kitchen). Maintaining distancing in the kitchen might be difficult.

There would also need to be extensive table cleaning between customers.

Hence a bit of a lottery whether it might be do-able in practice for many. In my case only 1 of the nearest 5 could probably reopen with 2 probably able to do take away only.

 

[The Ham]

If we get to that it will be too late to do much about it, hence the need to introduce measures now while there is some chance of averting that. Italy and Spain are pretty much in that situation now. Doctors in a health service that is in many ways better equipped than ours are having to choose to treat some and not others.

If people start saying in a year or two "well that wasn't so bad after all", it probably means that the measures taken will have worked, not that they were unnecessary.

I do agree that people should go out for exercise etc as per present rules. But I don't think there is any scope to relax them until cases have fallen dramatically, and we are ready with the people and the equipment to test new one as they appear and track down contacts.

There's many who now thing that the Y2K but was over hyped, but even where it didn't need fixing by checking for it apparently provided extra stability in the code and had been accredited to systems not getting overloaded during 9/11.

 

[Bletchleyite]

With restaurants potential having far fewer seats and tables it may not be economic to reopen for far smaller customer numbers as the required headcount may not scale effectively (especially in the kitchen). Maintaining distancing in the kitchen might be difficult.

There would also need to be extensive table cleaning between customers.

Hence a bit of a lottery whether it might be do-able in practice.

It may well mean some can choose to reopen and others not. And further ones may be able to change practice so they can, for instance some larger hotels would be able to reopen their restaurant by repurposing function rooms as seating areas if they're larger than their usual seating area.

This may seem unfair and to some extent it is, but we need to get the economy moving and taxes being paid as soon as is safely possible.

 

[Bletchleyite]

There's many who now thing that the Y2K but was over hyped, but even where it didn't need fixing by checking for it apparently provided extra stability in the code and had been accredited to systems not getting overloaded during 9/11.

Indeed, Y2K went well because of a lot of background work by the IT industry, not because it was overhyped. Some of it was, e.g. planes were never going to fall out of the sky, but there would have been a lot of errors in e.g. bank accounts if nothing had been done.

 

[yorksrob]

I can see that restaurants may be able to roll back sooner based on strict conditions, e.g. a layout which keeps everyone at least 2m apart, provision of hand sanitiser, only pre-booked customers, only allowed to remain for the period of food service. Other countries have done similar things.

Pubs I doubt, same with the others.

There's nothing to stop pubs instituting similar conditions to restaurants. Many of them operate partially as restaurants anyway.

 

[Bletchleyite]

There's nothing to stop pubs instituting similar conditions to restaurants. Many of them operate partially as restaurants anyway.

Indeed so, my point about pubs was more that "vertical drinking" won't be able to return for a while. It may be possible for some pubs to reopen with spaced-out tables, reservations only and table service, but some will consider that non-viable. That sort of thing will work better for country pubs than 'Spoons, even though the latter has larger pubs and table service via the app.

 

[The Ham]

One thing I would say on mental health (and this has nothing to do with whether it's important or not) is that it may well be a different group of people who will struggle at this time.

In that those who are very outgoing and like being around a lot of people will be finding it very hard, whilst those who like time to themselves may be doing better (although they could also be struggling if they can't get away from other people in that they are at home more).

Conversely those feeling the pressure of long days due to long commutes may well be finding that they are in a better place than they were before.

 

[yorksrob]

Indeed so, my point about pubs was more that "vertical drinking" won't be able to return for a while. It may be possible for some pubs to reopen with spaced-out tables, reservations only and table service, but some will consider that non-viable. That sort of thing will work better for country pubs than 'Spoons, even though the latter has larger pubs and table service via the app.

Indeed. I suspect that such an opportunity could be a lifeline for many country pubs and communities.

(You can tell I'm desperate to get back to the pub !)