If there was a second wave, what would you do if you were in power?

[DB]

The people who tend to be in favour of extreme measures tend to be better off people with large houses and gardens, doing work from home jobs, who are saving money on their commute, and who don't have the interests of the younger generation and people on low incomes at heart. Some of them don't appear to get on particularly well with people at work and don't miss the atmosphere at their workplace. They are very keen to boast about how productive they are working in their gardens and how proud they are at putting others out of work by not going into the office.

I've found similar with the colleagues I have talked to for the most part, with the exception of a particular demographic (women in their 30s), a number of whom seem absolutely terrified by it. They are not necessarily the types who would go on Facebook and shout about it, but seem to have simialr views to those who do.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Agreed - the term "safe" isn't an absolute. Nowhere / nothing is completely "safe".

It's an irritating 21st century thing to want absolute safety at all costs, and to say "stay safe" by the minutes.

I've found similar with the colleagues I have talked to for the most part, with the exception of a particular demographic (women in their 30s), a number of whom seem absolutely terrified by it. They are not necessarily the types who would go on Facebook and shout about it, but seem to have simialr views to those who do.

I wonder how many fall into the bracket I do, namely not being particularly fearful of catching it (and may have had it) but believing in measures for the benefit of others?

 

[AdamWW]

It's one of those terms which hve come to be thoroughly annoying in all this. Also:
Social Distancing (which actually means physical distancing)

It's more anti-social distancing, isn't it?

 

[43066]

I wonder how many fall into the bracket I do, namely not being particularly fearful of catching it (and may have had it) but believing in measures for the benefit of others?

I’d actually place myself into that category!

Albeit I have rather different views to you as to the efficacy of masks etc. I weigh up the deaths from COVID against deaths caused by other causes, and also come out somewhere different to you.

 

[C J Snarzell]

I had a really good conversation with a family friend who is a recovery worker currently on an out reach programme dealing with vulnerable people suffering issues with drugs & alcohol.

Since the start of lockdown started in March, he has experienced severe problems in his work because his clients have had support networks shut down. This includes things like group meetings and recovery workshops.

In a couple of tragic cases - people have relapsed through being denied access to AA meetings and have died weeks into the lockdown because their alcoholism has finally taken its course.

He summed up how much of a mess the government's decision making is - ''You still can't attend a alcohol support meeting but all the pubs are back open!'' That speaks volumes.

I do think it's time to realise other issues are now taking priority over Covid 19. Even cases of Legionaires Disease are flagging up because of the regular use of face masks.

Isn't it about time the government takes stock of all this and bring about a sense of proportion before things start to go horribly wrong.

CJ

 

[talldave]

Whilst it might take quite long for coronvirus to be completely wiped out, the vaccine would at least, at the start, reduce this to a typical bad winter flu.

Would you like to expand on that? How does a vaccine that you either have or haven't taken "reduce" Covid to a flu???

 

[typefish]

I'd go for the NZ/Isle of Man approach. Seems to have worked quite well there.

 

[DB]

I'd go for the NZ/Isle of Man approach. Seems to have worked quite well there.

If you want to keep borders closed indefinitely (with anyone allowed in subject to a 2-week quarantine), then yes! The reality is that this is not a practical option other than in the short term for many reasons.

 

[SouthEastBuses]

Would you like to expand on that? How does a vaccine that you either have or haven't taken "reduce" Covid to a flu???

That is what Oxford University are hoping or predicting. Other than that, I have no clue what to say.

 

[SouthEastBuses]

Let me put this bluntly to you, we live in a capitalist society & as such we need money to live. Additionally we have a free at the point of service health care system, which is paid for via taxation, which comes from the money we earn. If people stop earning money, they stop paying taxes, which puts our health services at risk. And to only compound the problem, people not getting paid need assistance from the government, which is also largely funded by taxation. Hopefully by now you will start to see the problem we have.

Capitalist? More like socialist lol, I dare to say. Capitalist is more something you find in the USA.

And we don't really need money to survive, we aren't Greece, Italy or any other poor country in the world I can think of, where unemployment rates have always been very high even before the pandemic.

We (as in the UK, don't forget I'm half British half Italian) are a very rich and wealthy country, we can survive. That's why I believe the lockdown isn't a bad idea provided that cares are REALLY high. Btw, I wouldn't want lockdown either - I love enjoying my liberties and freedom. But if it's the only way to reduce the rate of infections and save many people's lives, I am prepared to accept that and I fully agree with @Bletchleyite 's idea of a full lockdown should the second wave be REALLY BAD (hopefully it won't be though).

 

[SouthEastBuses]

Are you though? Is there any evidence that asymptomatic people are actually spreaders?
Even if asymptomatic people do spread it, so what? You could also be spreading flu, cold and other pathogens asymptomatically - all of which will kill somebody who is vulnerable for whatever reason to that particular pathogen.

Except flu isn't as bad as coronavirus, that's the problem. If coronavirus was no worse than flu then why would we (and other countries around the world) have gone into lockdown, mandated masks and put social distancing measures IN THE FIRST PLACE?

 

[SouthEastBuses]

Are you though? Is there any evidence that asymptomatic people are actually spreaders?
Even if asymptomatic people do spread it, so what? You could also be spreading flu, cold and other pathogens asymptomatically - all of which will kill somebody who is vulnerable for whatever reason to that particular pathogen.

Here's some evidence

COVID-19: What proportion are asymptomatic? - The Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine

Carl Heneghan, Jon Brassey, Tom Jefferson Readers of the blog will be aware that we have little trust in the

www.cebm.net

" That children and young adults can be asymptomatic "

 

[Bletchleyite]

That is what Oxford University are hoping or predicting. Other than that, I have no clue what to say.

Some of the Oxford tests have found that it didn't prevent a viral load being present but did prevent symptoms occurring, but without a deliberate challenge test it's hard to say if that was coincidental and instead caused by T-cell immunity or something.

One of the most useful pieces of knowledge for the researchers is why, unlike almost every other disease, you get so many asymptomatic carriers (and exactly how many you do get).

 

[SouthEastBuses]

This is very true.

At this point, some may argue "but the views expressed on the forum are not representative of the wider population"; that can be true, but the vast majority of us do talk to people in settings that are well beyond this forum, and we know what the general mood is among most 'ordinary' people (which are not those shouting the loudest on social media).

For example I've had a lot of conversations at my workplace about the virus, lockdowns, masks etc; mostly I've been speaking to our (lovely and hardworking) cleaners, who are probably about as far removed from the general demographic of forum members as you can get, and yet they have very similar views to what appears to be the majority view expressed here, and in most settings where I've had such conversations.

The people who tend to be in favour of extreme measures tend to be better off people with large houses and gardens, doing work from home jobs, who are saving money on their commute, and who don't have the interests of the younger generation and people on low incomes at heart. Some of them don't appear to get on particularly well with people at work and don't miss the atmosphere at their workplace. They are very keen to boast about how productive they are working in their gardens and how proud they are at putting others out of work by not going into the office.

Their priorities are to save time and money for themselves, get out of an office environment they dislike, and prioritise keeping as many elderly people alive for as long as possible over the aspirations of young and poorer people.


How do you define "safe"?

What do you mean by "just" save the economy?

How would you have kept these kids "safe"...?

https://www.kentonline.co.uk/kent/news/lockdown-contributed-to-suicides-of-three-teenagers-228000/

I would define being safe as the following: no or very little risk of dying.

 

[SouthEastBuses]

Some of the Oxford tests have found that it didn't prevent a viral load being present but did prevent symptoms occurring, but without a deliberate challenge test it's hard to say if that was coincidental and instead caused by T-cell immunity or something.

One of the most useful pieces of knowledge for the researchers is why, unlike almost every other disease, you get so many asymptomatic carriers (and exactly how many you do get).

And the asymptomatic carriers (and also the fact that this is way worse than flu) and the fact that I'm spreading to others is what worries about me - not whether I personally get it or not.

 

[yorkie]

I would define being safe as the following: no or very little risk of dying.

My understanding is that risk of children dying from Covid-19 is lower than the risk of dying from 'flu (the reverse is the case for older people, of course)

Also if you take long car journeys you are also at greater risk.

 

[SouthEastBuses]

My understanding is that risk of children dying from Covid-19 is lower than the risk of dying from 'flu (the reverse is the case for older people, of course)

Also if you take long car journeys you are also at greater risk.

As I said - the problem aren't the children or young adults themselves, but those groups of people spreading the virus to others without knowing about it.

 

[yorkie]

In that case you'd better stay at home indefinitely if your aim is to remove all risk in life (other than risks associated with accidents in the home); I'm not sure that's very sustainable though.

What's your suggestion?

 

[SouthEastBuses]

In that case you'd better stay at home indefinitely if your aim is to remove all risk in life (other than risks associated with accidents in the home); I'm not sure that's very sustainable though.

What's your suggestion?

Well actually I'm going out as normal. In fact I am going to Cornwall next week to film some Plymouth Citybus / Transport for Cornwell / First Kernow bus routes. As well as to visit the Cornwall beaches. All it is, I am avoidi nong public transport and any other environment where it can be very risky to catch the virus. And if you ask me about the bus routes, well I have a car

 

[yorkie]

So, to clarify, you earlier appeared to be suggesting you are pro-lockdown. The lockdown would consist of people going to places by car? I don't really understand your logic or what you are trying to say.

According to you I take big risks? Yet somehow I don't suffer from viruses (unless my mental health deteriorates, which would happen if a second lockdown occured); I suspect your assessment of risk is flawed.

 

[SouthEastBuses]

So, to clarify, you earlier appeared to be suggesting you are pro-lockdown. The lockdown would consist of people going to places by car? I don't really understand your logic or what you are trying to say.

I am pro-lockdown only if cases are REALLY high to the point we must absolutely save lives. Otherwise like everybody else I'm against lockdown and I would rather avoid it if possible

 

[trebor79]

Here's some evidence

COVID-19: What proportion are asymptomatic? - The Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine

Carl Heneghan, Jon Brassey, Tom Jefferson Readers of the blog will be aware that we have little trust in the

www.cebm.net

" That children and young adults can be asymptomatic "

But do they actually spread the disease if they are asymptomatic?

 

[Bletchleyite]

But do they actually spread the disease if they are asymptomatic?

It is believed they do, yes. That's the whole basis of masks, self-isolation etc. If there was no spread from asymptomatic people, all we would need is "if you have symptoms, get a test, and if it is then stay at home until the symptoms have gone", and it'd be easily under control.

The whole basis of what's gone on with it doesn't work if there is only symptomatic spread.

 

[trebor79]

Except flu isn't as bad as coronavirus, that's the problem. If coronavirus was no worse than flu then why would we (and other countries around the world) have gone into lockdown, mandated masks and put social distancing measures IN THE FIRST PLACE?

Because the death rate was overstated, because it was a new virus that appeared to be very deadly. Because that's what China did and it appeared to work.
Before it hit these shores the death rate was quoted at something like 6%. It was reported as something like 3% when we got our first cases and it's been falling ever since.
If you were able to accurately measure the asymptomatic cases the death rate would be rescued by an order of magnitude.
Basically it's no more deadly than flu. It's certainly not SARS or MERS. The Spanish flu virus is still circulating. Yes it killed a lot of people when it first emerged, but the sky didn't fall in and the world didn't end.
I'd far rather take my chances than live the rest of my life in some bizarre world where young people aren't properly educated, we can't socialise properly and have to wear horrible masks to go shopping or to a museum (as if anybody is going to go to a museum whilst that mandate is in force). My elderly and"at risk" parents have similar thoughts.

Here's an interesting thought experiment. If we knew all that we know about it now, when it first arrived on these shores, would we have locked down? Or would we have chosen a different course? Different strategies have proven to be no less effective than lockdown.

 

[yorkie]

I am pro-lockdown only if cases are REALLY high to the point we must absolutely save lives...

Out of interest, how would you define that point?

Except flu isn't as bad as coronavirus....

It is for younger people!

It's well worth researching the stark differences between the Spanish Flu epidemic and the current Sars-CoV-2 epidemic.

. If coronavirus was no worse than flu then why would we (and other countries around the world) have gone into lockdown, mandated masks and put social distancing measures IN THE FIRST PLACE?

Due to the lack of immunity; the basis of lockdown was that we had no immunity whatsoever and that everyone was susceptible and it would therefore spread so rapidly that the healthcare system would be overwhelmed.

That modelling was later demonstrated to be incorrect (as stated in other threads, so let's not go there again! ), although we still don't have sufficient information to fully understand the levels of existing immunity and susceptibility of the population.

So, clearly, we had to do something, but a lockdowns are not a viable solution; they are a 'blunt instrument' and a drastic measure that can be devastating to peoples livelihoods and mental health.

I think you would benefit from reading existing threads on this subject, as this has all been discussed before.

It would be an interesting thought experiment. Of we knew all that we know about it now, when it first arrived on these shores, would we have locked down? Or would we have chosen a different course? Different strategies have proven to be no less effective than lockdown.

If we knew what we know now early enough, we could have gone straight to implementing the measures that are now in place.

 

[SouthEastBuses]

Out of interest, how would you define that point?

If there are for example over 10,000 new cases a day and 500 new deaths a day.

 

[typefish]

If you want to keep borders closed indefinitely (with anyone allowed in subject to a 2-week quarantine), then yes! The reality is that this is not a practical option other than in the short term for many reasons.

Why would that be a bad thing? Both UK residents and those who are not resident in the UK are subject to a two week quarantine from a list of countries at present (along with the inverse) - why not make it universal as opposed to the current system of sticking one's finger in the air and see what happens? See further, the hilarity that happened a couple of weeks ago when Spain was removed from the exemption list.

Gives the hotel industry a boost too as they'll be used for quarantine purposes.

 

[Bantamzen]

Capitalist? More like socialist lol, I dare to say. Capitalist is more something you find in the USA.

Socialist? You'd better let Johnson & Co know!

And we don't really need money to survive, we aren't Greece, Italy or any other poor country in the world I can think of, where unemployment rates have always been very high even before the pandemic.

I'm pretty sure we do need money. The last time I went to the supermarket they seemed very insistent on some form of currency exchange. We could of course grow our own, but we need the land to do so in the first place.

We (as in the UK, don't forget I'm half British half Italian) are a very rich and wealthy country, we can survive. That's why I believe the lockdown isn't a bad idea provided that cares are REALLY high. Btw, I wouldn't want lockdown either - I love enjoying my liberties and freedom. But if it's the only way to reduce the rate of infections and save many people's lives, I am prepared to accept that and I fully agree with @Bletchleyite 's idea of a full lockdown should the second wave be REALLY BAD (hopefully it won't be though).

Being from Italian descent you should then know just how bad its been for many Italians, especially in the south of the country. A lockdown is not a get out of viral jail free card, it destroys people's lives and can cause hardship, poverty and yes even death. And we haven't even begun to pay for all of this financially, that's yet yo come. I've said it before on these forums, there are some people seemingly very happy to push other people's livelihoods under the bus.

 

[yorkie]

If there are for example over 10,000 new cases a day and 500 new deaths a day.

I'm still not sure about that. In a bad 'flu year we can get 30,000+ deaths in that season. I'm not sure how many deaths per day that would average at as I'm not sure how long a 'flu season lasts, but at the peak you could see 500 deaths from 'flu per day. Should we lock down for that?

Also 'flu deaths have probably never been counted in quite the way that Covid19 deaths have been (in England at least); if they were, the death rate in some years would be even higher still.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Being from Italian descent you should then know just how bad its been for many Italians, especially in the south of the country. A lockdown is not a get out of viral jail free card, it destroys people's lives and can cause hardship, poverty and yes even death. And we haven't even begun to pay for all of this financially, that's yet yo come. I've said it before on these forums, there are some people seemingly very happy to push other people's livelihoods under the bus.

A lockdown is a "reset button" if you have screwed up. It effectively gives you another go, but can only be pressed so many times.