Should we allow the novel Coronavirus to spread in a controlled way in the healthy population?

[Starmill]

Problem is to achieve what the likes of Australia achieved would have required much earlier action so it's too late for that now. So out of the three options, we are down to two. If you are saying that of the two, the one we are doing is the worst, I am puzzled as to why you are disagreeing with the remaining option

This logically doesn't make any sense.

Your objection appears to be not that the "lockdown" happened, but that it is happening for too long? The reason it has taken so long is because the government acted so slowly at the start. Indeed, they decided not to pursue this policy, in favour of an alternative, for a short period of time. So the cause of the problems being experienced now is in fact not "lockdown" but inaction. Despite the fact that, at the time, you wouldn't have been willing to support restrictions coming into play early, back when there were few cases, next to none of which had been detected, and before a recorded death.

Now, there's a fairly clear consensus internationally that there is an effective four-step strategy for dealing with Covid-19. The first is to restrict people to staying home as much as possible at the earliest possible point in time. The second is to ease the restrictions on going outside, and using tracing and testing with international and long-distance travel restrictions, suppress the disease in place while allowing more activity involving leaving the home to resume. The better you do with this part, the less stringent the restrictions on activities involving going out need to be. South Korea is so effective at this that they've been able to resume a significant proportion of normal economic activity that needs people to leave home. The third is to develop drug or other treatment for the effects of the virus to make it less deadly. The fourth is to develop a vaccine. Eventually, if an effective one is developed, it could be used to eradicate the disease. This would require enormous resources, but arguably this would be value for money: Covid-19 anywhere is potential Covid-19 everywhere. Three and four offer sustainable ways out. One and two work in a cycle with each being turned on and off as necessary to prevent as many infections as possible.

There are a number of arguments that have been advanced against this, but unfortunately none hold water. One is that the government are acting on the "lobbying" of ordinary people on social media who wish for the so-called lockdown. There is no evidence to support this and there's strong lobbying to the Conservative party for the exact opposite. They've foolishly dropped 'Stay at Home', while Labour in Wales, the SNP in Scotland and SF&DUP in Northern Ireland have not done so because they aren't lobbied by the Conservative donors. This is the real effect of "lobbyists" on government.

Another is economic, but this simply doesn't work either. If the restrictions are removed as you would like them, the risk of large numbers of deaths is quite significant. If this is in the headlines, people will not go out and spend money - even if you'd do so yourself, because that fits with your personal priorities.

Nobody is arguing that we shouldn't try to mitigate the damage of the restrictions. Critically getting more children into school who are already eligible to attend, and things like urgent dental work, cancer screening and most non-urgent hospital appointments back are high priority. Better testing and PPE are very high priority. Development of more robust supply chains is a priority. Improved transport capacity and better walking and cycling provision are a priority. Public education and high compliance on hand-washing, social distancing and face coverings are important. And so on and so on.

So the question is what do you really want? Do you want to proceed with the removal of restrictions in the way that is convenient for you personally, regardless of the consequences for anybody else, or in a version of the above plan (which would ideally be delivered by a far more competent government than this one, but at least they've got a little bit of it right, eventually)? This plan is taking a long time, a lot longer than otherwise, because the government messed it all up. I agree that this is extremely painful; for you, for me, for just about every one of us. That is the point. That is the Prime Minister's fault. It is not an excuse to diverge from this course - the only one internationally that has been shown to work.

 

[najaB]

This plan is taking a long time, a lot longer than otherwise, because the government messed it all up. I agree that this is extremely painful; for you, for me, for just about every one of us. That is the point. That is the Prime Minister's fault.

I'm no fan of Boris and would be more than happy to lay this one at his feet, but do we know what advice he was being given at the time and by whom?

 

[Starmill]

Which would be fine, if practicable.

Which I suspect it isn't.

Where would these staff sleep, eat, wash on-site?

Who would care for their families?

Yes, it may be possible for a few staff in certain locations but as a widespread policy just don't think it could work.

Unfortunately it's frequently overlooked just how many staff in care homes are on £8.72/ hour (less in some cases of 24 year olds etc), on weak employment terms which may be zero hours, and almost all on legal minimum pay whilst sick. Some care workers are paid such appallingly low wages they're forced to work two jobs. Most will also lie about being ill, because if they're off ill they face being unable to buy food or having their utilities disconnected. And then there are the staff who don't legally qualify for Statutory Sick Pay.

To put it another way, we've all collectively forced the people whom we need to care for our older relatives into such extreme in-work poverty that they've come to work while infected, and given coronavirus disease to the residents whom they know and love, in some cases causing their deaths.

And people come along blithely and suggest that a solution to this problem, somehow, is just to ask those staff to live on site, as if there are all of the resources necessary already in the industry for that. As a very minimum there would need to be completely free accommodation provided for all care home staff and full sick pay.

 

[43066]

Your objection appears to be not that the "lockdown" happened, but that it is happening for too long? The reason it has taken so long is because the government acted so slowly at the start. Indeed, they decided not to pursue this policy, in favour of an alternative, for a short period of time. So the cause of the problems being experienced now is in fact not "lockdown" but inaction. Despite the fact that, at the time, you wouldn't have been willing to support restrictions coming into play early, back when there were few cases, next to none of which had been detected, and before a recorded death.

I don’t think anyone can realistically argue that the government wasn’t too slow to react initially.

However there’s a (good) argument that we should have persevered with the initial approach of voluntary social distancing. There isn’t much evidence that strict lockdowns have had a more beneficial effect then this approach - however there is increasingly evidence that they don’t. There’s also evidence that the assumptions underpinning the model used to justify the lockdown are deeply flawed (reference the experience of Sweden and the Netherlands).

Another is economic, but this simply doesn't work either. If the restrictions are removed as you would like them, the risk of large numbers of deaths is quite significant. If this is in the headlines, people will not go out and spend money - even if you'd do so yourself, because that fits with your personal priorities.

I’m not sure that necessarily follows and, if it is the case, it’s probably because the government’s messaging has been too alarmist. Not enough people understand that the virus only poses a serious threat to vulnerable groups

in my case my objection to the lockdown isn’t due to personal priorities in the sense that my job is unlikely to be affected (much as I might miss going to the pub ). It’s the devastation I can see happening to some of the people in my life whom I care the most about.

 

[Bletchleyite]

And people come along and suggest that a solution to this problem, somehow, is just to ask those staff to live on site.

Paying them extra to do so would be appropriate. The Government could fund that. They could do it on shifts, a few days on a few off, with a test at the start and end. Perhaps they could be paid 24/7 while on shift at the present rate?

I can't think of a better solution. Can you?

 

[yorkie]

Your objection appears to be not that the "lockdown" happened, but that it is happening for too long?

Actually I think we should not have locked down in the way we have; in hindsight we should have taken less extreme measures at an earlier stage. Obviously it's too late for that now!

Despite the fact that, at the time, you wouldn't have been willing to support restrictions coming into play early, back when there were few cases, next to none of which had been detected, and before a recorded death.

You're right that it would have been a hard sell, but if they had been less extreme there is more of a chance they would have been accepted (if not straight away, then over time), but again there isn't really much point discussing what could have been now. Hindsight is a wonderful thing.

...One is that the government are acting on the "lobbying" of ordinary people on social media who wish for the so-called lockdown. There is no evidence to support this and there's strong lobbying to the Conservative party for the exact opposite...

There are people who do want to lockdown for an extended people and there are people who want the opposite.

They've foolishly dropped 'Stay at Home', while Labour in Wales, the SNP in Scotland and SF&DUP in Northern Ireland have not done so because they aren't lobbied by the Conservative donors. This is the real effect of "lobbyists" on government.

I disagree with this because some people were taking 'Stay at home' to extremes and some people are using it as an excuse to say things like people should stay home until a vaccine is found; the message needed to change. There are parents who think that the safest place for their kids is home, rather than at school, until there is a guarantee of their child not getting the virus or a vaccine is available.

Another is economic, but this simply doesn't work either. If the restrictions are removed as you would like them, the risk of large numbers of deaths is quite significant. If this is in the headlines, people will not go out and spend money - even if you'd do so yourself, because that fits with your personal priorities.

My response to this is the same as @43066's above.

 

[Starmill]

Paying them extra to do so would be appropriate. The Government could fund that. They could do it on shifts, a few days on a few off, with a test at the start and end. Perhaps they could be paid 24/7 while on shift at the present rate?

I can't think of a better solution. Can you?

It would be fine if the government were happy to pay for the large multiplier of costs it would cause. We're also talking big pay rises, contract restructuring, accommodation for whole families, and a large recruitment drive. Given the hand-wringing over just £8 billion for thr CJRS I'm not seeing this kind of money forthcoming.

 

[43066]

Paying them extra to do so would be appropriate. The Government could fund that. They could do it on shifts, a few days on a few off, with a test at the start and end. Perhaps they could be paid 24/7 while on shift at the present rate?

I can't think of a better solution. Can you?

Exactly. Throw enough money at the problem and it will be sorted. And there’s no shortage of money being thrown around at the moment!

Staff being paid well to live on-site for extended periods of time (if they’re on £8 per hour now, simply offer them several times that amount, and there will be volunteers) and rigorous testing of said staff beforehand is the obvious approach.

 

[Starmill]

There are people who do want to lockdown for an extended people and there are people who want the opposite.

So you agree that what you or I personally want is actually an irrelevance?

My response to this is the same as @43066's above.

I can't see it.

I disagree with this because some people were taking 'Stay at home' to extremes and some people are using it as an excuse to say things like people should stay home until a vaccine is found; the message needed to change. There are parents who think that the safest place for their kids is home, rather than at school, until there is a guarantee of their child not getting the virus or a vaccine is available.

But this is irrelevant! Random mums on Facebook are the only people who thought this, and luckily they're not in government.

You have no responses to the general question.

 

[Yew]

I'd would consider waiting until news from various drug trials are in. I still think it's a reasonable action, but a decent anti-viral and anti-inflammatory would certainly help (both medically, and in public opinion)

Edit: I'm presuming this also has strong shielding, to protect the most vulnerable. (almost any amount of money required is affordable when balanced against the whole economy)

 

[northernchris]

I voted yes as think there is some logic to the idea. It's a difficult call for the government to make and no matter which option they pursue there will be criticism. I remember a report a few weeks ago where the prediction was around two thirds of those who will die from the virus would have died within the next 12 months, so as things currently stand there's just over 10,000 excess deaths caused by the virus. It remains to be seen what the excess death toll will be due to indirect causes of the virus, but my concern is that this will be much higher.

I'm not worried about contracting the virus, but I'm terrified about the next 6-12 months wondering if I'll still have a job and will be able to pay my mortgage. I know anecdotal stories are very subjective but there's a few people I know currently going through this situation, and the impact this must be having on their mental health is unimaginable. I think there's too much focus on the daily death toll at the moment with unhelpful comparisons being made against whichever country fits the political agenda of choice, and I'd much rather see this focus shift towards the long term implications of this appalling disease so the healthy have a better chance of a secure future

 

[yorkie]

...I'm not worried about contracting the virus, but I'm terrified about the next 6-12 months wondering if I'll still have a job and will be able to pay my mortgage. I know anecdotal stories are very subjective but there's a few people I know currently going through this situation, and the impact this must be having on their mental health is unimaginable....

I'm very lucky in that I have no such worries but I am very worried for others; I know this is a huge concern to many.

I firmly believe is indeed having a huge effect on mental health; some healthy people are affected by the fear of getting the virus, despite the risks being very low to them, while others are affected by the lockdown measures; see:
https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...-effects-on-mental-health.204031/post-4574648.

And on a related note, several people argue the media is (at least partly) to blame for this; see: https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/media-coverage-of-covid-19.204152/#post-4569390

 

[NorthOxonian]

It's about the hardest call that can be made, but I was swayed onto the yes side after reading a BBC article. For those under the age of 50, the risk of death from coronavirus each day is comparable to the risk from driving 160 miles in a car daily, or commuting from Swindon to London and back. That risk can't be ignored (especially since if 65 million people are exposed to it, some of us will die), but has to be weighed up with the economic and social consequences. The fear is that any economic crash could last for years and years to come, and could cause unimaginable poverty and suffering in the long run. Add to that the mental health effects, and the damage we know social isolation causes, and the potential educational impact on children, and the decision seems to me fairly clear.

It's a horrible choice to make, but ultimately "yes" means less deaths in total, and less suffering in the long run. But it is harder in the short term.

 

[tj1997]

Switzerland today but forward plans to reopen the country earlier than expected saying that opening Bars & Restaurants a month earlier than planned "is a good way to learn to live with the virus". Primary Schools have reopened "very rare for children to transmit the virus"

https://www.thelocal.ch/20200429/bars-restaurants-and-schools-to-open-again-as-switzerland-relaxes-coronavirus-lockdown

Doesn't seem to have been must anger there, to facts the British social media public would no doubt become completley hysterical at.

 

[al78]

Remember that any economic shock is temporary, death is not. If we currently have 4 businesses competing in a sector and one of them is forced to close, then after the shock the other 3 will prosper and expand to fill the hole left by the 4th. Yes, jobs will be lost, but only temporarily. But if you have 4 grandparents and one of them dies, do the other 3 expand to fill the hole? Of course not.

My grandmother dying is something I expect to happen and can prepare emotionally for (especially when she made it past 100), and when she dies, it is only myself and the immediate family that are emotionally affected. When a business goes under, it could be hundreds out of work who are in the unenviable position of working out how to pay the mortgage and put food on the table whilst they search for another source of income. Thus a failing business is far more widely destructive than the death of my grandmother (or any of my nearest and dearest), even though the the former probably won't affect me personally at all. I'm afraid your analogy sounds like an appeal to emotion.

 

[al78]

It might sound callous but there comes a point where we have to weigh preventing Covid deaths against the economic damage being caused (and indeed excess deaths from other causes, which are being made WORSE by the current restrictions).

The-cure-is-worse-than-the-disease Definition & Meaning | YourDictionary

The-cure-is-worse-than-the-disease definition: The medical treatment for an illness produces a worse net result than the illness does (threatens a non-negligible risk of doing so), especially via adverse effects.

www.yourdictionary.com

It sounds callous but a logical argument sometimes is. What we have is a pandemic which is heavily biased toward killing the vulnerable. There is a danger that the reaction is moving consequences from the vulnerable to the healthy, not necessarily the same consequences, but destructive ones nevertheless. Is there no way of increasing the resiliance of the vulnerable without everyone else having to take a big hit? A vaccine would do this but there is no way of knowing when that will be developed, if at all.

 

[43066]

My grandmother dying is something I expect to happen and can prepare emotionally for (especially when she made it past 100), and when she dies, it is only myself and the immediate family that are emotionally affected. When a business goes under, it could be hundreds out of work who are in the unenviable position of working out how to pay the mortgage and put food on the table whilst they search for another source of income. Thus a failing business is far more widely destructive than the death of my grandmother (or any of my nearest and dearest), even though the the former probably won't affect me personally at all. I'm afraid your analogy sounds like an appeal to emotion.

I’m very sorry indeed to hear that.

But you’re quite right in what you say. My own grandmother sadly passed away in a care home a few years back. At a stage of dementia where, frankly, it would have been better if she’d died years earlier. She had no memory of any members of her own family. 20 years prior she had openly said she’d rather die than ever live in a care home.

An intelligent, accomplished, wealthy woman, who lived through the Great Depression and WW2, ended up soiling herself into a nappy in her 90s in 2012-13. She wouldn’t have wanted that herself - but the medical profession kept her alive.

There’s too much focus on unnaturally keeping people alive, at all costs, without considering quality of life.

 

[Bantamzen]

yes that's also supported by this:

Coronavirus doctor's diary: The strange case of the choir that coughed in January

Dr John Wright is intrigued by some singers who became ill long before the UK's first known Covid-19 case.

www.bbc.co.uk

You know there had been rumours here in Baildon of people getting bad flus early on in the year, and with the landlady of one the local pubs now suspecting that she had the virus it is making me wonder about the spread. Baildon is a fairly middle class, white collar area. So if covid was in the village (well technically its a town, with around 18K population these days) as early a January, its very possible that it could have spread pretty quickly to workplaces in Bradford, Leeds and beyond. Yet Bradford is showing just over 1,100 confirmed cases out of a population in the trust area of over 537,000. So could it have been that transmission was taking place much earlier, and many more people have been exposed to it than is currently believed?

There really needs to be a push to get an effective anti-body test in play so that the real spread can be better understood, because the talk of the peak of infection being earlier than currently reported may have some legs, and if so needs to be factored into the government plans.

 

[najaB]

I remember a report a few weeks ago where the prediction was around two thirds of those who will die from the virus would have died within the next 12 months, so as things currently stand there's just over 10,000 excess deaths caused by the virus. It remains to be seen what the excess death toll will be due to indirect causes of the virus, but my concern is that this will be much higher.

The number may be higher than that: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-52623141

The number of people who have died because of Covid-19 is nearly twice as high as the figure we hear announced every day.

By 1 May, the number of coronavirus deaths announced by the UK government was just over 28,000.

Looking back at death registrations filed then, the figure is higher: just over 36,000 death certificates mentioned Covid-19.

The measure preferred by statisticians, counting all deaths above what would be expected, was even higher: more than 50,000.

 

[43066]

I find it interesting that the “yes” votes on here, or all places, are in the majority (in the first past the post sense). The population of this forum tends to the left, yet we are usually told that it’s hawkish right-wingers, who want to revoke lock down.

Perhaps a sign of increasingly widespread, bipartisan, dissatisfaction with the government‘s current approach?

 

[najaB]

I find it interesting that the “yes” votes on here, or all places, are in the majority (in the first past the post sense).

47% is not a majority. If it was a straight yes/no vote then you could say that there was a clear preference, but since there are three options it is risky to make any assumptions as to what "don't know" really means. I could just as easily say that 53% aren't in favour of a change.

Edit: Also, at 101 votes out of at least a few hundred active members (I *think* into the thousands), you can't really be sure that we have a representative sample.

 

[43066]

47% is not a majority. If it was a straight yes/no vote then you could say that there was a clear preference, but since there are three options it is risky to make any assumptions as to what "don't know" really means. I could just as easily say that 53% aren't in favour of a change.

Edit: Also, at 101 votes out of at least a few hundred active members (I *think* into the thousands), you can't really be sure that we have a representative sample.

I did say majority “in a first past the post sense” .

This forum overwhelmingly tends to the left, in my experience. People, of all political persuasions, are getting mightily cheesed off with the current situation, and rightly so.

 

[Yew]

It does seem interesting that there has been remarkably little media attention for this study. Especially given that similar views were used to inform the dutch plans.

 

[greyman42]

This forum overwhelmingly tends to the left, in my experience. People, of all political persuasions, are getting mightily cheesed off with the current situation, and rightly so.

I am nowhere near the left, but as you say, I am getting mightily cheesed off with the current situation.

 

[najaB]

People, of all political persuasions, are getting mightily cheesed off with the current situation, and rightly so.

To my mind, what is causing people to get cheesed off isn't the situation but that the government seems to be making it all up as it goes along. There doesn't seem to be a single, well thought out plan.

 

[yorkie]

Left/right is too simplistic at the best of times. If I had to choose between the simplistic "left" vs "right", I'd probably say left, but things that are of particular importance to me include things like:

• future aspirations of all but especially young people
• mental health
• the importance being physically fit, active and healthy
• civil liberties and freedoms
• having regular events to look forward to
• being able to help people

I also strongly feel that we need to look at the bigger picture, especially when it comes to considering 'risks'.

The more time goes on, I think more and more people are realising how Sweden's approach increasingly looks to be more sustainable than, say, China's. It's more realistic and it doesn't discriminate disproportionately against the younger generation.

 

[greyman42]

Left/right is too simplistic at the best of times. If I had to choose between the simplistic "left" vs "right", I'd probably say left, but things that are of particular importance to me include things like:

• future aspirations of all but especially young people
• mental health
• the importance being physically fit, active and healthy
• civil liberties and freedoms
• having regular events to look forward to
• being able to help people

I also strongly feel that we need to look at the bigger picture, especially when it comes to considering 'risks'.

The more time goes on, I think more and more people are realising how Sweden's approach increasingly looks to be more sustainable than, say, China's. It's more realistic and it doesn't discriminate disproportionately against the younger generation.

Great post.

 

[NorthOxonian]

Left/right is too simplistic at the best of times. If I had to choose between the simplistic "left" vs "right", I'd probably say left, but things that are of particular importance to me include things like:

• future aspirations of all but especially young people
• mental health
• the importance being physically fit, active and healthy
• civil liberties and freedoms
• having regular events to look forward to
• being able to help people

I also strongly feel that we need to look at the bigger picture, especially when it comes to considering 'risks'.

The more time goes on, I think more and more people are realising how Sweden's approach increasingly looks to be more sustainable than, say, China's. It's more realistic and it doesn't discriminate disproportionately against the younger generation.

I'm broadly on the right (though have voted for all of the main parties since turning 18), and would fully agree with you on your priorities. I'm 21 and am honestly worried that our approach now could consign my generation to poverty and an inability to find decent jobs. Attitudes to the risks of the virus and potential approaches don't fit neatly down left-right lines - the people who have been most reasonable that I've heard are Maajid Nawaz (a former Lib Dem candidate, radio broadcaster and activist) as well as Tony Blair and Theresa May - a very strange mix indeed, and not people I'd necessarily always agree with!

 

[najaB]

I'm 21 and am honestly worried that our approach now could consign my generation to poverty and an inability to find decent jobs.

If the movement restrictions start to be lifted by early to mid June, the economy is likely to be back to start of 2020 levels before the end of 2021.

However, analysts expect a double-digit drop in UK gross domestic product (GDP) in the coming quarter.

The Bank of England has warned that the UK economy is likely to suffer its sharpest recession on record this year, even if the lockdown is completely lifted by the end of September.

While the Bank said the economy could shrink by 14% in 2020, it expects the downturn to be short and sharp, with growth of 15% predicted in 2021.

Coronavirus: Chancellor Rishi Sunak warns of 'significant recession'

The UK's economy shrank at the fastest pace since 2008 during the first three months of the year.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[takno]

Left/right is too simplistic at the best of times. If I had to choose between the simplistic "left" vs "right", I'd probably say left, but things that are of particular importance to me include things like:

• future aspirations of all but especially young people
• mental health
• the importance being physically fit, active and healthy
• civil liberties and freedoms
• having regular events to look forward to
• being able to help people

I also strongly feel that we need to look at the bigger picture, especially when it comes to considering 'risks'.

The more time goes on, I think more and more people are realising how Sweden's approach increasingly looks to be more sustainable than, say, China's. It's more realistic and it doesn't discriminate disproportionately against the younger generation.

It worries me that increasingly the rest of Europe is coming round to a more reasoned approach, with our much-celebrated "sensible" population still being corralled into a foolish position against their interests by inept governments that haven't got a clue. I think poor Westminster governments have made the SNP look more competent than they really are up here for years, but even so I'm surprised to see Sturgeon still fronting up every day to fight a battle against reason and hope which, judging by how busy Edinburgh is getting, she's already lost.

None of this has really played out along left/right or any other political division. I think it's just shown up the people we have in power as jaded chancers.