Is it time to learn to live with the virus?

[Captain... 7,616]

Reading this article:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-54228649


And just the general public mood it got me wondering just how many people are ready and willing to just accept the risks and get back to normal.

 

I think I've just about reached that point, we are getting to the point where the cure is going to be worse than the virus and we know a lot more know than we did in March on minimising risk, but I would be devastated if any of my loved ones were seriously affected/killed by this virus.

[bovril 7,628]

1 minute ago, Captain... said:

And just the general public mood it got me wondering just how many people are ready and willing to just accept the risks and get back to normal.

 

I think I've just about reached that point, we are getting to the point where the cure is going to be worse than the virus and we know a lot more know than we did in March on minimising risk, but I would be devastated if any of my loved ones were seriously affected/killed by this virus.

'Learning to live with the virus' doesn't mean getting back to normal though. I don't know if we'll ever totally go back to pre March 2020, especially in terms of hygiene and close contact with people.

Edited 25 September by bovril

[Innovindil 2,684]

Question so broad it might aswell not exist. 

 

Is living with it meaning no ****s given and go back to how it was? Is living with it shielding the vulnerable and letting everyone else carry on? Is living with it putting into place systems to try and limit the spread while getting back to as "normal" as possible? Is living with it intentionally infecting people who probably wouldn't have any side effects to build up some form of herd immunity? Is living with it sodding off the vaccine attempts to save some cash? 

 

Needs some meat on the question I think. 

[Fox92 10,916]

9 minutes ago, bovril said:

'Learning to live with the virus' doesn't mean getting back to normal though. I don't know if we'll ever totally go back to pre March 2020, especially in terms of hygiene and close contact with people.

I said the other day I don't think we will.

[RowlattsFox 1,839]

Yes, to an extent. We can't suddenly return to "normal", its got into a difficult position now, what numbers are ok to live with?

 

Continuation of minimal restrictions for the time being and I can live with that. I think we need at the very least though an easy and reliable testing system in order to manage risk, more evidence as to whether those carrying symptoms are more infectious as that at least minimises the risk of asymptomatic transmission. Quarantine periods need to be looked at and whether they are deemed appropriate. 

 

I'm a socially distant sort of person anyway, apart from where it is impossible but always feel uncomfortable in busy bars etc. So I'm fine with that with strangers but obviously need to be allowed to mix with family and friends. 

 

 

Edited 25 September by RowlattsFox

[Mike Oxlong 6,936]

If a vaccine in the foreseeable future avoids preventable deaths and long Covid illness then I’m prepared to accept limitations and cost at present

 

Without a vaccine it’s difficult to say Where the tipping point lies without a better understanding of mortality rates and the effect on long term health of those infected 

[peach0000 1,198]

No, it's beatable even without a vaccine. We should be aiming to do that and then return to normal rather than pinning hopes on an eventual vaccine. We need much stricter rules. A few weeks of suffering for freedom the rest of our lives.

[MonmoreStef 136]

8 minutes ago, peach0000 said:

No, it's beatable even without a vaccine. We should be aiming to do that and then return to normal rather than pinning hopes on an eventual vaccine. We need much stricter rules. A few weeks of suffering for freedom the rest of our lives.

How is it beatable without a vaccine ?  We can lock down for weeks but the virus will still be waiting to comeback from somewhere in the world. Look at the countries that have had hardly any cases comparably speaking like Australia an New Zealand. They’ve still had it return. Barring closing the borders we can’t stop it returning and the cycle of panic will just return. Advocates of stricter rules  need to realise it only slows down the problems. 

[Nalis 4,471]

29 minutes ago, peach0000 said:

No, it's beatable even without a vaccine. We should be aiming to do that and then return to normal rather than pinning hopes on an eventual vaccine. We need much stricter rules. A few weeks of suffering for freedom the rest of our lives.

I dont think we can beat it without a vaccine but we can live with it.

 

Absolutely no point locking down completely again unless the NHS gets overwhelmed again. It would only find its way back and we would find ourselves back at square one.

Edited 25 September by Nalis

[peach0000 1,198]

Just now, MonmoreStef said:

How is it beatable without a vaccine ?  We can lock down for weeks but the virus will still be waiting to comeback from somewhere in the world. Look at the countries that have had hardly any cases comparably speaking like Australia an New Zealand. They’ve still had it return. Barring closing the borders we can’t stop it returning and the cycle of panic will just return. Advocates of stricter rules  need to realise it only slows down the problems. 

I'm talking properly harsh measures:

Illegal (properly so) to leave your house unless you're involved in healthcare, emergency service or the military.

Military delivers essentials to population

Those leaving house (ie military etc) tested constantly

That should eradicate it pretty quickly

 

Then reopen society coupled with a complete shut down of borders (no one in, people can of course leave but can't come back)

Military sets up holding facilities (standard of a nice hotel)

Border reopens with new arrivals spending 14 days in new military facility getting tested a couple of times a week at their own cost.

 

 

Some countries have beaten the virus in exactly this way. China being the big one. This is the very extreme route I'd like to see us take. 

[Captain... 7,616]

42 minutes ago, Innovindil said:

Question so broad it might aswell not exist. 

 

Is living with it meaning no ****s given and go back to how it was? Is living with it shielding the vulnerable and letting everyone else carry on? Is living with it putting into place systems to try and limit the spread while getting back to as "normal" as possible? Is living with it intentionally infecting people who probably wouldn't have any side effects to build up some form of herd immunity? Is living with it sodding off the vaccine attempts to save some cash? 

 

Needs some meat on the question I think. 

Living with it, in the way we live with flu, colds, cancer etc. We dedicate a huge amount of time and money etc finding ways to minimise the risk and lower the death rate we don't impose social restrictions and economy destroying lockdowns.

 

35,000 people die a year from lung cancer, but we haven't banned smoking.

 

7,500 people die of alcohol related causes but we can still buy alcohol.

 

Living with it means not massively disrupting our way of life we have lived with risk all of our lives and made our own choices to manage the risks. Some people get sick, some people die, it's life. We can't live in a hermetically sealed bubble.

 

Not really answering your questions but it's deliberately vague because if you get too specific you then discuss the question. It's more the feeling.

 

Are you at that point where the increased risk to you and yours is acceptable to not impose these restrictions on society and the subsequent damage to the economy.

 

Edited 25 September by Captain...

[Footballwipe 1,836]

8 minutes ago, peach0000 said:

I'm talking properly harsh measures:

Illegal (properly so) to leave your house unless you're involved in healthcare, emergency service or the military.

Military delivers essentials to population

Those leaving house (ie military etc) tested constantly

That should eradicate it pretty quickly

 

Then reopen society coupled with a complete shut down of borders (no one in, people can of course leave but can't come back)

Military sets up holding facilities (standard of a nice hotel)

Border reopens with new arrivals spending 14 days in new military facility getting tested a couple of times a week at their own cost.

 

 

Some countries have beaten the virus in exactly this way. China being the big one. This is the very extreme route I'd like to see us take. 

Nope. It'll come back, because unless you test every single person someone will have it, somehow. Or someone from abroad will enter the country when things are lifted will have it and spread it.

 

Dictatorship-style restrictions will work... if you live in a dictatorship. As many seem to tin-hat think we do due to these restrictions, we don't. Part of the problem why we're here is because so many don't give a shit and are ignoring any advice that's put before us to help minimise the spread. I'm not saying that's right, I'm saying any tough restrictions will be ignored, routinely and widely. The goodwill of the first lockdown lasted about four weeks before people got sick of it. You'll never get that back unless it starts to kill children.

[peach0000 1,198]

2 minutes ago, Footballwipe said:

Nope. It'll come back, because unless you test every single person someone will have it, somehow. Or someone from abroad will enter the country when things are lifted will have it and spread it.

 

Dictatorship-style restrictions will work... if you live in a dictatorship. As many seem to tin-hat think we do due to these restrictions, we don't. Part of the problem why we're here is because so many don't give a shit and are ignoring any advice that's put before us to help minimise the spread. I'm not saying that's right, I'm saying any tough restrictions will be ignored, routinely and widely. The goodwill of the first lockdown lasted about four weeks before people got sick of it. You'll never get that back unless it starts to kill children.

Not if you do it for long enough. The punishments for breaking restrictions need to be strict enough so people are too scared to break them. (prison, unaffordable fines etc).

 

The abroad thing can be solved with the quarantine system coupled with testing that is being done in most asian cities.

 

Then to stop it coming back if there is a case you have to lock down an entire city with the same extreme measures after just one case and test the entire city over the course of about a week. 

 

China are recording single digit cases a week and I would like if other countries follow their example rather than just pissing about.

 

It won't happen of course because it would be illegal for so many reasons 

[davieG 16,293]

15 minutes ago, Captain... said:

Living with it, in the way we live with flu, colds, cancer etc. We dedicate a huge amount of time and money etc finding ways to minimise the risk and lower the death rate we don't impose social restrictions and economy destroying lockdowns.

 

35,000 people die a year from lung cancer, but we haven't banned smoking.

 

7,500 people die of alcohol related causes but we can still buy alcohol.

 

Living with it means not massively disrupting our way of life we have lived with risk all of our lives and made our own choices to manage the risks. Some people get sick, some people die, it's life. We can't live in a hermetically sealed bubble.

 

You can't catch alcohol or smoking related illnesses, well I guess 2nd hand smoking but we have banned that where that might happen.

 

I think the only real comparable is flu and we do have vaccines for that although not 100% guaranteed.

 

I'm concerned that the world is full of idiots, selfish, cavalier people who don't seem to care about their fellow beings but then that affects us all everyday everywhere. So maybe that's not an issue we should consider.

 

Just rambling here, I think we need a vaccine and a workable track/trace system, I also think we'll need that in the future anyway because it would seem this type of thing is something that is going to repeat then we can return to a level of normality.

 

Well that's what I'm waiting for whatever the government comes up with but then although at risk I have the luxury of not having to go to work and people taking risks to supply me which I'm extremely grateful for.

[davieG 16,293]

3 minutes ago, peach0000 said:

Not if you do it for long enough. The punishments for breaking restrictions need to be strict enough so people are too scared to break them. (prison, unaffordable fines etc).

 

The abroad thing can be solved with the quarantine system coupled with testing that is being done in most asian cities.

 

Then to stop it coming back if there is a case you have to lock down an entire city with the same extreme measures after just one case and test the entire city over the course of about a week. 

 

China are recording single digit cases a week and I would like if other countries follow their example rather than just pissing about.

 

It won't happen of course because it would be illegal for so many reasons 

You've no chance of stopping people entering the country there are so many isolated access points it would be impossible to enforce. 

[peach0000 1,198]

6 minutes ago, davieG said:

You've no chance of stopping people entering the country there are so many isolated access points it would be impossible to enforce. 

Just close down airports, ports and channel tunnel and have the navy patrol the channel (its the only place illegal crossings can realistically happen) it would be easy enough being an island. Thats one of the easiest bits of logistics in my very complex plan I would think.

Edited 25 September by peach0000

[Captain... 7,616]

2 minutes ago, davieG said:

You can't catch alcohol or smoking related illnesses, well I guess 2nd hand smoking but we have banned that where that might happen.

No, but you know the risks involved and accept them. If you're worried about getting lung cancer, don't smoke, you don't ban cigarettes for everyone.

 

If going to the pub increases the risk of getting covid and you are worried about getting covid don't go to the pub. If you are not worried about getting covid then should you not be able to go about your daily life?

 

It's tough and I get both sides of the argument. There are always going to be idiots that don't follow the rules, but if you let society figure out its own rules they will get more support than just having draconian measures imposed by an incompetent government. 

 

 

 

 

 

[Leicester_Loyal 3,563]

We'll never go back to what we knew as normal IMO.

 

I think those who are healthy and don't have any underlying health conditions should go back to normal and those who are vulnerable should shield and wait out for the vaccine (that's if they want to shield).

 

I'm surprised that the poll has Yes as high as it is, I thought it'd be about 60/40.

[joachim1965 1,096]

307 people under the age of 60 and with no pre existing health issues have died since February, with covid as opposed to due to covid, 307 out of a population of 67 million.

Why can't we get back to normal.

[joachim1965 1,096]

would any healthy person worry about catching the flu ?

[rachhere 1,658]

With things progressing well (it seems) with vaccines, I think we just need to be patient for a few more months. 

 

4 minutes ago, joachim1965 said:

would any healthy person worry about catching the flu ?

Surely this is because we have a greater control of the spread of the flu because of our winter vaccination programme, otherwise I think we would be more cautious. 

[Shram 16]

9 minutes ago, rachhere said:

With things progressing well (it seems) with vaccines, I think we just need to be patient for a few more months. 

 

Surely this is because we have a greater control of the spread of the flu because of our winter vaccination programme, otherwise I think we would be more cautious. 

We don't know that though.. a few more months will have lasting damage longer term (especially if the vaccine doesn't work).. Mass unemployment, Mental health issues across society, Operation backlogs (and deaths) and then finally to top it all off it'll need to be paid for primarily by those people who were at little to no risk of having longer term issues/death..

[joachim1965 1,096]

6 minutes ago, rachhere said:

With things progressing well (it seems) with vaccines, I think we just need to be patient for a few more months. 

 

Surely this is because we have a greater control of the spread of the flu because of our winter vaccination programme, otherwise I think we would be more cautious. 

it's not about the spread or control, the point I am making is that covid 19 is no more dangerous to fit and healthy people than the flu, the figures from the government back this up, 1393 people of all age ranges who have no pre existing health issues have died, this is out if 67 million. 

we have been frightened to death by the main stream media .

The average age of people who die with covid is 83.

[joachim1965 1,096]

13 minutes ago, rachhere said:

With things progressing well (it seems) with vaccines, I think we just need to be patient for a few more months.

Bill gates has openly admitted that they have not had time to verify the safety of vaccines, side effects can take up to two years to surface, he goes on to say that governments may have to trade safety off against the benefit of administering the vaccine.

[joachim1965 1,096]