Is it time to learn to live with the virus?

[Finnaldo]

Truth is somewhere in the middle I believe. Another lockdown would obliterate the economy, it’s bizarre thinking we should use it again in any other circumstance than a complete emergency that the NHS was facing in March. 
 

On the other side, the idea we can throw our masks out and pack in social distancing seems massively premature. We still have no idea how hard it could hit over the winter and I don’t think it’s worth risking a last resort lockdown to tempt it. 
 

We need sensible measures and a long term plan to ensure safety but also encourage the recovery of the economy, with a level of flexibility should hospitalisations spike. Currently we’re being totally reactive and it’s helping neither containment nor economic recovery. 
 

I just wish our PM could have spared the time to appear in those COBR meetings as Lombardy began to break down over February, had our government thought about quicker and decisive action early on rather than drag our feet pretending it’s no big deal until late March perhaps we wouldn’t be in such a garbage fire as we are now.

[leicsmac]

My position remains the same: "living with the virus" and opening up, unless a place already has a low virus patient count and a top of the line tracking system to highlight and target outbreaks as they occur, is inviting a risk of exponential growth in virus cases and conequential massive strain on health resources.

 

Some people evidently think, for whatever reason, that the risk is low enough to take the chance and that taking the risk is better than the losses that are happening now, economically and socially. Personally, I can't see how they can be so confident that the risk is so low, and as I also have confidence in the speedy delivery and effectiveness of a vaccine, that holding on is the better, more risk-averse way to go.

 

Over here they've managed to open up most things apart from a few restrictions, but that's because the case count was low as it was, the contact track and trace is unbelievably good, and even then there have been bumps in the road that have needed some stricter measures temporarily to get over. I simply wouldn't try it in the UK, where neither a low case count nor anywhere near good enough tracing infrastructure exists.

[davieG]

1 hour ago, peach0000 said:

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.

There's thousands of small ports, I doubt we have the man power to close them all effectively and what about all the beaches, they'll be plenty of people with boats who'd have no qualms in charging  people to bring them in. Smuggling would return.

 

People are determined and resourceful and there's plenty of people who'll be happy to break the law for a few quid.

 

[Guest Fktf]

I would argue that what we are doing now is more or less living with the virus as best we can as a society - until a vaccine comes along.

 

Shielding the vulnerable requires limiting the spread in others. It is not too dissimilar to the argument about closing the borders. If there's enough of it about, it'll find it's way in to every part of society eventually. 

 

The idea of China plus style lockdown seems like an interesting thought experiment, but actually in 2 pages we've already mentioned numerous reason why it wouldn't work.

[peach0000]

Just now, davieG said:

There's thousands of small ports, I doubt we have the man power to close them all effectively and what about all the beaches, they'll be plenty of people with boats who'd have no qualms in charging  people to bring them in. Smuggling would return.

 

People are determined and resourceful and there's plenty of people who'll be happy to break the law for a few quid.

 

It would be a couple of months max under my plans until borders can reopen. Even quicker if the military were allowed to takeover existing hotels for quarantine purposes. I would think there wouldn't be time to set up a successful people smuggling ring in that time. 

 

In a time where nothing should be coming into Britain it would be easy enough to stop illegal crossings, it would take too long to cross anywhere other than the channel and that can be patrolled heavily with the navy and airforce. If a few get in it wouldn't have much effect anyway. The main thing is to stop flights, trains and commercial boats as the bring in far more people and risk.

[davieG]

1 hour ago, Captain... said:

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. 

 

 

 

 

 

You can't see who's got the virus, to minimise the risk to an acceptable level we need and efficient testing and tracking system.

 

For example each GP needs to be able to carry out test locally, there's equipment out there to do this, the government needs to focus on with all it's resources testing and tracking not the piece meal approach we seem to have. 

[Leicester_Loyal]

1 minute ago, peach0000 said:

It would be a couple of months max under my plans until borders can reopen. Even quicker if the military were allowed to takeover existing hotels for quarantine purposes. I would think there wouldn't be time to set up a successful people smuggling ring in that time. 

 

In a time where nothing should be coming into Britain it would be easy enough to stop illegal crossings, it would take too long to cross anywhere other than the channel and that can be patrolled heavily with the navy and airforce. If a few get in it wouldn't have much effect anyway. The main thing is to stop flights, trains and commercial boats as the bring in far more people and risk.

The reality is someone would always find a way of getting over here with the virus, and we'll be back to square 1.

[Jon the Hat]

1 hour 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. 

How big do you think our military is FFS?  The supermarkets probably have more delivery drivers than we have armed forces.  Madness.

[Les-TA-Jon]

The problem now, is that back in March gov policy was led by a guiding strategy: suppress the virus and flatten the curve so that the NHS wasn't overwhelmed. 

 

But since June, there's been no guiding strategy - it's simply been a 'try to open things back up' and react with different measures approach. 

 

It'd be better if the Gov came clean with the public at large and said 'there's no finish line here' - there won't ever be a single moment of celebration when we beat this. Even if a vaccine was ready to go at some point in 2021 (unlikely) can you imagine the cost and logistical challenge of actually rolling it out to 65 million? 

 

The guiding strategy now should be to focus measures and testing on the most vulnerable (overs 70s, co-morbidities and care homes) that's where the vast, vast majority of deaths occur, and let wider society go back to a 'new normal' - whereby things are largely the same, but face coverings and social distance are the norm. 

[peach0000]

14 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

How big do you think our military is FFS?  The supermarkets probably have more delivery drivers than we have armed forces.  Madness.

Can always put more resources into the armed forces. I’m not talking about a supermarket kind of delivery for essentials either. I’m talking more in terms of you’ll get enough to survive but no choice in what you get. 
 

obviously my plan would take some proper planning and adjustments would need to be made but it has been proven to work in other countries and it would be a way of getting back to normal. 

[Footballwipe]

6 minutes ago, peach0000 said:

Can always put more resources into the armed forces. I’m not talking about a supermarket kind of delivery for essentials either. I’m talking more in terms of you’ll get enough to survive but no choice in what you get. 
 

obviously my plan would take some proper planning and adjustments would need to be made but it has been proven to work in other countries and it would be a way of getting back to normal. 

Why are you persisting with this dictatorial plan? It would never work and never be sustainable. Honestly what on earth are you on?

 

People would take to the streets, civil disobedience. In fact you're unite the country, which would be some achieve. No choice in food supplies? Armed forces on the streets monitoring. It's just the ramblings of a despot and you're not actually solving the issue.

 

Let it go, your idea is useless, no matter how "proven to work in other countries" it is it would not work here, because we are NOT those countries, and we would not behave in such an accepting way. FFS people barely accept the rule of six and face masks.

[inckley fox]

A lot of it is practicality. We don't have the resources in this country for huge numbers of people to get sick at the same time. Few governments could survive large numbers of people dying who could have been saved because beds are full or wards understaffed, with the bodies piling up in the streets as a result. This is what tends to happen when a fairly nasty and very contagious virus emerges. Plus, when things get to that point, virtually everything would be shutting whether the government had told it to or not.

 

An initial miscalculation was made by the government that we could get through coronavirus this way, but when they looked again at the figures and realised we only had about an eighth of the hospital beds we'd need to attain herd immunity, it was hastily abandoned. We've grudgingly accepted the lesser of two evils. But it's just not possible to brush this to one side and get on with things. That can't happen, one way or the other.

 

Could the measures be less cumbersome? Probably. Spain has had some of the strictest measures in Europe, but its case numbers dwarf everyone else's, and possibly part of the reason for that (in addition to demographics) is that the aggressiveness of the measures - e.g. more and bigger fines than anywhere else - has led to the public not being 'on-side' with the government's response. A game of cat and mouse / us and them develops. A lot of the retrospective analysis of the 1918 flu suggested that public awareness, and agreement with the measures is critical in a pandemic - and I'm not sure you get that if your measures seem arbitrary, or you see authority figures flouting them. So if you could do more to get people 'on board' (not as impossible as the press would have you believe) then the measures will either feel less intrusive, or you won't need as many measures at all. Spain sticks out like a sore thumb on this score, but I'm not sure the UK is a great deal better either with its mixed messages and at best clumsy response from the government.

 

Of course, you might say 'people are b*stards, it's impossible to expect them to be considerate to one another'. That's not exactly what's happened everywhere else in the 'free world', but I have some sympathy for this viewpoint when I walk past my local every evening and get smoked on by a huddle of pissheads at the door. I just tend to think that these people's ambivalence towards the virus partly stems from the lack of clarity and co-ordination from upstairs.

 

As for whether we'll ever get back to normal - things are bound to be different but not necessarily in terms of people becoming more paranoid, isolated, fearful etc. There'll also be a great desire from people to go to a football game, a gig, a festival, the theatre, a nightclub or whatever when they're finally allowed to do so. Whenever there's a restriction of people's freedoms, there's a big reaction when those freedoms return.

[peach0000]

Just now, Footballwipe said:

Why are you persisting with this dictatorial plan? It would never work and never be sustainable. Honestly what on earth are you on?

 

People would take to the streets, civil disobedience. In fact you're unite the country, which would be some achieve. No choice in food supplies? Armed forces on the streets monitoring. It's just the ramblings of a despot and you're not actually solving the issue.

 

Let it go, your idea is useless, no matter how "proven to work in other countries" it is it would not work here, because we are NOT those countries, and we would not behave in such an accepting way. FFS people barely accept the rule of six and face masks.

I’ve said it won’t happen here but it is an alternative solution to the crisis that doesn’t involve a vaccine and doesn’t accept deaths from this virus as inevitable. It would be a very rough and horrible month or two but then after that we would all be able to return to normal and enjoy the freedoms we can’t currently. 

[joachim1965]

17 minutes ago, peach0000 said:

Can always put more resources into the armed forces. I’m not talking about a supermarket kind of delivery for essentials either. I’m talking more in terms of you’ll get enough to survive but no choice in what you get. 
 

obviously my plan would take some proper planning and adjustments would need to be made but it has been proven to work in other countries and it would be a way of getting back to normal. 

fvck me.

[Jon the Hat]

18 minutes ago, peach0000 said:

Can always put more resources into the armed forces. I’m not talking about a supermarket kind of delivery for essentials either. I’m talking more in terms of you’ll get enough to survive but no choice in what you get. 
 

obviously my plan would take some proper planning and adjustments would need to be made but it has been proven to work in other countries and it would be a way of getting back to normal. 

You are mad.  This is not China.  I can honeslty say we would never ever get back to anything remotely normal if we let ourselves be put in that position.  You would be setting the country back a generation.  Again for something which is killing hardly anyone!!  Yes it's horrible when people die, but they do it every single day in their thousands.  This is completely mad.

[Jon the Hat]

2 minutes ago, joachim1965 said:

fvck me.

I say we have a whip round and ship these fools to China.

[joachim1965]

19 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

You are mad.  This is not China.  I can honeslty say we would never ever get back to anything remotely normal if we let ourselves be put in that position.  You would be setting the country back a generation.  Again for something which is killing hardly anyone!!  Yes it's horrible when people die, but they do it every single day in their thousands.  This is completely mad.

The numbers really are so small it beggars belief what's happening , so many people begging to be locked down. 

[Milo]

15 minutes ago, joachim1965 said:

The numbers really are so small it beggars belief what's happening , so many people begging to be locked down. 

Who’s begging to be locked down? 

[Guest Kopfkino]

We are living with the virus to the extent that we realistically can. The R rate is now estimated to be 1.2-1.5 now, which taking the midpoint puts you on 50000 cases a day in about 5 and a half weeks. Hospitalisations are doubling about every 9-10 days, left unchecked that means we'd reach the most daily hospitalisations in just over 5 weeks time. Whether that happens remains to be seen. So when people say we need to learn to live with it, what do we need to do that keeps people out of hospital but doesn't shut us away? 

 

In reality, we missed the boat for living with the virus. We were too impatient to get on with things so we didn't drive down the reservoir of the virus far enough for it to become manageable whilst the government failed to create the tracing infrastructure and deliver the policy package that could keep cases low and allow any outbreak to be snuffed out swiftly. Look at this preprint https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.09.15.20191957v1.full.pdf, only 18.2% report self-isolating properly. Now the paper doesn't show the intensity or the riskiness of people's transgressions but it's not a high enough number to effectively contain the virus. Some of it will be the dominance of individualism in people's mind, some of it will have been because people felt it was necessary, and some of it will be because the government's policy response wasn't sufficient to enable many people to stay at home.

[Mark 'expert' Lawrenson]

3 hours 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. 

How many people are you willing to put out of work? 

[AS78UK]

Found out that a friend of mine has now got a long term heart condition in his mid 30s that they believe to be Covid related.  He didn't have many major symptoms in the spring, just a loss of taste. 

 

Doctors in Cardio have been pre-warned of an increase in case over the next couple of years. 

 

If a vaccines are 6 months out, then I for one am happy for restrictions to continue. 

 

 

[AS78UK]

11 minutes ago, Mark 'expert' Lawrenson said:

How many people are you willing to put out of work? 

Probably less then the current strategy, as the bounceback would be full flow. China are pretty much fully operational from my understanding now. 

[peach0000]

17 minutes ago, AS78UK said:

Probably less then the current strategy, as the bounceback would be full flow. China are pretty much fully operational from my understanding now. 

It is. China is now completely back to normal with no restrictions or social distancing and have been for a few months now. 70 odd day lockdown which was the strictest in the world at the time to make that happen.

 

edit - the only restriction is to arrivals into the country having to quarantine in hotels for 14 days at their own expense with two tests during that time provided by the state both of which have to be returned negative.

[Les-TA-Jon]

25 minutes ago, AS78UK said:

If a vaccines are 6 months out, then I for one am happy for restrictions to continue. 

There's no guarantee of a vaccine ever being viable. Even a viable one is a year or so away at least. And even if a vaccine was available right now, it's a huge cost and massive logistical challenge to roll it out

[AS78UK]

7 minutes ago, peach0000 said:

It is. China is now completely back to normal with no restrictions or social distancing and have been for a few months now. 70 odd day lockdown which was the strictest in the world at the time to make that happen.

 

edit - the only restriction is to arrivals into the country having to quarantine in hotels for 14 days at their own expense with two tests during that time provided by the state both of which have to be returned negative.

Going from what work colleagues there tell me based in Beijing. Scans and temp checks as they move around, but think they created a lot of this back when SARs started.