Is it time to learn to live with the virus?

[peach0000]

Just now, AS78UK said:

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. 

Yeah I know quite a few people over there and it seems to depend on the region a lot but temperature scanners have been common at transport hubs for a while and that's about it. 

[dsr-burnley]

2 hours ago, peach0000 said:

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. 

The only sure way to prevent anyone from dying of coronavirus is to make sure they die of something else first.  It sounds like that's what your plan might achieve.

[FoxesDeb]

3 hours ago, joachim1965 said:

would any healthy person worry about catching the flu ?

How is that relevant? Different transmission rates, different long term health effects afterwards and different mortality rates

[RonnieTodger]

I guess it would depend on how long they think it's realistic to find an effective vaccine. Even that will take months/years to roll-out. In that case, prioritise the vulnerable and let the rest get on with it.

 

If we're waiting 6 months to a year for one then it's not worth the damage imo.

[Captain...]

4 minutes ago, RonnieTodger said:

I guess it would depend on how long they think it's realistic to find an effective vaccine. Even that will take months/years to roll-out. In that case, prioritise the vulnerable and let the rest get on with it.

 

If we're waiting 6 months to a year for one then it's not worth the damage imo.

Funny you should say that:

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-54296224

 

Even though it looks good for this vaccine it will still be 6 months before it's available en masse.

[joachim1965]

30 minutes ago, FoxesDeb said:

How is that relevant? Different transmission rates, different long term health effects afterwards and different mortality rates

correct, the flu kills more people.

[FoxesDeb]

5 hours ago, Leicester_Loyal said:

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.

 

3 hours ago, Les-TA-Jon said:

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. 

 

2 hours ago, joachim1965 said:

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

I have a genuine question for all those advocating for protecting the vulnerable so everyone else can carry on as normal, how exactly do you foresee that actually happening in practice? If vulnerable people have children of school age, what happens then? If the vulnerable can't work from home, how do they work? 

 

I'm sure I've read stats that show as many as 30% of our population are classified as vulnerable so I am interested to understand how people think it could work

[FoxesDeb]

1 minute ago, joachim1965 said:

correct, the flu kills more people.

What do you mean, correct, you didn't answer the question

 

https://fullfact.org/health/flu-covid-deaths/

 

https://fullfact.org/online/flu-covid-death-certificates/

 

 

[Trav Le Bleu]

It's not just about a vaccine.

 

As we get more familiar with this several things happen:

 

Better habits (for many, maybe even most)

 

A level of natural immunity, be that a better tolerance of the more severe effects or generally less people being infectable.

 

Better medical practise. Docs and nurses know what to do, best forms of treatment.

 

Better medicines. Drugs will be developed to mitigate and treat the worst aspects.

 

And there might even be a vaccine.

 

Spanish Flu killed between 17 to 50 million people in four waves over two years. We're nowhere near that, but I can't see any reason why, just like then, things won't eventually return to normal.

 

There was no vaccine for Spanish Flu.

 

At the moment I think there's a lot of socially dysfunctional people who are loving people staying away from them.

[peach0000]

14 minutes ago, Trav Le Bleu said:

It's not just about a vaccine.

 

As we get more familiar with this several things happen:

 

Better habits (for many, maybe even most)

 

A level of natural immunity, be that a better tolerance of the more severe effects or generally less people being infectable.

 

Better medical practise. Docs and nurses know what to do, best forms of treatment.

 

Better medicines. Drugs will be developed to mitigate and treat the worst aspects.

 

And there might even be a vaccine.

 

Spanish Flu killed between 17 to 50 million people in four waves over two years. We're nowhere near that, but I can't see any reason why, just like then, things won't eventually return to normal.

 

There was no vaccine for Spanish Flu.

 

At the moment I think there's a lot of socially dysfunctional people who are loving people staying away from them.

In respects of the comparison to Spanish Flu, the big difference is that that was a flu which always mutate. It's unknown what will happen with covid.

[Izzy]

24 minutes ago, Trav Le Bleu said:

 

At the moment I think there's a lot of socially dysfunctional people who are loving people staying away from them.

Interesting point.

 

In simple terms, we all have a preference for either Introversion or Extroversion (often genetic/hereditary). Introverts get their energy from within themselves and Extroverts get their energy from those around them. This is why the nation appears to be somewhat split on this subject atm

 

I know many Introverts who are quite happy working from home, being on their own, and following the rules to the letter. They don't need social interaction like extroverts do, but unfairly get labeled by them as 'lockdown lovers' etc. 

 

I equally know many Extroverts who are desperate for human interaction and are currently going stir crazy. These are the 'selfish pricks' the introverts refer to when they break the rules.

 

People are people and we are who we are. We all have different beliefs, motivations, goals and values, which is why one size will never fit all with these restrictions.

 

P.S. I would hazard a guess that those who voted 'No' on this poll would maybe be more Introverted and those who voted 'Yes' being possibly more Extroverted. Just a hunch..

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited 25 September 2020 by Izzy

[FoxesDeb]

9 minutes ago, Izzy said:

Interesting point.

 

In simple terms, we all have a preference for either Introversion or Extroversion (often genetic/hereditary). Introverts get their energy from within themselves and Extroverts get their energy from those around them. This is why the nation appears to be somewhat split on this subject atm

 

I know many Introverts who are quite happy working from home, being on their own, and following the rules to the letter. They don't need social interaction like extroverts do, but unfairly get labeled by them as 'lockdown lovers' etc. 

 

I equally know many Extroverts who are desperate for human interaction and are currently going stir crazy. These are the 'selfish pricks' the introverts refer to when they break the rules.

 

People are people and we are who we are. We all have different beliefs, motivations, goals and values, which is why one size will never fit all with these restrictions.

 

P.S. I would hazard a guess that those who voted 'No' on this poll would maybe be more Introverted and those who voted 'Yes' being possibly more Extroverted. Just a hunch..

 

 

 

 

 

 

So the Extroverts would literally be draining the life out of others for their own happiness if they had their own way? Selfish pricks 

[Izzy]

26 minutes ago, FoxesDeb said:

So the Extroverts would literally be draining the life out of others for their own happiness if they had their own way? Selfish pricks 

 

Best example I can give as an 'extrovert' in this meaning of the word, is during lockdown I had no energy to keep fit. However hard I tried to work out at home or go for a run, I just couldn't muster the energy or motivation. I get my energy from being around others - it's how I'm made.

 

Then as soon as the gyms re-opened - bam! I'm back on it. Just being around others at the gym gives me energy - even if I'm working out on my own. That's why some people are desperate to get back to work and seeing colleagues in the office - it energizes them.

 

The more we're locked down/restricted, the more those who get their energy from others will struggle. 

 

That's all I'm saying.

 

Edited 25 September 2020 by Izzy

[Julian Joachim Jr Shabadoo]

No. I am saving a bloody fortune not having to commute any more

[Trav Le Bleu]

1 hour ago, Izzy said:

Interesting point.

 

In simple terms, we all have a preference for either Introversion or Extroversion (often genetic/hereditary). Introverts get their energy from within themselves and Extroverts get their energy from those around them. This is why the nation appears to be somewhat split on this subject atm

 

I know many Introverts who are quite happy working from home, being on their own, and following the rules to the letter. They don't need social interaction like extroverts do, but unfairly get labeled by them as 'lockdown lovers' etc. 

 

I equally know many Extroverts who are desperate for human interaction and are currently going stir crazy. These are the 'selfish pricks' the introverts refer to when they break the rules.

 

People are people and we are who we are. We all have different beliefs, motivations, goals and values, which is why one size will never fit all with these restrictions.

 

P.S. I would hazard a guess that those who voted 'No' on this poll would maybe be more Introverted and those who voted 'Yes' being possibly more Extroverted. Just a hunch..

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'd say I fall in the extrovert camp, but I've followed the rules to the letter (other than where I might have accidentally or unwittingly done so - which is easily done with how the "rules" are constantly changing).

 

Being extroverted doesn't necessarily mean selfish and being introverted doesn't automatically make you selfless.

 

Being extroverted, you might likely understand how this is more about other people, whilst a selfish person might well self-isolate, quite happy to see everyone else go to hell.

 

If only it were black and white.

Edited 25 September 2020 by Trav Le Bleu

[Izzy]

4 minutes ago, Trav Le Bleu said:

I'd say I fall in the extrovert camp, but I've followed the rules to the letter

I'd expect nothing else from a postman mate 

 

[Guest Harrydc]

If this so called 'new normal' is what we will have for the rest of our lives Im going to go and live in some mountains off grid. Can't live in a world like this. 

[Corky]

In many ways that Trav has well outlined, yes.

 

But we really need to get a grip if people are now panic buying toilet rolls when the biggest change is the pubs shutting an hour early.

[dsr-burnley]

8 hours ago, FoxesDeb said:

 

 

I have a genuine question for all those advocating for protecting the vulnerable so everyone else can carry on as normal, how exactly do you foresee that actually happening in practice? If vulnerable people have children of school age, what happens then? If the vulnerable can't work from home, how do they work? 

 

I'm sure I've read stats that show as many as 30% of our population are classified as vulnerable so I am interested to understand how people think it could work

If everyone else carried on as normal, it would make no difference to the vulnerable.  There's no merit in saying that Mr Vulnerable is forced to stop at home so let's make Mr. Healthy stop at home too  because it's fairer.

 

If the healthy catch the disease then herd immunity may come sooner.  That's what we're aiming for, after all, whether by vaccination or otherwise.  If we all stay inside and hide, and the magic vaccine doesn't come, then this thing will never end.  Our lives will become permanently stop-at-home-till-you-die-of-something-else.  

 

The government wants to suspend rule by parliament and to suspend normal civil liberties even to the extent of banning visiting your mother.  If the government wants to do this, they need a damn fine set of evidence.  Not a "we don't know what to do so we'll do something anyway".

 

The government may have this evidence.  Not the farrago that Whitty and Vallance invented last monday, but actual hard evidence, statistical, medical, economic, everything.  Tell the public what is going on, what is expected to happen, why the government is doing what it is, and above all what are they hoping to achieve.  

[Kopfkino]

11 hours ago, dsr-burnley said:

If everyone else carried on as normal, it would make no difference to the vulnerable.  There's no merit in saying that Mr Vulnerable is forced to stop at home so let's make Mr. Healthy stop at home too  because it's fairer.

 

If the healthy catch the disease then herd immunity may come sooner.  That's what we're aiming for, after all, whether by vaccination or otherwise.  If we all stay inside and hide, and the magic vaccine doesn't come, then this thing will never end.  Our lives will become permanently stop-at-home-till-you-die-of-something-else.  

 

The government wants to suspend rule by parliament and to suspend normal civil liberties even to the extent of banning visiting your mother.  If the government wants to do this, they need a damn fine set of evidence.  Not a "we don't know what to do so we'll do something anyway".

 

The government may have this evidence.  Not the farrago that Whitty and Vallance invented last monday, but actual hard evidence, statistical, medical, economic, everything.  Tell the public what is going on, what is expected to happen, why the government is doing what it is, and above all what are they hoping to achieve.  

 

Debs didn't ask for some copybook spiel, she wanted to know how allowing the virus to circulate quite readily amongst a proportion of the population and shielding the other proportion works in practice, given that it's impossible to fully segregate those two blocks of the population.

 

Again, I am all for the idea in theory but I don't think it survives reality.

Edited 26 September 2020 by Kopfkino

[Alf Bentley]

18 hours ago, FoxesDeb said:

 

 

I have a genuine question for all those advocating for protecting the vulnerable so everyone else can carry on as normal, how exactly do you foresee that actually happening in practice? If vulnerable people have children of school age, what happens then? If the vulnerable can't work from home, how do they work? 

 

I'm sure I've read stats that show as many as 30% of our population are classified as vulnerable so I am interested to understand how people think it could work

 

Bump!

 

This is a very good and straightforward question from Deb. It deserves a proper response from those espousing a "protect the vulnerable, everyone else back to normal" stance.

So far, there's only been one response - question avoidance and dishonest rhetoric from @dsr-burnley.

 

How, specifically, do you protect the following vulnerable people?

- A parent with school-age children

- A parent with young adult children at home who go out to study or work

- A person whose partner goes to work, perhaps in a front-line service

- An isolated elderly person who cannot wait for years while you achieve your goal of herd immunity through mass infection of the non-vulnerable

- A person of working age who is the main breadwinner for their family

- A young person with a vulnerability in a house-share with non-vulnerable people

[Alf Bentley]

A second question for people espousing a "protect the vulnerable, everyone else back to normal" stance.....

 

Even assuming it were possible (it's not), how long would vulnerable people have to be "protected" for?

 

We all hope that a vaccine will be viable, but there are no guarantees. The best estimates I can see are that perhaps 6% of the UK population has had Covid.

If so, herd immunity would require at least 10 times more people to catch it than have already had it.

 

If they all somehow caught it quickly, there'd be chaos in employment, society & the NHS. So, I presume you're talking about several years to achieve this?

You're proposing that all vulnerable people, many of working age with lives, jobs & parenting responsibilities, should accept house arrest for an indefinite period that might last years.....

 

....and then you have the gall to present this as a human rights argument!

Well, being told that I have to effectively live under house arrest indefinitely, possibly for years, or accept an imminent risk of death/disability, so as to allow others to get on with their lives isn't my idea of human rights.

It's my idea of "I'm alright, Jack, sod you!" selfishness.

[MonmoreStef]

The use of the word selfish seems to be all the rage lately. People wanting to get back to normal and take risks are labeled selfish for wanting to live their lives.  Could it not be the other way around?  Those scared of the virus for whatever reasons and expecting everyone to follow their examples and accept restrictions can also be viewed as selfish.  They are the minority yet expect the majority to worry about their situations and make sacrifices for them. 

[Strokes]

Obviously it’s a bit vague of a question but I’ve answered yes because we have to find away of getting on whilst the virus remains.

We can’t keep shutting down the economy to keep the virus at bay, so we have to find another way.

Wear your make, wash your hands, keep your distance and isolate when told. That’s how we live with it, too many are very blasé with these simple things and we will all pay the price if we/they continue to be so.

Take some responsibility for this, I bet most of us have broke rules or deliberately misinterpreted them to suit ourselves at times but if we want a world that semi resembles the one we had pre-Covid, we have to help stop it.

[leicsmac]

6 minutes ago, MonmoreStef said:

The use of the word selfish seems to be all the rage lately. People wanting to get back to normal and take risks are labeled selfish for wanting to live their lives.  Could it not be the other way around?  Those scared of the virus for whatever reasons and expecting everyone to follow their examples and accept restrictions can also be viewed as selfish.  They are the minority yet expect the majority to worry about their situations and make sacrifices for them. 

I'm not sure how asking and/or expecting folks to take measures against this virus that might be detrimental to everyone - those asking/doing and those doing - can be seen acting in self-interest.

 

Busybodyish, domineering and unwanted in the eyes of many, but not selfish - as those people have, most often, as much to lose from this spiralling on as anyone else does. They don't personally benefit from the things that they are asking for.

Edited 26 September 2020 by leicsmac