Is it time to learn to live with the virus?

[Trav Le Bleu]

I want to know when the reason for going to university changed from being, "to get a better education" to, "to have a good time with my mates."

 

Every time I hear students complaining about restrictions, it's all a out how its affecting their having a good time, not how it's impinging on their education.

 

Some say it's learning about life. Well, this is life - it's never what you expect.

[Izzy]

4 minutes ago, Trav Le Bleu said:

I want to know when the reason for going to university changed from being, "to get a better education" to, "to have a good time with my mates."

 

Every time I hear students complaining about restrictions, it's all a out how its affecting their having a good time, not how it's impinging on their education.

 

Some say it's learning about life. Well, this is life - it's never what you expect.

Maybe it's about both. I never went to uni and started work at 16 but I do remember the best days of my life being between 18-20, which is how old these students are. You can't blame them for being pissed off really. When you're young, dumb and full of cum, all you want to do is go out, have a good time and get laid.

 

And there's plenty of examples in recent posts and articles about uni's where students are complaining about how this is impinging on their education too tbf

[fox_up_north]

Physically barring them from leaving the building is a step too far, to be honest. It's one thing to shut the student pubs and such but these are, majority, teenagers in their first few weeks away from home.

 

We are a rare nation that actively encourages our students to move away and treat uni as a mixture of learning academia and "becoming an adult". That's a message that WE have created and have allowed to exist.

 

We also cram them into, quite frankly, shoddy accomodation. Putting aside the education for a moment - the vast majority of first year students are expected to stay in halls where they share living space with around 5-7 strangers. My uni had 6 rooms per flat - single bedroom, two shared toilets and a shared kitchen/ shower/ living area. Now they're being told they can't leave that space and are being prevented by security. While being charged upwards of £250 per week for the privilege. 

 

It's a national disgrace that we have allowed this situation to form but money talks. They told them all to get to uni and to the flats, locked them into expensive contracts and then pulled the rug saying all their courses would be online only.

 

I think they should all have a 2 week self isolation period then be sent back to families, if they want, and given refunds on any unused accomodation. 

[tom27111]

28 minutes ago, fox_up_north said:

Physically barring them from leaving the building is a step too far, to be honest. It's one thing to shut the student pubs and such but these are, majority, teenagers in their first few weeks away from home.

 

We are a rare nation that actively encourages our students to move away and treat uni as a mixture of learning academia and "becoming an adult". That's a message that WE have created and have allowed to exist.

 

We also cram them into, quite frankly, shoddy accomodation. Putting aside the education for a moment - the vast majority of first year students are expected to stay in halls where they share living space with around 5-7 strangers. My uni had 6 rooms per flat - single bedroom, two shared toilets and a shared kitchen/ shower/ living area. Now they're being told they can't leave that space and are being prevented by security. While being charged upwards of £250 per week for the privilege. 

 

It's a national disgrace that we have allowed this situation to form but money talks. They told them all to get to uni and to the flats, locked them into expensive contracts and then pulled the rug saying all their courses would be online only.

 

I think they should all have a 2 week self isolation period then be sent back to families, if they want, and given refunds on any unused accomodation. 

 

Covid aside, the problem is that students pay that amount for their halls and, more shockingly, their parents let them.

 

When I went to uni, I got myself a really nice privately rented flat for half the price of student accommodation. 

[dsr-burnley]

5 hours ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

Although there are no guarantees and we may yet have to learn to live with this virus long-term, there seem to be promising signs that a vaccine may become available early in the New Year.

 

You seem to be assuming there will probably never be a workable vaccine. Indeed, you seem to be almost willing this to be the case and to be impatient to get on with your option 3 (herd immunity).

 

As there seems a reasonable chance of a vaccine within a few months, I think it makes sense to have a minimum of restrictions for those few months to save lives and health. Granted, we might need to rethink that strategy if no vaccine appears (and it makes sense to research options now). But there's no reason to assume that restrictions for a few months have to continue indefinitely. 

 

There are degrees of vulnerability and degrees of self-isolation by the vulnerable.

- If infection rates stay low over the next few months, even the risk to the vulnerable will be quite low and limited precautions will suffice (avoiding close contact with lots of people at busy indoor gatherings, mask or handwashing as appropriate etc.)

- If the "non-vulnerable" resume a normal life and infection rates rocket, a lot more people will have to self-isolate to a much greater extent....and many will still be at risk even if they do lock themselves up at home for months (which itself causes financial, employment or mental health problems for many, even if they don't get infected by a "non-vulnerable" family member).

 

The outlook will vary from one person to another. For me, under the first scenario I'd be able to mostly carry on as before (just not going into other people's houses, not going to gigs, avoiding packed pubs or football matches). Under the second scenario, I'd be at risk each time my daughter returns home and each time I leave the house.

 

Just imagine there was a new Covid revelation - that people with the user name Alf Bentley had zero Covid vulnerability and people with the user name dsr-burnley were highly vulnerable.....

Under your preferred Option 3, we presumably wouldn't wait to see if a vaccine materialises. The lucky majority including me would just get on with our normal lives and allow Covid to run riot, while you'd have to either run a major health risk or place yourself under long-term house arrest. How long would that house arrest last if herd immunity took years? Who knows and who cares, eh? And who knows how you'd be protected if a member of your household has to leave the house? None of that would matter, so long as I could get on with my normal life immediately and not endure some restrictions for a few months. 

 

No, you're still missing my point.  You're still working on the basis that if the country has rules like Sweden then the virus would be far far worse than it has been so far (unlike Sweden) and would go on for ever and ever (unlike Sweden).  As long as you are convinced that behaving like Sweden would give results worse than any other system that has ever been tried (including Sweden) then you will obviously continue to hate the idea.  But I can't see any evidence that any result would be much worse than we have now.

 

My point is and remains that option 3 needs to be considered because it could be better for the vulnerable than options 1 and 2.  I am not saying this because I want people to die.  I am saying this because I believe that it may result in fewer people dying. 

 

How about this for a supposition.  If there is a vulnerable person in the house, and the disease becomes as severe or worse as it was in March/April, then the vulnerable do as they did then.  Either they all lock down together, or they separate and live separately.  That's what I would do with my mother, who I live with and therefore I have to lockdown too.  How would my mother be protected if I had to leave the house?  We solved that by me not leaving the house very much at all, and then only for outdoors and shoppiing once every 3 weeks.  It mattered.  It still matters.  

[Captain...]

6 hours ago, FoxesDeb said:

Subject me to Center Parcs? I'd rather take my chances with Covid! No, joking aside, 30% of our population are classified as vulnerable. What's that, about 20 million people? Plus their dependants? I can't be bothered to Google the capacity of our Center Parcs and Butlins, I already know it's nowhere near that 

According to this:

 

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/conditionsanddiseases/bulletins/coronavirusandshieldingofclinicallyextremelyvulnerablepeopleinengland/28mayto3june2020

 

2.2 million where asked to shield as needing clinically extremely vulnerable.

 

I'm not sure exactly what that definition of cev is, and how many people are just vulnerable. I think that we have reached a point with treatment that fewer people are actually at risk of dying.

 

I do think their needs to be a tiered approach, those that will probably die if they get it, those that will need to be hospitalised, those that need to be careful for secondary reasons and those that can do what they want. 

[fox_up_north]

8 hours ago, tom27111 said:

 

Covid aside, the problem is that students pay that amount for their halls and, more shockingly, their parents let them.

 

When I went to uni, I got myself a really nice privately rented flat for half the price of student accommodation. 

I'd go along with that. The problem is so many universities market it as the default (and sometimes only) option. It's almost become de facto to go into halls. 

 

The sector massively needs cleaning up and I do think we need to push staying at home more. A study came out a while back showing a third of Europeans stay home whereas for us it's about 20% and the vast majority of those are from Asian families. 

 

What the hell did they expect putting all these young people in buildings and locking them up. It's the same concept as the care home problem. These kids (and they are kids) should have stayed at home and phased returns. 

[UniFox21]

8 hours ago, tom27111 said:

 

Covid aside, the problem is that students pay that amount for their halls and, more shockingly, their parents let them.

 

When I went to uni, I got myself a really nice privately rented flat for half the price of student accommodation. 

The whole cost of university in general needs a huge refresh. Restrictions need putting in place for the prices of halls as the cost of some is ridiculous. Halls for me was one of the best parts of uni, but they don't half milk you for it. 

[Nalis]

50 minutes ago, UniFox21 said:

The whole cost of university in general needs a huge refresh. Restrictions need putting in place for the prices of halls as the cost of some is ridiculous. Halls for me was one of the best parts of uni, but they don't half milk you for it. 

I think this is the thing isnt it? It was a key part of my uni experience and expands the pool of people you can be mates with. You might not be mates with everyone but you will be likely to find some people with common interests if you are looking for mates. Three friends in my closest friendship group were from 1st year halls 18 years ago but we got lucky with our year group as they increased fees massively in the following academic year.

Edited 27 September 2020 by Nalis

[UniFox21]

2 minutes ago, Nalis said:

I think this is the thing isnt it? It was a key part of my uni experience and expands the pool of people you can be mates with. You might not be mates with everyone but you will be likely to find some people with common interests if you are looking for mates. Three friends in my closest friendship group were from 1st year halls 18 years ago but we got lucky with our year group as they increased fees massively in the following academic year.

It's a huge part of uni experience for me, you're all learning to live independently away from your parents together. It's a brilliant experience and one I wouldn't swap. And it's that that lets uni's get away with charging so much. 

[Alf Bentley]

13 hours ago, Izzy said:

Here's the thing Deb and apologies if it sounds a bit morbid (and selfish)

 

I've had so many heath scares over the years that I'm passed caring. I've nearly died twice in the past and needed emergency surgery both times and I'm not scared in the slightest about dying. If I catch Covid and that's the end then so be it. I've had a good innings, seen and done what I've wanted in life and have no complaints.

 

As I said in the other thread, I'm more concerned now about the wellbeing of my kids. They're at an age where they crave social interaction and a good education (not home schooling) so I'm more bothered that they don't suffer (mentally) due to any further restrictions.

 

I'll still play by the rules but I fear for their future. The economy is going to the dogs and they're the ones who will struggle to get a job/buy a house etc. in the future. 

 

I don't know what the answer is and quite frankly it's above my pay grade, but we've got a young generation who are being deprived of enjoying the best time of their life to the max right now and I feel sorry for them. 

 

 

That's not the attitude, Izzy, you're not being selfish enough!

 

Just think of all the fun you'll have with extra time on your hands once the little blighters are launched into adulthood. Not least ruining other people's lives by doubling your joke flow into the joke thread. 

 

As well as enjoying knowing them as adults, watching their progress & helping them out (hopefully not too often), wouldn't they also rather miss you if you unnecessarily left the stage too early?

 

I had the impression that your kids were still a few years off adulthood, anyway? If so, a lot can change by then. Of course, there might be long-term adverse economic effects of Covid. But it might be a brief memory by then if a vaccine is found and some economic rebuilding is then done. There's every chance that other issues might have more impact on their employment, housing & enjoyment by then - e.g. climate change, govt policy, markets, technical change or some new event.

 

11 hours ago, Izzy said:

Maybe it's about both. I never went to uni and started work at 16 but I do remember the best days of my life being between 18-20, which is how old these students are. You can't blame them for being pissed off really. When you're young, dumb and full of cum, all you want to do is go out, have a good time and get laid.

 

And there's plenty of examples in recent posts and articles about uni's where students are complaining about how this is impinging on their education too tbf

 

I'd say that it is both - and you can also throw in the role of uni as a bridge between childhood and adulthood for a lot of young people.

The balance between study, fun and growing up will depend on the individual.

 

I went twice - first time at 18, when I dropped out after 2 years, then again at 30 when I stayed the course.

Even though I dropped out first time, the experience was invaluable to me as it gave me that bridge into adulthood. As an insecure, shy, fvcked-up teenager, it allowed me to move away from home, make good friends, develop interests, grow up - and have a good time with mates. When I went back at 30, although I had a good time and developed interests, my focus was much more on studying and getting a good education.

[Alf Bentley]

11 hours ago, dsr-burnley said:

No, you're still missing my point.  You're still working on the basis that if the country has rules like Sweden then the virus would be far far worse than it has been so far (unlike Sweden) and would go on for ever and ever (unlike Sweden).  As long as you are convinced that behaving like Sweden would give results worse than any other system that has ever been tried (including Sweden) then you will obviously continue to hate the idea.  But I can't see any evidence that any result would be much worse than we have now.

 

My point is and remains that option 3 needs to be considered because it could be better for the vulnerable than options 1 and 2.  I am not saying this because I want people to die.  I am saying this because I believe that it may result in fewer people dying. 

 

How about this for a supposition.  If there is a vulnerable person in the house, and the disease becomes as severe or worse as it was in March/April, then the vulnerable do as they did then.  Either they all lock down together, or they separate and live separately.  That's what I would do with my mother, who I live with and therefore I have to lockdown too.  How would my mother be protected if I had to leave the house?  We solved that by me not leaving the house very much at all, and then only for outdoors and shoppiing once every 3 weeks.  It mattered.  It still matters.  

 

I'm aware that we need to look at wider impacts (including economy & mental health) and to judge things in the long term. But, if your focus is on minimising deaths, the evidence so far doesn't look good for the Swedish model:

Deaths per million: Denmark 112, Finland 62, Norway 50........Sweden 581 (almost as bad as the UK at 617). 

 

If the best possible outcome is minimum deaths/health problems and minimum disruption to normal life, surely Germany or S. Korea are better models - deaths per million: 114 & 8 (!), respectively?

Complex situations, but achieving an effective test, trace and isolate system seems to have been key to those countries' success.....and we're more likely to achieve that from a low starting base of infections, not by allowing Covid to run rampage. [Edit]: Heard this morning that the Bundesliga will be able to have fans in stadia due to good quality testing data on local infection rates - if infection rate in a local area rises above 35, no fans will be admitted but otherwise it will be possible for at least some fans to attend....unlike here for many months, probably.

 

I'm guessing that your commitment to minimum restrictions and the Swedish model is due to you prioritising an ideological distaste for state intervention?

 

I can see how staying at home with your mother would work for you, assuming you don't need to work/study outside the home and she's beyond working age. It worked OK for me during the first wave, as my daughter's school had closed down. That's not the case now. Maybe schools and college classes will end up getting stopped, either through another full lockdown or piecemeal due to lots of kids getting infected and classmates having to self-isolate. But for now she'll be going into college, possibly getting infected (distancing measures notwithstanding) and potentially bringing that infection back to me or to her mother....not a lot we can do about that risk, apart from the usual distancing/handwashing, unless we want to stop her education - which we don't - and it seems schools/colleges will only close in extremis this time (rightly so).

 

Lots of other vulnerable people cannot avoid contact with people at risk of infection - parents of schoolkids, partners of front-line workers, parents who live with those who cannot work from home etc. How easy is it going to be for vulnerable partners or elderly parents to live separately, never mind under-age kids of such people?

Edited 27 September 2020 by Alf Bentley

[FoxesDeb]

13 hours ago, Izzy said:

No we're not really that restricted - at the moment. But who knows what the future holds and how long until we get a vaccine. I'm O.K. with the current set up as long as schools don't get closed down again for a significant period of time.

 

On the economy, I don't think we realise yet what the knock on effects of all this will be. My sense is we'll be paying for this for years and are facing a period of mass unemployment with certain markets and sectors being well and truly fvcked for a long time. Many businesses are on the brink and another 6 months + of this may well tip them over the edge.

 

Remember my kids hate me so they don't give a fvck if I'm here or not 

 

The last 6 months has been tough for them but they're O.K. now they're back at school with some structure. As long as they stay at school with some sort of normality in their lives then I'm happy. They're still missing out on certain clubs that have been cancelled and if restrictions get tighter then they might not be able to nip round their mates house as normal. 

 

They'll probably have have to rely more on Zoom and Facetime which will turn them into bigger social retards than they currently are. 

 

 

Damn I thought it was only your wife, that's why I deliberately didn't mention her 

 

[Wymsey]

'Living' with the virus sounds as if there'll be no cure/vaccine against it, which sounds quite defeatist.

 

Need to successfully fight against it as soon as possible, to safeguard human health, mass employment etc.

[FoxesDeb]

13 hours ago, Strokes said:

Hmm, I think you forget what time is like as a kid. My kids are 9 and 10 and if this goes on another 6 months they will have spent 10% of their lives with Covid restrictions of some sort. 
I can see the effect it’s having on them already and I know this will have a huge bearing on the rest of their lives.

I wish I knew what the right answer was, but if another full lockdown happens, I think we kiss goodbye to the world we knew.

Maybe you're right, my childhood is a long way behind me now. But actual lockdown is a long way behind us now too, we aren't really restricted very much now are we? My children are a little older than yours, but I honestly don't feel it's had an effect on them really, I mean obviously they've missed some things, but I wouldn't say any of it has actually affected them, we've just had to adapt. Plus my 16 year old son avoided having to sit his GCSE's, which he sees as a bonus

 

I don't share your confidence that it will have a huge bearing on the rest of their lives either really, do you mean emotionally? Or financially with the potential impact on the housing and employment markets? Maybe I'm a bit too optimistic, I don't know, but really we have no idea what the future holds do we? If it does have a massive impact on their whole lives it could be positive, you never know 

[Captain...]

7 minutes ago, FoxesDeb said:

Maybe you're right, my childhood is a long way behind me now. But actual lockdown is a long way behind us now too, we aren't really restricted very much now are we? My children are a little older than yours, but I honestly don't feel it's had an effect on them really, I mean obviously they've missed some things, but I wouldn't say any of it has actually affected them, we've just had to adapt. Plus my 16 year old son avoided having to sit his GCSE's, which he sees as a bonus

 

I don't share your confidence that it will have a huge bearing on the rest of their lives either really, do you mean emotionally? Or financially with the potential impact on the housing and employment markets? Maybe I'm a bit too optimistic, I don't know, but really we have no idea what the future holds do we? If it does have a massive impact on their whole lives it could be positive, you never know 

I think there will be some positives that come out of it, such as greater flexibility at work to work from home, we've relocated from London because we can now both work from home so we can continue our jobs whilst living in something bigger than a shoebox.

 

People will have a greater appreciation of "key workers" and the NHS but all of that will disappear quickly if we are plunged into a crippling recession and people will revert back to selfish type.

[MonmoreStef]

The extent of the restrictions depend on what you do for work and what your social life would normally be. Saying we are not really restricted is wrong. There are millions of people massively affected by the restrictions due to the industry they work in.  I have empathy, for one example, for anyone involved in the hospitality industry. It must be hell for them reading comments saying we are not really restricted when they are stuck in a hole unable to earn like they were say last year. It’s very easy for people mainly unaffected by the restrictions to claim we are not really affected. We might not be under house arrest but we are still limited in what we can do. 

[FoxesDeb]

30 minutes ago, MonmoreStef said:

The extent of the restrictions depend on what you do for work and what your social life would normally be. Saying we are not really restricted is wrong. There are millions of people massively affected by the restrictions due to the industry they work in.  I have empathy, for one example, for anyone involved in the hospitality industry. It must be hell for them reading comments saying we are not really restricted when they are stuck in a hole unable to earn like they were say last year. It’s very easy for people mainly unaffected by the restrictions to claim we are not really affected. We might not be under house arrest but we are still limited in what we can do. 

Very much like the millions of vulnerable people reading other people saying 'I'm not at risk from the virus, so everyone needs to get back to normal because I don't like the restrictions', I guess. 

 

 

[Strokes]

1 hour ago, FoxesDeb said:

Maybe you're right, my childhood is a long way behind me now. But actual lockdown is a long way behind us now too, we aren't really restricted very much now are we? My children are a little older than yours, but I honestly don't feel it's had an effect on them really, I mean obviously they've missed some things, but I wouldn't say any of it has actually affected them, we've just had to adapt. Plus my 16 year old son avoided having to sit his GCSE's, which he sees as a bonus

 

I don't share your confidence that it will have a huge bearing on the rest of their lives either really, do you mean emotionally? Or financially with the potential impact on the housing and employment markets? Maybe I'm a bit too optimistic, I don't know, but really we have no idea what the future holds do we? If it does have a massive impact on their whole lives it could be positive, you never know 

My kids have gone from very active and outgoing to hermits that won’t do anything without the other one.

Me and my son would spend 15-20 hours a week on his motocross hobby which he loved but he won’t do it now. She won’t do dance after a Teams fiasco, He won’t ride his bike because he has had to move up to a bigger bike because of his age and it makes him nervous. They don’t go out on the front and play on their bikes anymore and just have a distinct lack of interest in any activity. If they were not the age that they are I would say they were depressed. Both now need to sleep with the light on, I mean I could go on, it’s like they aren’t the same kids.

Ours went back to school whilst they were closed as we are key workers, so maybe their experience was what’s attributing to their behaviour?

I certainly don’t fancy going through the same thing again though.

[Guest Fktf]

The uni thing is a fiasco. Halls essentially like sending millions of people to live on a cruise ship - and we all know what happened there. 

Edited 27 September 2020 by Fktf

[FoxesDeb]

1 minute ago, Strokes said:

My kids have gone from very active and outgoing to hermits that won’t do anything without the other one.

Me and my son would spend 15-20 hours a week on his motocross hobby which he loved but he won’t do it now. She won’t do dance after a Teams fiasco, He won’t ride his bike because he has had to move up to a bigger bike because of his age and it makes him nervous. They don’t go out on the front and play on their bikes anymore and just have a distinct lack of interest in any activity. If they were not the age that they are I would say they were depressed. Both now need to sleep with the light on, I mean I could go on, it’s like they aren’t the same kids.

Ours went back to school whilst they were closed as we are key workers, so maybe their experience was what’s attributing to their behaviour?

I certainly don’t fancy going through the same thing again though.

I would have thought a bit of continuity was better, but maybe it's worse because there were so few other children, IDK? My partners children are 7 and 9, and they continued with school throughout lockdown too. I don't think they enjoyed it much, but at least it kept a bit of a routine. 

 

Is it possible that their interests have naturally changed as they've grown? Or they just don't want to do anything, new or otherwise? My daughter used to be mad for horse riding, like it consumed her whole life, but then she instantly went off it overnight and I was amazed.

 

Depression is possible in children isn't it? @Izzy will be along with some better knowledge I'm sure.

 

I feel for you though, it must be difficult. And I can see why you don't want it to carry on.

 

Or is it actually because I promised you my ST if I cop for Covid? 

[Strokes]

1 hour ago, FoxesDeb said:

I would have thought a bit of continuity was better, but maybe it's worse because there were so few other children, IDK? My partners children are 7 and 9, and they continued with school throughout lockdown too. I don't think they enjoyed it much, but at least it kept a bit of a routine. 

 

Is it possible that their interests have naturally changed as they've grown? Or they just don't want to do anything, new or otherwise? My daughter used to be mad for horse riding, like it consumed her whole life, but then she instantly went off it overnight and I was amazed.

 

Depression is possible in children isn't it? @Izzy will be along with some better knowledge I'm sure.

 

I feel for you though, it must be difficult. And I can see why you don't want it to carry on.

 

Or is it actually because I promised you my ST if I cop for Covid? 

Thanks Debs,

I don’t think it’s natural no, if it was just one isolated thing then I’d accept it and move on to something else.

I do think all our vulnerable people should be considered, which includes our children and young adults but I’m not advocating a return to normal, far from it. I hope, if we all respect the restrictions and try to douse the fires when they appear, we can recover economically and psychologically. I do think a second national lockdown should be avoided at all costs.

[Izzy]

1 hour ago, FoxesDeb said:

I would have thought a bit of continuity was better, but maybe it's worse because there were so few other children, IDK? My partners children are 7 and 9, and they continued with school throughout lockdown too. I don't think they enjoyed it much, but at least it kept a bit of a routine. 

 

Is it possible that their interests have naturally changed as they've grown? Or they just don't want to do anything, new or otherwise? My daughter used to be mad for horse riding, like it consumed her whole life, but then she instantly went off it overnight and I was amazed.

 

Depression is possible in children isn't it? @Izzy will be along with some better knowledge I'm sure.

 

I feel for you though, it must be difficult. And I can see why you don't want it to carry on.

 

Or is it actually because I promised you my ST if I cop for Covid? 

It is possible but only about 3% of children under 13 suffer from clinical depression and 6% under 18.

 

Kids can suffer from anxiety which can lead to depression if not diagnosed early though. My daughter is nearly 14 and suffers anxiety and OCD and unless her third attempt at therapy works, I can see her being a nailed on case for depression in later life.

 

I agree with @Strokes point about some kids becoming hermits atm and being in their 'bubble' during these restrictions isn't helping their long term wellbeing imo.

 

Some kids are robust and will get through this no problem but some are fragile and struggling. Hopefully by this time next year we'll all be back to normal but I'm not holding my breath tbh.