Coronavirus precautions: Has the world gone mad?

[VauxhallandI]

I wasn’t sure where to post this so apologies if you think it’s the wrong thread.

For the record today is our day 100 at home and we have been observing what I have interpreted to be the laws (not the Cummings laws) to the letter whilst the majority of our neighbours haven’t. I just want you to understand my activities may be different to what my question might portray them to be.

I understand the lockdown from the perspective that we needed to pause the strain on our hospitals and to build capacity and equipment inventory such as ventilators.

This part of the plan seems to have worked, to the point that the nightingale hospitals were largely unused; which isn’t a criticism.

What I need help around is that bar that nothing has changed and we have now effectively ended lockdown; it’s just with a view caveats some virtuous and some sensible.

I don’t understand why this didn’t happen sooner once the resiliency was built into our infrastructure? I feel we have been sat here for no reason.

If we sat here until next month and there was a vaccine ready it would have made sense. Understandably that is not the case; so what has changed to make this extra wait worthwhile?

What have I missed that makes now the time (outside of the economic reasons)?

 

[JonathanH]

I wasn’t sure where to post this so apologies if you think it’s the wrong thread.

For the record today is our day 100 at home and we have been observing what I have interpreted to be the laws (not the Cummings laws) to the letter whilst the majority of our neighbours haven’t. I just want you to understand my activities may be different to what my question might portray them to be.

I understand the lockdown from the perspective that we needed to pause the strain on our hospitals and to build capacity and equipment inventory such as ventilators.

This part of the plan seems to have worked, to the point that the nightingale hospitals were largely unused; which isn’t a criticism.

What I need help around is that bar that nothing has changed and we have now effectively ended lockdown; it’s just with a view caveats some virtuous and some sensible.

I don’t understand why this didn’t happen sooner once the resiliency was built into our infrastructure? I feel we have been sat here for no reason.

If we sat here until next month and there was a vaccine ready it would have made sense. Understandably that is not the case; so what has changed to make this extra wait worthwhile?

What have I missed that makes now the time (outside of the economic reasons)?

The issue is that the virus isn't going away and we can't eliminate it. Therefore, having got ourselves back into the position we were in during February and March, with a different mix of people currently with the virus and slightly more understanding in the general public around the risks we face, we can try again to manage the virus.

If people take precautions the spread of the virus will be slower than if people don't take precautions. We are free to decide to continue to stay out of circulation if we feel it appropriate.

If the virus starts spreading badly again, it is fairly straightforward (other than from a financial sense) to lock us all down again, perhaps on a local level.

The reason we have had a staged release from the restrictions is almost certainly so as not to have a one off release of restrictions which would send even more of the wrong message.

Therefore, the response to "I feel we have been sat here for no reason" is that it takes time to phase the resiliency across multiple areas of our infrastructure - eg not all shops can source and fit perspex at the same time, not all people can have access to PPE - it needs to be phased.

 

[Bletchleyite]

On other recent journeys with East Midlands Railway and Avanti West Coast, there were plenty of messages saying please do not sit in an aisle seat in order to make it "safe" for other passengers or staff who had to pass down the train.

Now how come it is "safe" to sit in an aisle seat on Transport for Wales trains, but not on East Midlands Railway and Avanit West Coast?

The answer of course is that it is safe to sit in an aisle seat on all trains, but this is an example of train companies interpreting the regulations differently and making up rules that are a complete load of rubbish, and have no scientific basis whatsoever.

The real answer to this is that if you give the same scenario to two different, equally-experienced people, and ask them to do a risk assessment and come up with mitigation measures, you won't get the same answer from both of them, what you'll get is two different but broadly equivalent results.

Using just the window seats means you're further away from the person on the opposite side of the train, but means you're slightly closer to the one two rows back, for example.

It would be possible for the railway to have one set of rules with RDG doing the RA, but if you give it to each TOC as they have done you will inevitably get a slightly different outcome.

The issue is that the virus isn't going away and we can't eliminate it. Therefore, having got ourselves back into the position we were in during February and March, with a different mix of people currently with the virus and slightly more understanding in the general public around the risks we face, we can try again to manage the virus.

Precisely. The lockdown has been a "reset button" to effectively give us another chance at what we failed to do back then. We now need to try again. If we get it wrong again, we could lock down again, though with much more economic damage.

 

[VauxhallandI]

The issue is that the virus isn't going away and we can't eliminate it. Therefore, having got ourselves back into the position we were in during February and March, with a different mix of people currently with the virus and slightly more understanding in the general public around the risks we face, we can try again to manage the virus.

If people take precautions the spread of the virus will be slower than if people don't take precautions. We are free to decide to continue to stay out of circulation if we feel it appropriate.

If the virus starts spreading badly again, it is fairly straightforward (other than from a financial sense) to lock us all down again, perhaps on a local level.

The reason we have had a staged release from the restrictions is almost certainly so as not to have a one off release of restrictions which would send even more of the wrong message.

Therefore, the response to "I feel we have been sat here for no reason" is that it takes time to phase the resiliency across multiple areas of our infrastructure - eg not all shops can source and fit perspex at the same time, not all people can have access to PPE - it needs to be phased.

It almost sounds like a plan

My main fear is that if thy ask us to reverse and lockdown that it won’t work this time

 

[Huntergreed]

It almost sounds like a plan

My main fear is that if thy ask us to reverse and lockdown that it won’t work this time

If we are forced to lockdown again, this will have very, very serious economic consequences and likely leave us with one of if not the most damaged economy on the planet.

We must do everything we possibly can to prevent a second lockdown. It is worth bearing in mind that the purpose of the lockdown was to prevent the NHS from being overwhelmed, not to reduce transmission. Indeed if we had completely sealed off care homes, implemented the shielding advice and allowed the virus to work through the population, as was initially intended, we may have been in a considerably better position than we are now. We now have a very low level of immunity in the population, the virus has had a massive toll on those most vulnerable as we did not successfully lock off care homes, and our advice to 'shield' came too late.

If cases do start to emerge, immediate intervention is likely to happen, through contact tracing and potentially localised lockdowns in the event of community transmission in a certain area. What we cannot afford to do again, without risking complete economic collapse, is to have another period of sustained national lockdown.

The lessons we have learned during the past 12 weeks must be taken seriously and we must apply what we now have with full force to prevent us getting to the stage where the NHS may be overwhelmed again, as not doing so will have extremely serious consequences.

 

[VauxhallandI]

I did say it was to build the infrastructure. So if there is a second wave we just herd it out which puts us back to the only reason we spend x extra weeks inside was because we couldn’t order enough Perspex or face masks.

 

[scarby]

Sweden's chief epidemiologist Anders Tegnell told SVT Radio that the country's strategy is a "classic pandemic model" that he had been discussing with international colleagues for 20 years.

He said that then "it was as if the world went mad and everything we discussed seemed completely forgotten".

He added: "We know, for example, that it is negative not to meet others, it creates loneliness. The isolation of couples increases the risk of domestic abuse. Not working and being unemployed greatly increases the risk of many illnesses in the long run. Closing schools is the most obvious example. Children who do not attend school lose a social context, miss school meals and risk not getting valid final grades. Factors that greatly affect their chances of living life in good health."

 

[Huntergreed]

I've just had a rather heated debate with a classmate at university with regards to the precautions in place and whether they should be kept on for longer or not.

Their argument was:

• Keep all businesses apart from supermarkets and pharmacies closed until a vaccine, and enforce 2 metre distancing in face masks in all these areas
• Keep schools, colleges and universities closed and move to a fully online approach to education until a vaccine
• Hospitality should not reopen until a vaccine
• Travel should be restricted to 5 miles only until a vaccine
• Exercise should not be permitted until a vaccine
• Stop running public transport until a vaccine

I tried to explain to them that this was ludicrously over the top and that their stance essentially would mean economic ruin within a month. Their counterargument to everything I said was 'but people are dying!', and whilst yes this is true, it's very important to put things into perspective and start to, as a nation, think more rationally.

They are not the only person I know with these views either. A lot of people on my university course have similar views, with some even considering ending their studies due to needing to use public transport and being too afraid to do so or needing to attend univeristy and leave their home.

These views I hope are extreme ones, but I know that they're out there and as soon as the government announce an easing people will cry out 'KEEP US LOCKED DOWN!', it needs to stop now.

 

[JonathanH]

I've just had a rather heated debate with a classmate at university with regards to the precautions in place and whether they should be kept on for longer or not.

Their argument was:

• Keep all businesses apart from supermarkets and pharmacies closed until a vaccine, and enforce 2 metre distancing in face masks in all these areas
• Keep schools, colleges and universities closed and move to a fully online approach to education until a vaccine
• Hospitality should not reopen until a vaccine
• Travel should be restricted to 5 miles only until a vaccine
• Exercise should not be permitted until a vaccine
• Stop running public transport until a vaccine

I tried to explain to them that this was ludicrously over the top and that their stance essentially would mean economic ruin within a month. Their counterargument to everything I said was 'but people are dying!', and whilst yes this is true, it's very important to put things into perspective and start to, as a nation, think more rationally.

They are not the only person I know with these views either. A lot of people on my university course have similar views, with some even considering ending their studies due to needing to use public transport and being too afraid to do so or needing to attend univeristy and leave their home.

These views I hope are extreme ones, but I know that they're out there and as soon as the government announce an easing people will cry out 'KEEP US LOCKED DOWN!', it needs to stop now.

While you have valid points, if deaths start to rise again, there will be considerable outrage and, if not addressed, will lead to a further downward trend in the support for the government.

The only measure relevant to many people, including your classmate, is deaths with Covid-19 on the certificate.

 

[underbank]

I'm more worried about the minority who don't want to take any precautions at all, don't respect the majority who do wish to take precautions, and think everything should just return to exactly how it was back in January. The ones who have completely forgotten that schools and hospitals were closing in early/mid March due to staff calling in sick or self isolating due to symptoms or their household members being ill with covid.

 

[Scotrail12]

I've just had a rather heated debate with a classmate at university with regards to the precautions in place and whether they should be kept on for longer or not.

Their argument was:

• Keep all businesses apart from supermarkets and pharmacies closed until a vaccine, and enforce 2 metre distancing in face masks in all these areas
• Keep schools, colleges and universities closed and move to a fully online approach to education until a vaccine
• Hospitality should not reopen until a vaccine
• Travel should be restricted to 5 miles only until a vaccine
• Exercise should not be permitted until a vaccine
• Stop running public transport until a vaccine

Don't play chess with a pigeon. Ignorance is bliss (and they sure as hell are ignorant to all things non COVID related) but I'm sure that won't be the case if the economy is decimated in the next year.

 

[MikeWM]

While you have valid points, if deaths start to rise again, there will be considerable outrage and, if not addressed, will lead to a further downward trend in the support for the government.

The Government's fault for making this a political matter rather than a public health matter. This has never happened before for any epidemic, but I guess the current lot of politicians haven't heard of King Canute.

 

[Huntergreed]

While you have valid points, if deaths start to rise again, there will be considerable outrage and, if not addressed, will lead to a further downward trend in the support for the government.

The only measure relevant to many people, including your classmate, is deaths.

But that's the point.

My classmate has absolutely no concern for the economy, deaths from other causes, education, mental wellbeing. We as a nation are fixated on getting 0 deaths from this virus, which is going to be in my opinion impossible. We're going to have to make it clear that there will be background transmission with this virus, but we're not showing daily economic statistics, unemployment rises, or deaths from other causes. The government are entirely to blame for scaring the population in and now they have the responsibility of calming them down, otherwise we're going to be living in a state of fear for many years to come which will result in irreparable economic damage.

 

[MikeWM]

They are not the only person I know with these views either. A lot of people on my university course have similar views, with some even considering ending their studies due to needing to use public transport and being too afraid to do so or needing to attend univeristy and leave their home.

These views I hope are extreme ones, but I know that they're out there and as soon as the government announce an easing people will cry out 'KEEP US LOCKED DOWN!', it needs to stop now.

Among many other things, the approach of the Government is creating a severe mental health crisis. Many will be deeply scarred for many years and display irrational behaviour such as you're describing here

 

[JonathanH]

But that's the point.

My classmate has absolutely no concern for the economy, deaths from other causes, education, mental wellbeing. We as a nation are fixated on getting 0 deaths from this virus, which is going to be in my opinion impossible. We're going to have to make it clear that there will be background transmission with this virus, but we're not showing daily economic statistics, unemployment rises, or deaths from other causes. The government are entirely to blame for scaring the population in and now they have the responsibility of calming them down, otherwise we're going to be living in a state of fear for many years to come which will result in irreparable economic damage.

Yes, it clearly is extreme. How worried is your classmate about the higher number of deaths which will occur today because it is slightly warmer than it was at the weekend?

 

[Huntergreed]

Among many other things, the approach of the Government is creating a severe mental health crisis. Many will be deeply scarred for many years and display irrational behaviour such as you're describing here

Exactly. I've argued before that I believe a change in approach in necessary. Right now we're living in a state driven by fear, where citizens are deliberately being scared by those in power to make them look good (ie a fall in deaths).

It quite frankly must stop and we need to adapt a more well balanced approach to the crisis. By all means I recognise that we must make an effort to prevent this virus from spreading to those in care homes and those in the 'shielded' groups, where death is more likely, but we cannot destroy the economy, mental health, the education of our children, or control the population through scare tactics more suited to an orwellian novel whilst doing so.

 

[MikeWM]

Exactly. I've argued before that I believe a change in approach in necessary. Right now we're living in a state driven by fear, where citizens are deliberately being scared by those in power to make them look good (ie a fall in deaths).

It certainly is deliberate. Here's a direct quote from the released SAGE papers

https://assets.publishing.service.g...ce-to-social-distancing-measures-22032020.pdf

Perceived threat: A substantial number of people still do not feel sufficiently personally threatened. The perceived level of personal threat needs to be increased among those who are complacent, using hard-hitting emotional messaging.

(their bold, not mine!)

That's the scientists telling the government to threaten us. Personally. With no regard to the effects.

 

[Huntergreed]

It certainly is deliberate. Here's a direct quote from the released SAGE papers

https://assets.publishing.service.g...ce-to-social-distancing-measures-22032020.pdf

(their bold, not mine!)

That's the scientists telling the government to threaten us. Personally. With no regard to the effects.

This in itself is quite disgusting. The goverment are being advised by scientists to instill fear into a population for their own benefit.

This is the most 'orwellian' or 'dystopian' thing I have ever seen. It's completely shameful on the part of both scientists and government that this was allowed to happen and the medium-long term effects of this when trying to reopen the economy will be significant and devastating.

 

[Bantamzen]

It certainly is deliberate. Here's a direct quote from the released SAGE papers

https://assets.publishing.service.g...ce-to-social-distancing-measures-22032020.pdf

(their bold, not mine!)

That's the scientists telling the government to threaten us. Personally. With no regard to the effects.

Un-freaking-believable...

 

[Bikeman78]

It certainly is deliberate. Here's a direct quote from the released SAGE papers

https://assets.publishing.service.g...ce-to-social-distancing-measures-22032020.pdf

(their bold, not mine!)

That's the scientists telling the government to threaten us. Personally. With no regard to the effects.

But why did it work? Even in March, a quick Google search revealed that the chances of kids being affected was basically zero, and people under 60 were also very unlikely to get seriously ill. At which point I stopped worrying.

 

[Huntergreed]

But why did it work? Even in March, a quick Google search revealed that the chances of kids being affected was basically zero, and people under 60 were also very unlikely to get seriously ill. At which point I stopped worrying.

Because a large majority of the population do not have the motivation to conduct their own research on such matters.

I’m willing to bet it we stopped announcing daily death rates and started announcing daily unemployment rates then people would be screaming “REOPEN EVERYTHING!!”, a large majority of people in this country will believe anything the government and media tell them, and then they are extremely vocal with their own views, adding fuel to the fire.

 

[MikeWM]

But why did it work? Even in March, a quick Google search revealed that the chances of kids being affected was basically zero, and people under 60 were also very unlikely to get seriously ill. At which point I stopped worrying.

Usual principle of 'say something often enough, people believe it'. Governments know it works. It doesn't matter how true or exaggerated it is.

How many people in late March/early April were getting a platform to explain on the TV or in the press the age-profile of the disease?

Conversely, there was a vast amount of coverage in the media of the very small number of young, healthy people who had got seriously ill or died (even though it turned out may of them weren't that healthy after all). And the Government's advert, repeated ad nauseam on the TV at that point, said in a very sombre voice 'anyone can get it' over images of people in intensive care.

 

[Bantamzen]

But why did it work? Even in March, a quick Google search revealed that the chances of kids being affected was basically zero, and people under 60 were also very unlikely to get seriously ill. At which point I stopped worrying.

One can only guess, but if he were alive Freud would be rubbing his hands together and ordering the biggest couch he could find....

 

[bramling]

But why did it work? Even in March, a quick Google search revealed that the chances of kids being affected was basically zero, and people under 60 were also very unlikely to get seriously ill. At which point I stopped worrying.

This was certainly the gist of the messaging coming out, and perhaps didn’t help things. It’s quite clear more could and should have been done early on. Boris himself appears to have been stung by early complacency.

 

[JonathanH]

Part of the problem is that this is an incredibly bad time to have a death in the family, even of natural causes. With smaller funerals than before, difficulty in seeing family and the nastiness of Covid-19 death, people are fearful in a way they wouldn't be about death normally.

 

[talldave]

Coronaphobia has proven what some of us already knew, that large numbers of people are thick and believe everything they read on social media.

I've danced around my elderly parents because they're vulnerable and have pointed out to them that nothing has changed since lockdown started so masks and generally avoiding crowds might be an idea.

Everyone I know who's had it has recovered and got on with life. The best thing that could happen to most coronaphobes is to get it (provided they're not elderly or obese), get over it, chill out and stop the madness.

Conversely, I've heard anecdotes of elderly people with the "I'll be ok" attitude who suddenly change their tune when Betty at number 5 dies of it.

Behaviour proportional to risk is better than all round madness.

 

[scarby]

Having been in Stockholm more or less throughout the outbreak, where the response has been measured, I was convinced quite early on that some kind of mass hysteria was overtaking many societies - I looked on in total disbelief as people were ordered to stay at home in other countries.

One problem is that this has got countries with the worst hysteria, such as the UK, in a real tangle. Having messaged that people must stay at home, how are they going to give a contradictory message when there is another outbreak?

Because Sweden kept things such as bars, shops, restaurants, and of course schools, open throughout, it will of course be easy to do so again when there is another outbreak. In fact, Sweden is in the opposite situation - it would be seen as strange if things weren't kept open.

Having weathered this outbreak with a "controlled" spread through the population, it has also put the Swedish authorities in a reasonably good position. Because people's lives have not been disrupted so excessively, it is easier now for them to maintain the literally "big" restrictions - that is, on mass attended events, in place for as long as they see fit, because life and leisure has been able to proceed through the outbreak, and people are not mentally exhausted by the experience.

As it is, the deaths and hospitalisations continue to subside, despite the limited restrictions and people now being out and about much more, but that's another subject.

 

[HSTEd]

It certainly is deliberate. Here's a direct quote from the released SAGE papers

https://assets.publishing.service.g...ce-to-social-distancing-measures-22032020.pdf

(their bold, not mine!)

That's the scientists telling the government to threaten us. Personally. With no regard to the effects.

Well yeah.
Have you looked at the age of people on SAGE?

They ordered the implementation of this programme, that has already wrought untold human misery on the British population and will continue to do so, that has functionally condemned huge numbers of people to death, to preserve their age group from harm.
Long live the geriatocracy.

 

[Yew]

Their counterargument to everything I said was 'but people are dying!', and whilst yes this is true[...]

It's also been true for every day in human history.

 

[Huntergreed]

It's also been true for every day in human history.

Precisely, but as these deaths weren’t announced people were not scared into trying to prevent them through stupidly over the top precautions.