UKCityGent

Scamp hit the nail on the head (as well as MillHouse). For the vast majority of (healthy) people CV is no worse than the flu.

The number of deaths will increase (i have a spread on 1.8m - 2.2m) but by then i doubt people will be counting.

Lockdown/curfews dont work and have decimated the economies. For the last 10 years we are overdue recession. The government printing machines are in overdrive and hopefully sanity will bite some sense to accept it on the chin and start rebuilding. The UK chancellor needs a kick up the backside and for him to smell the coffee (he wasnt a bright spark at CIFM!!). Totally the wrong man for the wrong job at the wrong time.

scrubbedexpat141

I would just add, because my post was reasonably blunt that I don't want the disease, I don't want to have it, even just as a cold. I hate being ill.

csdf

Oh, I think we're in agreement that the UK is not a poster-child for a well-implemented lockdown.

On your points above
1) Disease not as bad as we first thought - yes, definitely agree
2) Healthcare system did not collapse - well, insofar as treating covid19 it didn't, but I think that lots of people with cancer and other diseases whose treatment was cancelled because the hospitals were full of covid patients might take a different view. I also feel there's an element of Year2K post-hoc rationalisation going on here: the system didn't collapse because it was taken seriously and prepared for (partly, through a lockdown). If the government had just sat back and done absolutely nothing, the situation would have been quite different.
3) Economic destruction felt most by the young - yes, of course, just like many other economic effects (good and bad): the impact is felt most strongly by those who will be around the longest. Rich old people have more economic buffer and less time to suffer from the compounded effect of lost growth.

Now in terms of "those who are pro-lockdown"...in both the UAE and the UK, lockdown is being imposed by government, not by plebiscite. Whether any of us are individually pro- or anti-lockdown will make not a jot of difference to whether there is one or not, nowhere more so than in the UAE. Are you just objecting to the fact that people are choosing to take this position at all?

UKCityGent

Unfortunately the maths behind it is you will get it or have had it but didn't notice

scrubbedexpat141

True. I think I might have had it right at the start, but who knows....might have just been a cold.

scrubbedexpat141

So cases are still rising quickly and staying high almost everywhere but deaths are nowhere near the sorts of levels previously seen.

Are people infected much younger?
Are people who are vulnerable better protected?
Are people who are vulnerable better aware and more cautious?
Is the virus less 'potent'?
Or is it just because there is more testing in general?

Millhouse

1-3 and 4.
more maybe... it just wasn’t so bad and we overreacted.

WHO should come out and declare the pandemic is over.

scrubbedexpat141

I think the UK should start advising on lockdowns, not enforcing. If you're 20 and have a job at B&Q, you probably want to go there to earn.
If you're 86, fat and have only one lung and high blood pressure and other really bad health conditions then you probably don't need to go out, or should.
I full appreciate the two may mix, but if you're the 86 year old, your responsibility is to keep away from the younger people who need to work and try to create some sort of future from this shit show. Your responsibility is to yourself to stay home and safe.

That being said, I like it being pandemic status in some ways - I went for lunch in the mall yesterday and the space left (as well as the giant dividers) between tables, the cleanliness, the aversion to getting into your personal space was all just wonderful.

Long live the social distancing and cleaning. Keep people away from me and keep shit clean.

csdf

That's fine, as long as the 86 year old isn't in care, or in hospital. If they are, then the caregivers (and their families) have to effectively be in lockdown too, whether they're 55 or 25. Is that even possible? This mess won't get resolved until there's a semi-instant test available.

scrubbedexpat141

One would hope the caregivers or healthcare workers would treat their roles with the level of care commensurate with the situation.

I feel there's a sensible middle ground that reduces unnecessary deaths but doesn't continue to send the global economy into the oblivion.

I mean, the UK 14 day quarantine on arrival and changing by the day is just mental.

csdf

Are you hoping that care workers just self impose social lockdown on themselves and their families? I can't see that happening.

UKCityGent

Le Frogs have introduced 2 week shut down for bars today. Tomfoolery of the highest order !!

scrubbedexpat141

That's the common sense / middle ground bit I'm hoping for.

If you work with the elderly and are out on the smash in Wakefield or some other awful Northern town or being a mask-refuser or generally not socially distancing and taking more risks than you should then you're not taking your role and responsibility very seriously.
You don't have to be locked down in isolation to stay sensible and safe and to avoid the likelihood of getting the germ.

csdf

Sure - but what if your kids are out on the smash in Clifton or Hove or some other awful southern town?

scrubbedexpat141

Then you're one of the less sensible types. There will be more and less sensible / responsible people unfortunately.

Keeping in mind debt is as high as it was post-WW2 and that the final repayments on WW2 loans was made in 2006 (I think, might be 2009), we could be looking at a cost associated to the damage from this disease and the previous debt from the GFC being equally destructive long term.

Now, can I, as a person who may introduce smaller versions of myself into this world be doing that child and other children an injustice by demanding the state funds a total lockdown of everyone to protect an 86 year old in a care home who is probably going to die from flue this winter anyway? Do we continue to prioritise unwell, old people or the next 20+ years of economic stability?

Whilst it doesn't sound particularly pleasant and I don't mean to sound nasty or blunt, it's a real moral dilemma, which is why I think there's some sensible middle ground and balance to be struck. Out and out carnage and everyone acting like normal will result in more deaths that aren't needed. Total lockdowns and the costs of that result in more economic damage than is needed. There's somewhere in the middle where both are more 'acceptable'.