Covid - What would YOU do?

[Kumagoro]

https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...-anti-lockdown

[TeePee]

https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...-anti-lockdown

Except it isn't Herd Immunity. The authors aren't some cranks, but World leading experts in epidemiology and medicine.

[Saracen999]

....

This is a deadly disease and people die from it. But we can't let the "cure" be worse than the disease, ....

And that, in a nutshell, is the problem.

[TeePee]

And that, in a nutshell, is the problem.

With the added complexity that people are dying from both the disease and the lock down right now, but the affects of the lock downs will last for a decade or more, and have barely begun. The Zoomers may be another Lost Generation.

[spacein_vader]

With the added complexity that people are dying from both the disease and the lock down right now, but the affects of the lock downs will last for a decade or more, and have barely begun. The Zoomers may be another Lost Generation.

I remain to be convinced they won't still be dying of COVID for a decade or more, given that we've never successfully created a vaccine for any Corona virus.

If I was in charge (I'm assuming Saracen meant from right now so I can't go back 6 months in my time machine and copy NZ or whoever,) I'd base all decisions on the assumption there would be no vaccine for the foreseeable future if ever.

Based on that I'd want to make people aware of all the possible risks and keep the hand washing and sanitisation rules. But I'd also end the lockdowns, people would have to make their own informed decisions. The nightingales would be opened to provide surge capacity but the public would bear the risk of visiting granny knowing it might kill her. Winter would be horrific with a high death toll because the public is never as smart as it thinks. But the economy would roll on, individuals would bear the brunt of their decisions and whoever inherited the country after the mob forced me from office would be left with a much smaller population of non-ecnomocally active people who require more state resources to maintain enabling them to make some savings on care homes, hospitals and pensions.

[james_]

So what's your point? You could say the exact same thing for any two countries you like, it's all apples to oranges. What about countries with far higher population densities than the UK then? South Korea or China for example? Or countries with far worse health systems and infrastructure than the UK like most countries in Africa? Can we compare them to UK in your eyes? The point is, in the grand scheme of things, there are countries which went one way and others who went the opposite way. What's the point in arguing technicalities and splitting hairs when one head is full while the the other one is bald?

I don't think I need to explain my point, as you have grasped it fully already - the tautologically-sounding idea that different countries are different and therefore rules, regulations and laws that work in one such place may not work in another. I don't believe such a notion is hair-splitting, but perhaps it is arguing a technicality as you say.

If it be so however, might I offer a unsubtle yet sanguine... so what?

I'm not inventing policy, despite the thread author's urging - I'm imagining the scenario where we copied, as quoted, New Zealand policy, and not seeing any reasonable reason for believing that would necessarily result in better outcomes for England specifically.

China has lower population density than England, just FYI.

J

Edit
Oh I forgot to mention, I appreciated the juxtaposition of splitting hairs followed by hair-loss

[Galant]

I remain to be convinced they won't still be dying of COVID for a decade or more, given that we've never successfully created a vaccine for any Corona virus.

If I was in charge (I'm assuming Saracen meant from right now so I can't go back 6 months in my time machine and copy NZ or whoever,) I'd base all decisions on the assumption there would be no vaccine for the foreseeable future if ever.

Based on that I'd want to make people aware of all the possible risks and keep the hand washing and sanitisation rules. But I'd also end the lockdowns, people would have to make their own informed decisions. The nightingales would be opened to provide surge capacity but the public would bear the risk of visiting granny knowing it might kill her. Winter would be horrific with a high death toll because the public is never as smart as it thinks. But the economy would roll on, individuals would bear the brunt of their decisions and whoever inherited the country after the mob forced me from office would be left with a much smaller population of non-ecnomocally active people who require more state resources to maintain enabling them to make some savings on care homes, hospitals and pensions.

This.

More or less.

I don't claim to know how likely the possibility of a vaccine is but making people responsible for their own choices is the only viable option, and providing information, investing in R&D etc., and assisting/shoring up medical supplies, provisions, and care for the vulnerable is the proper role for the government.

There will need to be some ability to save face - 'spin' - but the government needs to indicate that with job losses, business closures, indirect healthcare impact, damage to relationships etc., on-going or repeated lockdowns are not sustainable. They will continue to press towards any vaccines and treatments possible. Heading into Christmas, people need to start take over and be responsible for their health and the health of their loved ones. These people <insert specific vulnerable groups here> are particularly vulnerable and need to be supported and protected. We will work with healthcare providers to find the best recommended ways to maintain relationships and contact while not adding risk. However, it is up to each person to help protect their loved ones, vulnerable or not. In addition, if you're a person in the vulnerable groups, you may be at risk and need to take that into consideration for yourself. We need to pull together as families, communities, and as a nation. We need to support and encourage one another in maintaining social distancing, hand-washing and other hygiene methods so that we can enjoy life as much as possible while also helping to protect one another until such a time as may come where medical science can hopefully render this sickness a more minor issue. Some of us will lose loved ones to this and other sicknesses. We need to come together as a nation to support one another in our time of need. The sickness will not be going away. We are now, and must continue to be, more aware of hygiene and infections, and how these things can impact us, our loved ones, and our communities. Let's go forward into this coming holiday season where we can learn how best to enjoy life while also being responsible for one another and helping all people around us to continue to enjoy life too.


Then, regular updates on information as science develops, a move to help businesses adjust and recover, health care to improve, think about better health care long term, and a better consciousness to deal with future health-care issues - a more efficient, stronger NHS. They could spin the 'Build Back Better' campaign to morph in this direction, and press forward into a new 2021, building a better, closer, more resilient United Kingdom.

Something like that.

[TeePee]

I remain to be convinced they won't still be dying of COVID for a decade or more, given that we've never successfully created a vaccine for any Corona virus.

If I was in charge (I'm assuming Saracen meant from right now so I can't go back 6 months in my time machine and copy NZ or whoever,) I'd base all decisions on the assumption there would be no vaccine for the foreseeable future if ever.

Based on that I'd want to make people aware of all the possible risks and keep the hand washing and sanitisation rules. But I'd also end the lockdowns, people would have to make their own informed decisions. The nightingales would be opened to provide surge capacity but the public would bear the risk of visiting granny knowing it might kill her. Winter would be horrific with a high death toll because the public is never as smart as it thinks. But the economy would roll on, individuals would bear the brunt of their decisions and whoever inherited the country after the mob forced me from office would be left with a much smaller population of non-ecnomocally active people who require more state resources to maintain enabling them to make some savings on care homes, hospitals and pensions.

Covid may well be with us forever, like another flu. Keeping people informed, and free to decide their own level of risk is ideal. Providing support to those who choose to isolate should also be a goal. People sheltering at home shouldn't have difficulty arranging grocery delivery, for example.

But it has to be a viable plan for the long term. Shutting everything down simply doesn't work.

[Saracen999]

I remain to be convinced they won't still be dying of COVID for a decade or more, given that we've never successfully created a vaccine for any Corona virus.

If I was in charge (I'm assuming Saracen meant from right now so I can't go back 6 months in my time machine and copy NZ or whoever,) I'd base all decisions on the assumption there would be no vaccine for the foreseeable future if ever.

Based on that I'd want to make people aware of all the possible risks and keep the hand washing and sanitisation rules. But I'd also end the lockdowns, people would have to make their own informed decisions. The nightingales would be opened to provide surge capacity but the public would bear the risk of visiting granny knowing it might kill her. Winter would be horrific with a high death toll because the public is never as smart as it thinks. But the economy would roll on, individuals would bear the brunt of their decisions and whoever inherited the country after the mob forced me from office would be left with a much smaller population of non-ecnomocally active people who require more state resources to maintain enabling them to make some savings on care homes, hospitals and pensions.

All well and good, but the issue is that those (and there will be some, probably a lot judging by events so far) that decide to take "responsibility" for a decision to ignore precautions often aren't the ones that end up paying the price by catching thee damn bug, ending up in an ICU, and then possibly the morgue. The "resonsible" ones are just responsible for spreading it about.

Where I would, personally, back the NZ strategy is that NZ cousins of mine tell me what rules they did have were firmly enforced, including instant arrest and detention, and even a few examples of confiscating and crushing cars used for breaking lockdown rules.

I also think our government need to be much clearer about what is law orr regulation, and therefore mandatory, and what is "guidance", and therefore not enforceable. If for no other reason, police forces need to know that they can and should enforce laws and regulations, but (unlike what some did last time) cannot and should not try to enforce "guidance" that they have no authority no enforce.

Also, government needs to understand that it is parliament that is sovereign, not the executive. And when former Supreme Court judges tell the executive that, yes, they have the power to do this or that, but not using the laws they used, they need to sit up and take notice.

To my mind lockdowns, no matter how firm the rules, are never going to solve this. They only kick the problem a bit further into the future. Which in turn gives some time to develop what is probably the only thing that will solve the problem, that being effective vaccine(s). When, and even if, that will happen isn't yet clear though some projects are looking promising.

But even with a vaccine, my bet is Covid, or something closely related, will be with us at least for the long term and probably, for all practical purposes, permanently. Could a medical advance in 100 or 1000 years permanently destroy dangerous viruses? I have no idea, but it's very unlikely to happen fast enough for me to see it.

In the meantime, following "science" is not the answer. Be guided by and informed by scieence? Oh, yeah. But that's only part of the picture. There are also impacts on, obviously, the economy but also on long-term debt, our kid's education, poverty, mental health and so much more. It's a multi-faaceted problem and one facet of the issue doesn't trump all others.

Which is why I thoroughly glad I'm not involved in making those choices.

[Zhaoman]

I don't speak for everyone who referenced other countries but I don't mean it and I certainly don't take it to mean Captain Hindsight saying this is what we should have done (which is still relevant) but to say this is what we can do now for the future because it has proven to have worked and was what mainstream scientific consensus was advising all along.

Getting to the point, what I would do now is:
1) be honest with the public instead of peddling the 'it'll be alright soon narrative' and properly support businesses hit the hardest by the impending lockdown.
2) tell everyone to knuckle down and have a strict lockdown like we did in March/April to bring case numbers down to effectively zero or a manageable baseline. If the public aren't complying then strict enforcement will be needed. We don't like our freedoms being taken away but this is life and death for health and the economy at this stage so it has to be done.
3) use that time in lockdown to upgrade and set up test and trace properly taking learnings from other more successful countries.
4) when we have reached the manageable baseline, open the economy back up fully.
5) act swiftly with strict local lockdowns when there is one case (not wait til there's 10,000) and use test and trace to isolate contacts in the first instance.
6) settle into the true 'new normal' of short strict local lockdowns whenever there is one case detected. The country can be otherwise more or less be back to 'normal' this way. Hospitality/leisure destinations will probably suffer the most from periodic strict local lockdowns but don't beat around the bush about it, just tell it like it is - hospitality will be hit hard and likely will have to transform itself under this new reality.

The "economy or health" argument is a false narrative because:
1. If hospitals are overwhelmed, we will not have a health service anymore and exponentially more people will die from every illness not just Covid.
2. A significant proportion of the population dying will have unpredictable and most likely catastrophic consequences for the economy. If mental health is a concern during lockdown then seeing hospitals shut their doors to dying patients will take a far worse toll.
3. We do not fully understand the long lasting effects of a Covid infection. More and more evidence is mounting that not just your lungs but other organs in your body can be irreparably damaged. If we let this disease spread through the whole population then we could have many unforeseen consequences for health and economy well into the future. It could be like asbestos all over again but on a far bigger scale.

So for me the question isn't 'health vs economy' because the steps needed to protect both are clear, the question is in fact 'health and economy vs freedoms'. If we enact the steps needed to suppress the virus, we will be letting the government control our movement, have an extensive test and trace system and sweeping powers to enforce the rules. This is probably why it has gotten so bad because most governments have been reluctant to face, or too afraid to communicate to the public, this reality.

I don't think I need to explain my point, as you have grasped it fully already - the tautologically-sounding idea that different countries are different and therefore rules, regulations and laws that work in one such place may not work in another. I don't believe such a notion is hair-splitting, but perhaps it is arguing a technicality as you say.

If it be so however, might I offer a unsubtle yet sanguine... so what?

I'm not inventing policy, despite the thread author's urging - I'm imagining the scenario where we copied, as quoted, New Zealand policy, and not seeing any reasonable reason for believing that would necessarily result in better outcomes for England specifically.

Fair enough and in response to your "so what" to arguing a technicality I would say that it is deflecting from the more pertinent points of discussion whether deliberate or not.
Of course enacting exactly what one country did would not turn out in the exact same way in another country because of all the points you mention. But I would tend to give the poster the benefit of the doubt that they also clearly understand this. Taking another country as an example naturally means, at least to me, taking learnings from what they did well and adapting them to our own situation unless specifically mentioned otherwise by the poster. Arguing semantics seems fruitless to me.

China has lower population density than England, just FYI.

J

Again, semantics worth arguing over? What about the urban population density (i.e. the one that is relevant and the one I assume most people would have understood it to refer to)?

[Galant]

All well and good, but the issue is that those (and there will be some, probably a lot judging by events so far) that decide to take "responsibility" for a decision to ignore precautions often aren't the ones that end up paying the price by catching thee damn bug, ending up in an ICU, and then possibly the morgue. The "resonsible" ones are just responsible for spreading it about.

This is clearly the 'weakness' in all approaches, however, not to be too cold-hearted, this indicates the reality we all need to grasp quickly and thoroughly, namely that none of us is an island and all of us effect one another. There's no escaping it. In many ways it's we who damage or benefit our communities and the only real way forward is mature and responsible individuals who understand their responsibility, their ability to affect things, and who hold values of respect, honour, compassion and empathy, and act accordingly.

I know I've started to wander off into more metaphysical or cultural terms, but they've part of the fabric of society that have a physical impact. If we can't move forward in those ways then there will be no solution to any of this, at all. If people don't or can't care for themselves and others, if we all act without regard for others, we're absolutely guaranteed to be royally screwed. Take it to the bank.

[james_]

All well and good, but the issue is that those (and there will be some, probably a lot judging by events so far) that decide to take "responsibility" for a decision to ignore precautions often aren't the ones that end up paying the price by catching thee damn bug, ending up in an ICU, and then possibly the morgue. The "resonsible" ones are just responsible for spreading it about.

Where I would, personally, back the NZ strategy is that NZ cousins of mine tell me what rules they did have were firmly enforced, including instant arrest and detention, and even a few examples of confiscating and crushing cars used for breaking lockdown rules.

I also think our government need to be much clearer about what is law orr regulation, and therefore mandatory, and what is "guidance", and therefore not enforceable. If for no other reason, police forces need to know that they can and should enforce laws and regulations, but (unlike what some did last time) cannot and should not try to enforce "guidance" that they have no authority no enforce.

Also, government needs to understand that it is parliament that is sovereign, not the executive. And when former Supreme Court judges tell the executive that, yes, they have the power to do this or that, but not using the laws they used, they need to sit up and take notice.

To my mind lockdowns, no matter how firm the rules, are never going to solve this. They only kick the problem a bit further into the future. Which in turn gives some time to develop what is probably the only thing that will solve the problem, that being effective vaccine(s). When, and even if, that will happen isn't yet clear though some projects are looking promising.

But even with a vaccine, my bet is Covid, or something closely related, will be with us at least for the long term and probably, for all practical purposes, permanently. Could a medical advance in 100 or 1000 years permanently destroy dangerous viruses? I have no idea, but it's very unlikely to happen fast enough for me to see it.

In the meantime, following "science" is not the answer. Be guided by and informed by scieence? Oh, yeah. But that's only part of the picture. There are also impacts on, obviously, the economy but also on long-term debt, our kid's education, poverty, mental health and so much more. It's a multi-faaceted problem and one facet of the issue doesn't trump all others.

Which is why I thoroughly glad I'm not involved in making those choices.

Well quite. Many of the apropos posts have mentioned following the science which seems to me, quite gently, missing the point. It depends on the question you're asking, and the complexity of the domains involved. Both are strewn, smeared and smudged over a uncertain backdrop of competing demands and contradictory questions. I feel this is not an environment in which concrete answers emerge from scientific endeavour. I believe the final policy decisions are not political arbitrarily, but inherently - and God forbid the guidance were 'scientific' only.

You're point regarding persons who ignore precautions is obviously salient to the opinions of the previous posters who advocate a position of personal responsibility. Witness the massive power the legislature has had in interfering in the course of the lives of almost everybody. I don't see in your post whether you think the law has gone too far or not far enough, but arguing for 'clarity' makes you sound (this is not a sly attempt at insult) a politician. I hope the politicians consider their personal responsibility in legislating as well or better than the public does in their conscientiousness.

J

[Zhaoman]

I believe the final policy decisions are not political arbitrarily, but inherently

Very important point and well made. No matter how well some best practice or other is understood or explained, if the public won't swallow it then it won't go down. This makes the whole current situation a minefield as mentioned. However that does not stop us answering the question of the thread which is what we would do if we were in charge. To enact any of the proposals put forward in this thread (whether lockdown or personal responsibility), it would take courage (or an iron fist if you like) from government and being able to cut through (or ignore) the inherent politicisation of issues, policies, demands and contradictions.

To me, advocating best practice (as advised by scientific consensus) is not necessarily missing the point. It just implies that you are happy with doing away with the competing demands (which for the purposes of this discussion I will assume, by definition, are not best practice) and the resulting political/social consequences.

[Galant]

Here's another way of looking at it.

Most people would agree with ideas of buying local and supporting businesses, especially at a time where businesses are struggling. It's one example of where we affect and depend upon one another. People's livelihoods depend on it and most of us would want to help, especially where we can enjoy ourselves too by buying products we want or enjoying a meal out etc.

We have the ability to do just that - to save someone's business and livelihood, and help them to avoid the massive stress (and maybe worse) that would come about by losing their business or jobs (not to mention the knock-on effects that will come with spiking unemployment). We can do it right now. We just need to go and eat and buy. We're being told not to do that. We're being told to take actions that will result in destroyed business and livelihoods. Why? When we walk into that restaurant, what are the odds that we hurt those people running that business or other clients? And what are the odds we will hurt them worse than by allowing their business and job to fail? Assuming they're not especially vulnerable to respiratory sickness, the odds are slim. For little risk (some risk, certainly, but not much risk) we can help people live. Those who are at risk should avoid going. Those who live with at risk people need to consider their best course of action. Those who don't? We should get out and buy and eat to support the businesses and employees who depend upon that income to survive. You can argue it's a compassionate action and it's a responsibility.

[Saracen999]

This is clearly the 'weakness' in all approaches, however, not to be too cold-hearted, this indicates the reality we all need to grasp quickly and thoroughly, namely that none of us is an island and all of us effect one another. There's no escaping it. In many ways it's we who damage or benefit our communities and the only real way forward is mature and responsible individuals who understand their responsibility, their ability to affect things, and who hold values of respect, honour, compassion and empathy, and act accordingly.

I know I've started to wander off into more metaphysical or cultural terms, but they've part of the fabric of society that have a physical impact. If we can't move forward in those ways then there will be no solution to any of this, at all. If people don't or can't care for themselves and others, if we all act without regard for others, we're absolutely guaranteed to be royally screwed. Take it to the bank.

Well .... exactly.

My take on responsibility is, well, it has two levels.

Level A

Anything I do that (directly) (*) effects only me is my business. So if, and it clearly isn't the case, me getting Covid-affected only damaged me, then I regard it my my responsibility to decide whether to chance it or not.

Level B

Anything I do that affects (as in harms or risks harm to) others quite rightly is for wider society to have an opinion on, and/or regulate or legislate on.


An analogy (which like all analogies only goes so far) is like wearing seatbelrs in a car (Level A) and drink/drug-driving (Level B).

With a caveat or two, I believe it should be my decision to wear a seat belt or not, since it's my neck I'm risking. One such caveat is if I end up in hospital with serious injuries because off a lack of seatbelt, I get to pay. the costs for those injuries, not the taxpayer, via NHS.

But drink/drug driving, if I did such a crass and moronically selfish thing, risks not just my life, but that of other road users, pedestrians and in a few gross examples, people sitting in their own front room watching TV when some drunken moron loses control and crashes through their front room wall.

That illustrates my view to responsibility over Covid and, for instance, taking preventative measures seriously. If not wearing a mask put me, and only me at risk of infection, then it's my risk to take. But from what I can make of it, that isn't the case, and ignoring other Covid measures puts others at risk too, which is why I believe such measures should be enforced on pain of serious criminal penalties. Like drink driving, which (on getting caught) will result in a fine and driving ban at a minimum, right up to a potentially very lengthy prison sentence.



Note: for the record :-

- I always wear a seatbelt, because I'm not a grade A idiot, and
- I never drink/drug drive because I'm not a selfish grade A moron, and
- I always wear a mask (etc) when I should, out of respect for others, despite having a solid gold medical reason for being exampt.

[Apex]