Covid - What would YOU do?

[Saracen999]

According to the news, Covid rates are accelerating just about everywhere, including France where Macron has just gone for another nationwide lockdown.

Our PM has to decide when, and if, to go from local and/or regional, to national lockdown as well, albeit not necessarily the same way as last time.

He seems to be getting two different setts of advice.


1) Scientists and health professionals

Infection rates are doubling every 9 days, so so. We also have standard winter flu season coming. Lock down now, before the NHS is overwhelmed. We might be able to curtail the virus before crunch point, conventional elective operations (already massively backed up) and cancer screening/treatments can continue. If we don't do that, people will die. The economy will have to take the hit.


2) Business Leaders

If you lock down now, thousands of businesses will go under permanently, unemployment will rocket and the poorest will suffer (even more). The economy will be in meltdown and people will die was a result. So wait it out.



What would YOU do?

Please don't turn this into a "Boris is an idiot" thread. Whoever our PM was, including Corbyn or Starmer, they'd be getting the same reports, same pressures, same advice and have to make the same call.

So I'm not asking what you think Boris would do, or how you think he can mess up. If you want that, please start another thread. What I'm asking, and the hint is in the CAPS, is what would YOU do if you were in the hotheat and had to make this call?

Me? I'd probably resign, drop all my internet devices into a car crusher, move to a deserted (warm) island and dig a bunker where I can bury my head in the sand.

'Cos I don't see any way this isn't going to be bad, whatever decisions are made, and whoever makes them. I'm certainly glad I'm not PM. It's a lose-lose. The best the PM, whoever it is, can hope for is to minimise the damage to lives lost, jobs ruined and businesses gone bust, but there's going to be quite a bit of all whatever decisions are made, and trying to justify it afterwards with "would have been worse if we had done more, or less, or different" rarely works.

[Galant]

Some of the problems with the approach so far:
Inconsistent information/measures - it makes the public doubt you and it leads quickly to fatigue.
Massive costs incurred for questionable results - at best.
Improper evaluation (as one would be expected) of the true costs of this sort of action - deaths and other problems stemming from the 'cure' provided.
All the sorts of problems normally involved with a 'Just Do Something' approach.

The government has to know its limitations, but of course, that's the general problems with bigger and bigger government, it doesn't think it has any limitations. A disease of this sort is rather humbling in that regard. This should have been something of a King Canute moment for governments around the world, but it seems all we have is court officials and no wise king.

What I think would have been the best approach - and still would be, in the long terms (although complicated by the amount of nonsense already dished out):

Control what you can, don't try to control what you can't - including allowing people to be responsible for their own health and the health of their loved ones.

Invest in and support all medical efforts including preparedness, R&D, revised precautions and streamlining, look into setting up COVID specific centres to take load off hospitals and think forward to developing infrastructure for dealing with future novel infectious viruses/infections etc.
Develop protocols and best practise for caring for the vulnerable, advising them, and assisting where possible.
Continue to make available the best information possible for the general public to help them make their own decisions.
Work with local governments and other influential bodies and groups to encourage best practise.

I know that's all a bit vague but I'm in the middle of work so it's the best I can do right now.

[Zhaoman]

Pretty easy decision if you ask me - listen to the science.

Look at South Korea, New Zealand, Singapore heck even China and what they did to keep it under control. A huge initial lockdown until cases are in the handful of numbers and then the test and trace can get to work properly. Then small local lockdowns being the new normal when there is one case (not 10,000 cases), test and trace the case to isolate contacts and then open back up quickly. You can maintain a semi-normal economy and way of life like this and they have done in the countries I mentioned. Our chance to do it was with the first lockdown but we didn't implement an effective test and trace with the time that bought us. Now we're back to square one and need a massive lockdown to buy us time again to get test and trace working effectively. If we don't lockdown then lots of people will die, exponentially if our hospitals get overwhelmed. That would cause widespread (and unpredictable) disruption to the economy too. So either way the economy is dead. If we don't want lots of people to die and many more to have long-term damage to their lungs and bodies then we have to listen to the science this time. We're back to where we were in March/April so let's hope the same mistakes are not made again, we can't afford to.

[g8ina]

Id do what New Zealand did.

[kompukare]

Listening and taking only the scientific advice sounds best.
As the lockdown will be hard, I'd actually make the strategy meetings public.
Certainly listen to industry lobbyists, but don't heed them unless it is safe to so.
Making these decision based on which industry has the best lobbyists is a recipe for disaster.
I imagine that the government has a fair idea by now which industries were the worst for getting us back to square one after the easing of the first lockdown.(Airlines, pubs, schools are probably in the top three.)
And even if, say, airline travel was the biggest vector what I never understood was after lobbying saying a multi-billion industry was in danger of going bankrupt, the airlines had to immediately make it even more risky by selling food on board where the passengers could take off their mask. Sounded penny-wise, pound foolish. Aeroplanes have always been a great place to catch any virus at the best of times: if you want / need to operate the airline should supply the masks, ensure people know how to wear them etc. Still think even that, the much vaunted UV filters and so on in an aeroplane are not enough to be safe.

Me? I'd probably resign, drop all my internet devices into a car crusher, move to a deserted (warm) island and dig a bunker where I can bury my head in the sand.

I think some governments and leaders tried that approach, but it didn't work and we're back to square one.

[kalniel]

The most important thing is NOT to ask the question what you should do. Better not to know than leave any chance of being blamed for getting it wrong.

[james_]

Id do what New Zealand did.

I'm not sure what New Zealand has done, but I do know they have an 8th of the population with a slightly larger land mass, and no Dover, no Heathrow, no Gatwick, not part of a common travel area of 1/2 billion people, and massively different housing, transportation and infrastructure arrangements. So you could try to do whatever it is they did, but the phrase about comparing apples and oranges springs to mind.

[TeePee]

New Zealand has put themselves in to the worst recession in their history, while probably only delaying the inevitable.

I'd put faith in the science, and look at the rapidly growing number of scientists who now believe the damage caused by lockdowns and restrictions is worse, far worse, than the virus itself.

It may already be too late.

[Zhaoman]

I'm not sure what New Zealand has done, but I do know they have an 8th of the population with a slightly larger land mass, and no Dover, no Heathrow, no Gatwick, not part of a common travel area of 1/2 billion people, and massively different housing, transportation and infrastructure arrangements. So you could try to do whatever it is they did, but the phrase about comparing apples and oranges springs to mind.

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?

[MrJim]

Thailand have coped amazingly well. A population slightly larger than the UK ~69 million, and 59 deaths. Let that sink in! 59. They do have the advantage of a warmer, more humid climate (both thought to inhibit virus transmission), but still. Whatever they're doing, it's working...

[MrJim]

look at the rapidly growing number of scientists who now believe the damage caused by lockdowns and restrictions is worse, far worse, than the virus itself.

Do you have any references to back up such a statement? I know that lockdowns can be catastrophic both economically & socially, (not to mention mental health), but the alternative is a completely overwhelmed healthcare system. I doubt you'd care so much about the adverse effects of a lockdown if you or people you care about were being left to die in a hospital corridor for lack of hospital beds and trained medical staff...

[Kovoet]

I take COVID as the new flu. In history when the flu hit South America it killed millions as there immune system was not used to it. We are not going to get rid of this virus until our anti bodies start working or they come up with medicine for it. I say we need to live life normally but also maybe been cautious like using masks and hand sanitisers.
Locking everything is just making things a lot worse.

[g8ina]

Just be aware of what direction this is heading, lets not start slagging off, name calling, etc.

Keep it nice eh folks ? Trying to nip it in the bud so to speak

[Saracen999]

Just be aware of what direction this is heading, lets not start slagging off, name calling, etc.

....

What I was hoping for was what people here thought we ought to do going forward, and not so much what was done last time, regardless of views on how well it did or didn't work, because that will just be rehashing old ground. That goes even more for what other countries did.

I don't think a good answer exists to "what to do next". I think we're going to end up with a choice of which bad answer to go for. Unless an effective vaccine comes along, sooner or later, and the Pfizer one is looking like it may be promising, and sooner not later. That might be a game changer .... but still probably not a silver bullet.

[Kumagoro]

What would I do... Hmmm personally i would aim for eradicating the virus.

I think what I would do is not be doing things half assed and be more Hardcore in enforcing.

lockdown tighter than before.

Masks to be worn in nearly all social situations. Nose constantly hanging out? boom fine.
Companies responsible for enforcement. No mask no entry, taking it off after entry or other nonsense call police, big fine.

Peeps meeting up when they shouldn't, fine.
People going to parties, big fine
People having parties, prison
Protests big fines.

No holidays, travel only for certain reasons.


No eat out to help out nonsense.

Fines being based on wealth not fixed amounts.


Peeps would definitely be more disciplined then.

[TeePee]

Do you have any references to back up such a statement? I know that lockdowns can be catastrophic both economically & socially, (not to mention mental health), but the alternative is a completely overwhelmed healthcare system. I doubt you'd care so much about the adverse effects of a lockdown if you or people you care about were being left to die in a hospital corridor for lack of hospital beds and trained medical staff...

https://gbdeclaration.org

Signed by tens of thousands of scientists, experts and medical doctors around The World. Led by Professor of Epidemiology at Oxford University, Sunetra Gupta, who's modelling of the virus in March has proven to be accurate, and should have shaped Government policy, unlike the grandstanding train wreck that was Ferguson.

We didn't overwhelm the healthcare system. The Government spent billions building extra capacity and 'Nightingale Hospitals' that never saw a patient, and ordering the manufacture of 40,000 ventilators, while only needing a couple of thousand from existing supplies.

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