Coronavirus.

[6Gman]

I would go to the pub

And thus put yourself at risk. Your choice.

And put others at risk ...

Somebody's mother / father / brother / sister .

 

[farleigh]

And thus put yourself at risk. Your choice.

And put others at risk ...

Somebody's mother / father / brother / sister .

Well if they chose to go there too then yes as they are putting my life at the same risk.

 

[Mogster]

They are just throwing numbers around. We had a 25,000 per day testing target for the middle of this month, it's becoming clear that won't be met so they throw a 100,000 figure out today instead, yet it takes a prompt from a journalist to get clarification that this figure includes antibody testing as well. Antibody testing that they cannot even trust yet, we've bought 17.5m kits now but we aren't really sure if they will work yet. Then the figure on thousands of ventilators in the pipeline over the coming weeks. How many weeks? Probably 10 weeks too late. Seeing them announce 30 for next week was laughable.

I've got zero confidence in anything they are saying regarding targets and throwing out huge numbers trying to impress, regardless of whether the delivery of the press conference is better.

Someone needs to bang some heads together at PHE. They seem to be stuck in the 1950s...

The fastest way to up testing numbers is to maximise throughput of PHEs existing machines. This isn’t happening yet seemingly due to a lack of organisation, they have much more Installed capacity than is being displayed in the testing figures.

Next acquire all the available machines you can, more of the same so they are compatible with PHEs IT and staff training. Suitable machines are being offered but after initial excitement no one at PHE seems to be able to decide where they should go...

Next move staff from related disciplines to the PHE labs to max out the extra capacity created. Uni and private labs are offering to help, move their staff to the PHE labs and run the available equipment 24/7.

These are obvious things that could be implemented fairly quickly. Someone needs to make big decisions though.

 

[yorkie]

... you should read about the devastating effect another coronavirus, namely the common cold, had when Europeans introduced it to isolated populations who had no "herd immunity". For example, it was a major factor in the collapse of the Inca civilisation....

I think you will find there were several epidemics, starting with Smallpox, and also that epidemics were not the only factors either.

Anyway clearly some measures need to be taken with Covid-19 (which we are currently doing) but they cannot be unlimited in scope at the cost of everything else.

 

[DarloRich]

I think you are taking this too seriously. Getting out and about for exercise is fine and staying inside for the majority of the day is - in my opinion - very unhealthy. Certainly not something I shall entertain in the short term let alone for months.

You might have to entertain it. Sorry to be blunt be we need to be ready for that.

And perhaps if everyone took this seriously we might get this over with sooner and get back to our real lives.

We're fighting a brick wall; we've had this discussion. I'm not going to reply to the repeat of the conversation we had earlier though I will add that my walk today was 7 miles (knowing some people want me to walk less is a good motivator to walk more!). My answer to the recent posts made by @DarloRich remains the same as my previous answers; I am not going to change my mind. I have a lot of respect for @DarloRich but I am just going to agree to disagree and not go through the same arguments again, as my views have been made clear.

And I disagree, vastly, with your interpretation of the rules on exercise. Personally, I do not think you need to have a 7 mile walk but accept that you want a 7 mile walk. I want to get this virus beaten, see as few people as possible infected or worse and get back to real life asap so am accepting more restrictions on my lifestyle than it seems you are willing to.

By comparison, I have been doing about 2/3 miles ( about 45 minutes) an evening walking round the local streets. That is more than adequate and I feel within the spirit and intent of the rules but I know you wont agree or accept that others may have a different perception to your own. I maintain that beating this virus is all that matters. We can sort out other issues later. I know you disagree. I respect that but I wont stop pointing out my view.

 

[DarloRich]

I think you will find there were several epidemics, starting with Smallpox, and also that epidemics were not the only factors either.

agreed - we ( Europeans) were pretty good at killing indigenous populations with "our" illnesses (of many types!)

 

[farleigh]

You might have to entertain it. Sorry to be blunt be we need to be ready for that.

And perhaps if everyone took this seriously we might get this over with sooner and get back to our real lives.



And I disagree, vastly, with your interpretation of the rules on exercise. Personally, I do not think you need to have a 7 mile walk but accept that you want a 7 mile walk. I want to get this virus beaten, see as few people as possible infected or worse and get back to real life asap so am accepting more restrictions on my lifestyle than it seems you are willing to.

By comparison, I have been doing about 2/3 miles ( about 45 minutes) an evening walking round the local streets. That is more than adequate and I feel within the spirit and intent of the rules but I know you wont agree or accept that others may have a different perception to your own. I maintain that beating this virus is all that matters. We can sort out other issues later. I know you disagree. I respect that but I wont stop pointing out my view.

You don't need to apologise for being blunt - I did not take it that way.

However, I will continue to choose my own path for my own body and mental health. I won't put anybody at risk but neither will I be cowed.

 

[Bantamzen]

The scientific consensus is that it can't be eradicated. We're going to have to live with it long term and lockdown is only a short term measure to slow its spread.

Lockdown will become increasingly unenforceable as time goes on and the damage to mental health, society and the economy will start to become more serious than the virus itself. Lockdown until a vaccine can be found, assuming one can be found, isn't an option.

Exactly this, keeping a lock-down going until a vaccine is readily available is quite simply impossible. We already have nearly a million more unemployed in this country in the space of two weeks, with anything up to 10 million people now furloughed on 80% pay, many of whom do not even know when they will get that as the HMRC aren't even ready to start processing these, hence the reason there is no accurate figures available yet.

At the end of the day if the NHS is going to be equipped as best as it can, it needs paying for. The longer we lock-down, the greater risk we put on the NHS.

It will last as long as it needs to. We need to admit that. The other points you make are important but secondary to the main issue. We are just going to have to get through and fix the other problems later. I know you wont like that but it is the truth. Mental health care, at this precise moment, is secondary to the virus mitigation measures and if those measures have to last 3 or 6 moths so be it. We just have to deal with that.

I know you don't agree, but it can't last as long as it needs to. As I've said above, all this needs paying for & we've just effectively blown a great big hole in the revenue stream. That is now going to add more pressure onto the decision makers at the NHS & treasury, and is maybe already driving some of the what seem poor decisions being made.

And again I know you don't agree, but mental health will be a factor far sooner than you would like. There have already been reports of people trying to take their lives, be it as a result of self-isolation, or secondary issues such as finances (one has been on these forums, others I have heard about through my work). Then there will be domestic violence cases, people's health deteriorating through stress & anxiety, and if left too long there will likely be more crime & civil unrest which will lead to violence. And for every single one of of these there will be more stress on Social Services, Police, Fire Services and yes the NHS. You can't just ignore a problem because its inconvenient. Left too long and you will have a firestorm of issues that will overwhelm not just the NHS but all the essential services.

At best I estimate we have weeks, not months before the sum of the consequences becomes greater than the total of the pandemic. And I guarantee you that locked-down governments the world over are all weighing up these realities. It won't take long for singing on balconies to turn into taking to the streets in protest. Do a bit of digging on the web, and you'll already start to see the signs.

Many posters here seem very concerned with having to stay in their homes. That seems to be the key. I expect restrictions and changes to our daily lives to last quite a while but the kind of "lockdown" we have now not to last for the total period.

I think we need to prepare for a long period of time staying inside for the vast majority of our day, not withstanding the exercise allowances. I have come to terms with that and thought about how I will get through it. Many seem unable or unwilling to do that and I think they need to. Quickly.

Good for you. However you are not everyone, you might feel able to cope but not everyone else does. This is a reality you are going to have to accept, because everyone is different with different emotions, pressures, anxieties etc.

Edit: Posted correction to furloughed figures

 

[JonathanH]

We already have nearly a million more unemployed in this country in the space of two weeks, with anything up to 30 million people now furloughed on 80% pay, many of whom do not even know when they will get that as the HMRC aren't even ready to start processing these, hence the reason there is no accurate figures available yet.

Is it really 30 million people who are furloughed?

The big challenge will come when those who are working from home find that they are not going to get paid because the people and companies they work for get no revenue.

 

[Bantamzen]

Is it really 30 million people who are furloughed?

The big challenge will come when those who are working from home find that they are not going to get paid because the people and companies they work for get no revenue.

Ooops, a bit of a typo there, I meant to put 10 million (corrected now). That's an estimate based on that around half of UK businesses are shut down or have limited operations.

However you are right, one challenge will come when many currently working from home come to find that lack of revenue flow affects their wages. And for those furloughed and expecting a wage at the end of April all I can say is, don't hold your breath.

 

[JonathanH]

However you are right, one challenge will come when many currently working from home come to find that lack of revenue flow affects their wages. And for those furloughed and expecting a wage at the end of April all I can say is, don't hold your breath.

The chancellor missed a trick not imposing 100% tax above a wage of £2,500 a month for the period of this problem.

 

[The Ham]

And I disagree, vastly, with your interpretation of the rules on exercise. Personally, I do not think you need to have a 7 mile walk but accept that you want a 7 mile walk. I want to get this virus beaten, see as few people as possible infected or worse and get back to real life asap so am accepting more restrictions on my lifestyle than it seems you are willing to.

Indeed, it's fairly easy to do exercise within your home, given that submariners do so - often using exercises like those listed here:

http://fit450.com/HTML/5BX_Intro.html

Anyway, I'd suggest that doing PE with Joe Wicks is probably a more full workout than walking (almost regardless of the distance).

Going out for a walk is beneficial, but I'd argue that most of that benefit could be achieved by undertaking a walk of less than 7 miles.

 

[The Ham]

I would go to the pub

Only if the pub was open, that would require the publican being willing to do so. I'd suggest that many would only be willing to do so if they know they've already had the virus.

 

[edwin_m]

If the death toll reaches millions in the UK, and the NHS collapses I agree we would be in a game changing situation.

If we get to that it will be too late to do much about it, hence the need to introduce measures now while there is some chance of averting that. Italy and Spain are pretty much in that situation now. Doctors in a health service that is in many ways better equipped than ours are having to choose to treat some and not others.

If people start saying in a year or two "well that wasn't so bad after all", it probably means that the measures taken will have worked, not that they were unnecessary.

I do agree that people should go out for exercise etc as per present rules. But I don't think there is any scope to relax them until cases have fallen dramatically, and we are ready with the people and the equipment to test new one as they appear and track down contacts.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I think you are taking this too seriously. Getting out and about for exercise is fine and staying inside for the majority of the day is - in my opinion - very unhealthy. Certainly not something I shall entertain in the short term let alone for months.

For many of us long-term home-workers it's actually quite normal.

 

[JonathanH]

For many of us long-term home-workers it's actually quite normal.

Yes, until you start not to be paid at some point.

The idea that office jobs continue unaffected by the general downturn in the economy is wishful thinking.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Yes, until you start not to be paid at some point.

That is unlikely to happen as I work for a large organisation with plenty of reserves. At worst I would be 80% furloughed, which as I'm spending very little would still result in me having more money than usual. (Yes, before you ask, I am donating fairly substantially to charity as a result of this, I'm not just creaming in the lucre).

But that wasn't the question, we were specifically talking of the "experience" of only, on a normal day, leaving the house for exercise, and that is what quite a lot of us home-workers do as the norm.

The idea that office jobs continue unaffected by the general downturn in the economy is wishful thinking.

I think many of them can. My work saves companies money by way of automation (sorry!) - that being the case it's likely to be in higher demand in a recession.

 

[scotrail158713]

Indeed, it's fairly easy to do exercise within your home, given that submariners do so - often using exercises like those listed here:

http://fit450.com/HTML/5BX_Intro.html

Anyway, I'd suggest that doing PE with Joe Wicks is probably a more full workout than walking (almost regardless of the distance).

Going out for a walk is beneficial, but I'd argue that most of that benefit could be achieved by undertaking a walk of less than 7 miles.

Definitely. If you want to keep exercising whilst indoors it’s simple enough. Without doubt it’s preferable to do it outdoors, but it’s far from impossible indoors.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Definitely. If you want to keep exercising whilst indoors it’s simple enough. Without doubt it’s preferable to do it outdoors, but it’s far from impossible indoors.

TBH I've barely been out, I've been doing video bootcamps indoors with the company I normally do them with (so I can help keep their small business going, too). However, yesterday I put my back out (probably from overdoing it a bit by doing one every day, normally I just do 2-3 a week) and so that's going to be 3-4 days in which walking is the only viable exercise form so I'll probably go out a bit more.

 

[DarloRich]

I know you don't agree, but it can't last as long as it needs to. As I've said above, all this needs paying for & we've just effectively blown a great big hole in the revenue stream. That is now going to add more pressure onto the decision makers at the NHS & treasury, and is maybe already driving some of the what seem poor decisions being made.

And again I know you don't agree, but mental health will be a factor far sooner than you would like. There have already been reports of people trying to take their lives, be it as a result of self-isolation, or secondary issues such as finances (one has been on these forums, others I have heard about through my work). Then there will be domestic violence cases, people's health deteriorating through stress & anxiety, and if left too long there will likely be more crime & civil unrest which will lead to violence. And for every single one of of these there will be more stress on Social Services, Police, Fire Services and yes the NHS. You can't just ignore a problem because its inconvenient. Left too long and you will have a firestorm of issues that will overwhelm not just the NHS but all the essential services.

At best I estimate we have weeks, not months before the sum of the consequences becomes greater than the total of the pandemic. And I guarantee you that locked-down governments the world over are all weighing up these realities. It won't take long for singing on balconies to turn into taking to the streets in protest. Do a bit of digging on the web, and you'll already start to see the signs.

So how many people are you willing to allow die of this virus to satisfy your desire to protect mental health. Please set out a number here.

I think that TODAY ( because of the virus) mental health is a secondary issue that is not important compared to the bigger issue of the virus. I am sorry to be harsh and seem uncaring but that is where we are. The focus has to be on the priority not the secondary issues. When this is over we can try to fix the problems the current emergency creates.

BTW I don't ignore the problems. I simply say that they aren't important today. Whats important is beating the virus. Everything else is secondary to that goal in my view.

Good for you. However you are not everyone, you might feel able to cope but not everyone else does. This is a reality you are going to have to accept, because everyone is different with different emotions, pressures, anxieties etc.

I shouldn't have to point this out ( but you have to tiresomely state the obvious here) but you know nothing of my circumstances, my emotions, pressures or anxieties etc. I would suggest you don't presume. Might it be that those circumstances, emotions, pressures or anxieties etc are driving my views?

We all need to find a way to cope because this could go on for a long time. The sooner you and others accept that and find a way through the better. That will reduce the impacts you are so worried about.

 

[DarloRich]

I won't put anybody at risk but neither will I be cowed.

I don't expect anyone to be cowed. I simply expect maturity and a sensible a approach to what is a very difficult and confusing time. I would prefer people not to be trying to be clever and bloody minded and look for loopholes in rules deigned to protect us all because I want to get back to real life as soon as we can.

 

[Typhoon]

I apologise if this has been suggested elsewhere (I can't wade through 2093 posts, I'm afraid) but I seriously suggest that the country ought to consider a memorial to the NHS staff (and others?) who died doing their duty during this pandemic following yet another death, a 36-year-old nurse.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-51952607

A nurse with coronavirus has died after spending weeks in intensive care.

Areema Nasreen, 36, had been on a ventilator at Walsall Manor Hospital where she also worked.

The death of the mother-of-three has been confirmed to the BBC by Walsall Healthcare NHS Trust's chief executive Richard Beeken.

Mr Beeken said they had hoped to take Ms Nasreen off the ventilator as she had started to show signs of improvement but she then deteriorated.

 

[Domh245]

When this is over we can try to fix the problems the current emergency creates.

That's assuming that mental health is "fixable" - The reality is that its mostly poorly understood, but there are things like therapy that can help alleviate some of the negatives but they can't completely eradicate all of the negative aspects - some of which can and will develop into longer term issues. Not to mention that mental health services were horrendously under-resourced before and won't at all cope with a sudden influx of people needing help.

That's not to say that tackling COVID19 now shouldn't be the priority, but somewhere there is a balance and simply saying "deal with COVID now then deal with Mental Health later" is too simplistic a view that will inevitably result in deaths down the line.

 

[Bantamzen]

So how many people are you willing to allow die of this virus to satisfy your desire to protect mental health. Please set out a number here.

I think that TODAY ( because of the virus) mental health is a secondary issue that is not important compared to the bigger issue of the virus. I am sorry to be harsh and seem uncaring but that is where we are. The focus has to be on the priority not the secondary issues. When this is over we can try to fix the problems the current emergency creates.

BTW I don't ignore the problems. I simply say that they aren't important today. Whats important is beating the virus. Everything else is secondary to that goal in my view.

How many lives? None! Now to you, how many lives are you prepared to wreck now & in the future in order to keep an indefinite lockdown that in all honesty only slows the rates of death so that the NHS isn't swamped? I know the answer is also none, but you cannot ignore the needs of everyone. Just as someone driving at 90mph down the motorway at the moment increases the risk of more strain on the NHS, so does someone sitting at home staring at the walls contemplating taking their own lives. Like it or not, mental health is equally as important.

I shouldn't have to point this out ( but you have to tiresomely state the obvious here) but you know nothing of my circumstances, my emotions, pressures or anxieties etc. I would suggest you don't presume. Might it be that those circumstances, emotions, pressures or anxieties etc are driving my views?

We all need to find a way to cope because this could go on for a long time. The sooner you and others accept that and find a way through the better. That will reduce the impacts you are so worried about.

You are right I don't know your circumstances, nor was I presuming. But I do know people that are already struggling, people I know that are in the what you might describe as the "at risk" category of mental health. I also know people desperately trying to help people like them. I know I will never change your mind, and you are completely entitled and right to express it. But without wanting to sound nasty, when it comes to people struggling emotionally or mentally with this, telling them in effect to put up and shut up is exactly the kind of thing that might just tip them over the edge.

As for how long this will go one for, as I inferred earlier the cracks are starting to show in places like Italy. Civil disorder is potentially only an incident away, and we are not that far behind in this country. You've seen the reaction to some of the policing on these forums, and in all honesty these were generally just minor situations. Sooner or later something more serious is bound to happen which will spark unrest.

I know first hand what it feels like to be in the middle of rising temperatures in a community, I lived just a few hundred metres from one of the several flashpoints that started the Bradford riots in 2001. I felt the growing tension, saw a community start to turn on itself and indeed saw first hand how quickly riots gain momentum. We are not there yet, but just this morning doing a weekly shop you can sense a big change. Any sense of comradeship is dissipating quickly and being replaced by silent tension. Almost exactly the same tension we felt in Lidget Green, Bradford in the weeks before things kicked off back in 2001. You can try to dismiss it all you can, but a prolonged lock-down, especially where large numbers are struggling to get any pay is exactly the kind of spark that will light that tension.

Ignore it at all our perils.

 

[DarloRich]

That's not to say that tackling COVID19 now shouldn't be the priority, but somewhere there is a balance and simply saying "deal with COVID now then deal with Mental Health later" is too simplistic a view that will inevitably result in deaths down the line.

It will and that is terrible and awful but I am more worried about dealing with Coronovirus because that will kill more people, more quickly imo. That's the balance in my mind.

 

[Domh245]

It will and that is terrible and awful but I am more worried about dealing with Coronovirus because that will kill more people, more quickly imo. That's the balance in my mind.

Let's turn your original question on it's head - how many more suicides and long term mental health issues are you willing to accept to slow the spread of the virus? Please set out a number here.

 

[DarloRich]

Let's turn your original question on it's head - how many more suicides and long term mental health issues are you willing to accept to slow the spread of the virus? Please set out a number here.

How many lives? None! Now to you, how many lives are you prepared to wreck now & in the future in order to keep an indefinite lockdown that in all honesty only slows the rates of death so that the NHS isn't swamped? I know the answer is also none, but you cannot ignore the needs of everyone. Just as someone driving at 90mph down the motorway at the moment increases the risk of more strain on the NHS, so does someone sitting at home staring at the walls contemplating taking their own lives. Like it or not, mental health is equally as important.

I don't feel able to honestly answer that question because my view will not be popular and I will be banned. I would like to but simply don't feel my views would be welcome. My bottom line is that I do not agree that mental health considerations are as important today ( that is not my general opinion btw) as beating this virus. I understand that seems harsh and not popular but remains my view.

But without wanting to sound nasty, when it comes to people struggling emotionally or mentally with this, telling them in effect to put up and shut up is exactly the kind of thing that might just tip them over the edge.

My point is not that I WANT to say that to people but that we might HAVE to say that.

You can try to dismiss it all you can, but a prolonged lock-down, especially where large numbers are struggling to get any pay is exactly the kind of spark that will light that tension.

Ignore it at all our perils.

The first sign of any trouble will be met with a very serious and violent response by the authorities and could very easily involve the army on the streets.

BTW - I respect entirely that you have a different viewpoint and opinion to me. I am very comfortable with that. Both are based on our experiences and background. I simply disagree with it.

 

[haggishunter]

So how many people are you willing to allow die of this virus to satisfy your desire to protect mental health. Please set out a number here.

I think that TODAY ( because of the virus) mental health is a secondary issue

You really should wind your neck in. Having had to resuscitate a friend who’s been struggling with their mental health I can assure it’s not secondary or a non issue as others suggest, particularly under circumstances like this.

 

[JonathanH]

Let's turn your original question on it's head - how many more suicides and long term mental health issues are you willing to accept to slow the spread of the virus? Please set out a number here.

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopula.../suicidesintheunitedkingdom/2018registrations

• In 2018, there were 6,507 suicides registered in the UK, an age-standardised rate of 11.2 deaths per 100,000 population; the latest rate is significantly higher than that in 2017 and represents the first increase since 2013.
  
  
• Three-quarters of registered deaths in 2018 were among men (4,903 deaths), which has been the case since the mid-1990s

Every death is clearly a tragedy - suicide is a terrible thing. It is terrible for those associated with the person who loses their life, those who find them. However, it won't be long before the number of Coronavirus deaths of people who are not old, who do not have medical issues, who are healthcare professionals overtake the number of 6507 if Coronavirus is just allowed to spread freely in the population. It isn't just about old people who are 'ready for death'.

Let's not forget the mental health of those who are petrified that Coronavirus is going to get them badly. How about the nurse who is worried about being overworked if the numbers overwhelm the NHS and not having the strength to beat the virus? They have just as much right to fear about their future.

 

[Bletchleyite]

But don't forget that that will increase due to job losses etc.