The end of hibernation

[Nick_Ips]

It's ridiculous isn't it? I feel a bit as if at least 50% of the country think it's all over and that the government are almost shrugging their shoulders and saying, "Get on with it, do as you like."

For large parts of the country it is "all over" (for the time being at least), or rather the rate of infection appears to be at a level where banning people from going to the beach is not going to make much difference.

The Government also needs to consider the potential for a second wave and the need for the majority of the population to go back into stricter 'lockdown' at some point in the future.  It will be far easier to get people to comply with a second strict 'lockdown' if in the interim they have had the opportunity to live in a way approximating to normal.

Besides, a significant proportion of the population have always been sceptical about the need (and wisdom) of social distancing and isolation and even if the Government recommend an activity shouldn't restart there will always be some people who will do their own assessment of risk and decide it is "safe" - or as you say, they will believe they are entitled to "do as you like" regardless of any guidance or legislation.

There comes a point where it is pointless to try and enforce the rules.... at that stage you have to switch your efforts into preparing for the consequences instead.

[ThrelfallYorky]

What the consequences may be, doesn't bear thinking about. I wonder if it's simply:
 a) to get all those furloughed people back to work, and off the balance sheet, and
b) to hope all the expensive "oldies" are so desperate to get on with what's left of life, go out, and succumb, thus reducing the pensions bill
-No, it couldn't be the second, could it?

[heywood]

Hurrah, just heard from my hairdresser, who has offered me an appointment on July 9th!

I had mine done last week! I have mine cut at home by Kim, who has been doing it for over 12 years. She came, fitted out with mask etc and did it in the garden!  As I hadn't been out and neither had she, we decided it was safe.

You did a risk assessment and decided that was fine. Others would decide it was not. I suppose that’s what it is about.

hibernation definitely over in Bournemouth yesterday

https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/660/cpsprodpb/1688A/production/_113089229_daily-telegraph-front-page-.jpg

And in Southend

https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/660/cpsprodpb/CC4A/production/_113089225_daily-mail-25-june.jpg

It's ridiculous isn't it? I feel a bit as if at least 50% of the country think it's all over and that the government are almost shrugging their shoulders and saying, "Get on with it, do as you like."

I am going to wait a while, I think. 

[Jomot]

I’m not quite in the ‘do as you like’ category, but I do think it’s ridiculous and unnecessary to impose the same restrictions on a 25-year old as on an 85-year old, so long as sensible steps are taken to prevent cross-infection between the generations.  Even at its peak, relatively few hospital beds were taken up by otherwise healthy young people.  The issue isn’t, and never was, about the level of infection – around 80% of people are asymptomatic – it’s always been about controlling it within the population that are likely to be adversely affected.   

Having said that, I do question whether there was a deliberate strategy to send the virus into care homes – were the Government working on the basis that you can’t kill the same people twice, so if a second wave comes then the death rate will be lower by design?

Crass, cruel and impractical, I know - and I’m not actively suggesting we should do it - but if we were to continue a total lock down for those known to be most at risk, eg the elderly & those with certain pre-existing conditions, including obesity, then the rest of the population could pretty much get on with life without overwhelming the NHS.  There would still be deaths, but not excessively so. 

[Nick_Ips]

-No, it couldn't be the second, could it?

Probably not.

The cost of paying state pensions to those people is peanuts compared to the total economic cost of having a second full lockdown for an extended period.

Not to mention the additional cost of running the NHS through a second wave.

And the likely (not insubstantial) costs of long-term treatment and benefits paid out to younger people whose health is permanently adversely affected by having had Covid.  We don't yet know what (if any) long-term impacts this novel virus might leave people with - not even for the luckier ones who got away with relatively minor symptoms.

On that basis I'm fairly sure the Government would rather carry on paying (and taxing) the "oldies" (especially as part of that pensions bill will be another government's problem) - instead of picking up another immediate bill dealing with a second Covid wave.

The ultimate problem is the majority of the population simply won't put up with their lives being significantly disrupted until (if) a vaccine is widely available. The Government and their advisors said that right at the start (when 'herd immunity' was being discussed) but the "clever" people of the kind working for the BBC and the Guardian said there was no evidence for that and it wasn't true.   

Now we do have the evidence.

[Nick_Ips]

Having said that, I do question whether there was a deliberate strategy to send the virus into care homes – were the Government working on the basis that you can’t kill the same people twice, so if a second wave comes then the death rate will be lower by design?

Interesting thought, but I'm not sure the logic works. If the care homes (concentrations of people most likely to die) were entirely sealed up (staff living on site, no visits at all, not even compassionate ones) then the overall death rate would be lower in the first, second and any subsequent waves.

I think the answer is far simpler. The images from elsewhere in Europe (not shown on UK media) of people being triaged and effectively left to die caused such alarm that the decision making became focused on "protecting the NHS". The media hype about lack of ventilators and ICU beds then led to a clear-out of hospital beds to prepare for armageddon.

The result - and I'm sure it was entirely unintended - was to send infected people out and into the very environments where the maximum risk actually existed.

Hindsight is great. We are talking about deaths in care homes now primarily because they make up a very significant proportion of the total number of deaths.  In another scenario - say where the older people were not sent from the hospitals to care homes - then if the NHS had been overwhelmed and the total death toll was ~100,000 (but very few in care homes) the inevitable public inquiry would be examining why the "bed blockers" weren't moved out to maximise NHS capacity to treat the younger people who 'needlessly died'.

An event like Covid-19 is always judged through a prism manufactured after the event.

Crass, cruel and impractical, I know - and I’m not actively suggesting we should do it - but if we were to continue a total lock down for those known to be most at risk, eg the elderly & those with certain pre-existing conditions, including obesity, then the rest of the population could pretty much get on with life without overwhelming the NHS.  There would still be deaths, but not excessively so.

This would only work in a society where each and every death doesn't result in the seeking of someone or something to blame.  Unfortunately we've lost touch with the notion that death is a thing that happens to us all, that the best we can do is to postpone it.

It would be a very brave politician that enacted your proposal against that background. 

[Gadget]

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jun/25/major-incident-declared-as-people-flock-to-england-south-coast

[jillruss]

1. I'm going to lobby the BBC for a rerun of Hancock's Half Hour - the real one! An arm full!!

2. I'm looking forward to Alan Cummings playing the part of his namesake in 'Return To Barnard Castle'. Let's hope its as funny as the original.

3. I'm going to watch as BJ's nose gets longer and longer...and longer.

4. I shall pray that, in future, the NHS won't need protecting because it will have been reorganised to include social care and will be fully funded.

5. I must watch out for flying pigs.

6. I shall make a will stipulating that I should never, ever, not in a million years be placed in a British care home.

7. Rather, I will be moving from my current location here in Cloud Cuckoo Land and relocating to No 1, Sunny Side Of The Street, basically anywhere but Britain.


Oh, and
8. I must clear out the garage.

[Jomot]

It would be a very brave politician that enacted your proposal against that background. 

I didn't propose it, I was merely hypothesising, but I agree with your comment about attitudes to death in general.  I loathe it when people say things like "if it saves just one life, its worth it", as it usually means a permanent curtailment of the rights & freedoms of the majority for the potential benefit of a tiny few.