There's a difference between being alive and having a life. I've been saying since the start of this thread that merely preserving biological functions is not - and should not be - the only thing that matters.
This is true, but what I haven't seen you acknowledge yet (I may have missed it) is that in this particular instance, your decision to "have a life" may have a terminal impact on someone else's life.
This is very different from, say, a decision to engage in extreme sports, which is likely first and foremost to affect the practitioner's life.
It's also one of the reasons why most of us are all having to endure blanket restrictions - giving the professionals time to figure out just how the virus propagates in real-life conditions.
There's a difference between being alive and having a life. I've been saying since the start of this thread that merely preserving biological functions is not - and should not be - the only thing that matters.
This is true, but what I haven't seen you acknowledge yet (I may have missed it) is that in this particular instance, your decision to "have a life" may have a terminal impact on someone else's life.
I've acknowledged it lots - that's what all the comparisons to death rates from other activities like driving have been about. The fact is that we accept a number of deaths - many (most?) of which are not the driver who caused the accident - as the price to pay for a far greater social good. Sure, we do what we can to minimise those deaths, but not to the extent of permanently locking every motor vehicle up in its garage even though that would bring the number all the way down to zero.
When it comes to driving we know that about 1.35 million people a year die in accidents, but we're OK with that because driving is more important to society than preventing them. I'm just applying the same logic to coronavirus, and asking if it's possible that all the things we're currently without, when added up, may actually be more important to society than preventing the deaths it will cause.
We already make that calculation - callous though it may be - in so many other areas of our lives. Why are we so reluctant to make it - even in theory - when it's about our whole lives?
When it comes to driving we know that about 1.35 million people a year die in accidents, but we're OK with that because driving is more important to society than preventing them. I'm just applying the same logic to coronavirus (...) Why are we so reluctant to make it - even in theory - when it's about our whole lives?
The reason the same logic can't be applied to coronavirus is twofold. Firstly, road traffic accidents don't usually result in a whole series of road deaths in exponentially increasing numbers.
Secondly, the causes of such accidents are reasonably well understood and a whole arsenal of measures are used to combat them. There are arguments about some (such as whether speed cameras are more about making money than accident prevention) but there is plenty of data to discuss.
The way coronavirus spreads is particularly pernicious to normal social life and - as yet - it's not well enough understood to be able to combat effectively in the way road traffic accidents are. I share your frustration, but as @alienfromzog says, data is coming out all the time and we can (and do indeed fervently) hope that this will help going forward.
Do you think it would be better to permanently destroy everybody’s lives?
Social distancing will kill everyone? That's what permanently destroying lives usually means. I think you're losing perspective.
There's a difference between being alive and having a life. I've been saying since the start of this thread that merely preserving biological functions is not - and should not be - the only thing that matters.
I don't think anyone is arguing against your premise here. In the medical ethics literature this is probably the most fundamental concept. It is also well established that Quality of Life is an individual judgement. I.e. what you consider an acceptable QoL and what I consider acceptable may be very different things.
In essence, you are fully entitled to make a risk/benefit assessment for you. We all do that all the time. As an example, I fly microlights. Whilst safety is central to everything we do, there is no doubt that you cannot mitigate the risk completely. Thus when I strap in I am taking a calculated risk with my life. It would be safer to stay on the ground.
You are also right that lockdown does not come without a cost. That cost is higher for some than others.
The problem though is that at no point in your postings on this have you engaged with the point that it is not your life that you are willing to risk for your freedom. Or rather, not just your life. The problem is that if you get infected, you might infect lots of other people. Some of these will have underlying problems and die, whilst you might survive. If you are admitted to hospital, that is a large burden on the healthcare system... I'll quote you a starting figure of 25k for your hospital stay in the UK... and you put dozens of healthcare workers at risk who look after you.
Of course we need to balance the costs of shutdown against the costs of the disease - by which I don't mean financial. But, it can only be justly a community decision. Your willingness to take greater risks means greater risks for others as well.
Most of us don't like the Lockdown (and I am especially worried about how our current idiotic government will use it as justification for further austerity which will cause widespread suffering) but the costs of the lockdown at the moment are self-evidently several orders of magnitude less than the cost of allowing the infection to spread unchecked. Now, the length of the lockdown does affect that calculation but for most of us, we've got a very long way to go before we get close to parity.
When I had mild symptoms a month or so back my great fear was me or my asthmatic wife or small children being taken to hospital by ambulance, being critically ill and not allowed visitors whilst being very scared.
We are a helluva long way from the costs of the lockdown getting close to the costs of not doing it.
You are entitled to feel different. You are entitled to be willing to take that risk for you. But you are not entitled to be willing to take that risk for everyone else. I have to go to work and be put at risk regardless, many people I know are at far greater risk than me. It is not a case that individually we can decide on the level of risk we are willing to run. You are advocating risking other people for your freedom.
Do you think it would be better to permanently destroy everybody’s lives?
Social distancing will kill everyone? That's what permanently destroying lives usually means. I think you're losing perspective.
There's a difference between being alive and having a life. I've been saying since the start of this thread that merely preserving biological functions is not - and should not be - the only thing that matters.
I don't think anyone is arguing against your premise here. In the medical ethics literature this is probably the most fundamental concept. It is also well established that Quality of Life is an individual judgement. I.e. what you consider an acceptable QoL and what I consider acceptable may be very different things.
In essence, you are fully entitled to make a risk/benefit assessment for you. We all do that all the time. As an example, I fly microlights. Whilst safety is central to everything we do, there is no doubt that you cannot mitigate the risk completely. Thus when I strap in I am taking a calculated risk with my life. It would be safer to stay on the ground.
You are also right that lockdown does not come without a cost. That cost is higher for some than others.
The problem though is that at no point in your postings on this have you engaged with the point that it is not your life that you are willing to risk for your freedom. Or rather, not just your life. The problem is that if you get infected, you might infect lots of other people. Some of these will have underlying problems and die, whilst you might survive. If you are admitted to hospital, that is a large burden on the healthcare system... I'll quote you a starting figure of 25k for your hospital stay in the UK... and you put dozens of healthcare workers at risk who look after you.
Of course we need to balance the costs of shutdown against the costs of the disease - by which I don't mean financial. But, it can only be justly a community decision. Your willingness to take greater risks means greater risks for others as well.
Most of us don't like the Lockdown (and I am especially worried about how our current idiotic government will use it as justification for further austerity which will cause widespread suffering) but the costs of the lockdown at the moment are self-evidently several orders of magnitude less than the cost of allowing the infection to spread unchecked. Now, the length of the lockdown does affect that calculation but for most of us, we've got a very long way to go before we get close to parity.
When I had mild symptoms a month or so back my great fear was me or my asthmatic wife or small children being taken to hospital by ambulance, being critically ill and not allowed visitors whilst being very scared.
We are a helluva long way from the costs of the lockdown getting close to the costs of not doing it.
You are entitled to feel different. You are entitled to be willing to take that risk for you. But you are not entitled to be willing to take that risk for everyone else. I have to go to work and be put at risk regardless, many people I know are at far greater risk than me. It is not a case that individually we can decide on the level of risk we are willing to run. You are advocating risking other people for your freedom.
Do you think it would be better to permanently destroy everybody’s lives?
Social distancing will kill everyone? That's what permanently destroying lives usually means. I think you're losing perspective.
There's a difference between being alive and having a life. I've been saying since the start of this thread that merely preserving biological functions is not - and should not be - the only thing that matters.
And I’ve been saying from the beginning of the thread that everyone is going to need to find ways to adapt. Both for work, family life and leisure.
Finding new ways to work and interact, new ways to enjoy life.
Many businesses have adapted brilliantly already. Of course it’s a challenge. But problem solving, finding solutions and rising to challenges is what humans do so well.
Now, the length of the lockdown does affect that calculation but for most of us, we've got a very long way to go before we get close to parity.
How long do you think would be too long? Six months? A year? Five years? A decade or two?
How about we cross that bridge when we get to 6 months rather than try to bury ourselves in a pit of doom and gloom?
The problem with that approach is we end up in a never-ending series of "what's another few weeks/months compared to all those lives" arguments, where how long we've already done it for is disregarded. Better to set an upper bound now and say that we can stop sooner if possible, but that in any event we won't go on longer than that.
It's the lack of that upper bound that's causing the doom and gloom, for me at least. I could cope with this so much more easily if I knew for certain it would end on XX/XX/XXXX. I could make plans for the future and have something to look forward to, even if it was a long way off. I can't do that now because the problem with an open-ended "we do this for as long as it takes for science to find a solution" approach is what if science never finds a solution? Is there any back-up plan whatsoever other than putting our fingers in our ears and going "la la la, can't hear you, it'll all be fine" while in the meantime we all just waste away in our own little isolated prisons?
I’m busy inventing a silicon ‘hug bubble’ which can easily be donned, used to hug grandchildren, then disinfected. ☺️
‘What if’ thoughts are very destructive. I would avoid them. I went through a day of despondency fearing my son was going to die. The thoughts were awful and hurtful - and pointless. Whatever problems life throws at us they won’t be the ‘what ifs’ we were thinking of. They will be something else entirely. And we will cope.
I'm filing your answer under "we do this forever if we have to, regardless of the cost". Which is a perfectly valid answer to the question I'm asking, though obviously not one I like in any way.
But I'll ask you a question in turn. If it was confirmed that this was going to be forever, and that things like pubs, sports clubs, gyms, churches and the like were never going to reopen, how many people do you think would actually be able to adapt and how many do you think would decide it's not a world they want to live in? And how many of the latter would choose instead to end it now? What do you think is the acceptable number of deaths on that side of the scale? Theoretically speaking, of course.
Descriptions about covid sometimes give an assumption that mild/moderate disease means a short illness and a quick return to full health but that isn’t necessarily the case. I started my symptoms nearly 7 weeks ago and was not hospitalised. I have had recurrent health issues since and couldn’t return to work full time for a month, and that was despite a sedentary job teaching from home. In the meantime I appear to have developed a potentially long term health problem of postural tachycardia with related shortness of breath. Before covid I was a relatively fit 50 year old with no significant health issues and no medication, and my GP tells me they are seeing a lot of similar patients. Covid is going to have a long term impact on health experience and provision, even among survivors.
The problem with that approach is we end up in a never-ending series of "what's another few weeks/months compared to all those lives" arguments, where how long we've already done it for is disregarded.
Who exactly do you see making those arguments? Governments just about everywhere of every political hue are devising lockdown-easing strategies based partly on societal issues (which specifically take into account how long that lockdown's being going on) and partly on improved (if as yet limited) understanding of the disease.
I note you've once again failed to acknowledge the flaw in your comparison of Covid-19 to RTAs as pointed out by @alienfromzog and me, too.
But I'll ask you a question in turn. If it was confirmed that this was going to be forever, and that things like pubs, sports clubs, gyms, churches and the like were never going to reopen, how many people do you think would actually be able to adapt and how many do you think would decide it's not a world they want to live in? And how many of the latter would choose instead to end it now? What do you think is the acceptable number of deaths on that side of the scale? Theoretically speaking, of course.
To this point, firstly, I can identify with that way of thinking, but I can also acknowledge that it's irrational and that pursuing your suggested thought experiment is not going to do anybody any good, least of all you.
Secondly, you start from an assumption of having the option, which is an assumption born of privilege. Many, many people have no choice but to adapt to nigh-impossible circumstances, and do. Suicide is, by and large, a developed-world problem.
Thirdly, one semi-positive takeaway from all this for me is that people can and do comply with highly constraining requirements when it's an issue of survival. Which might come in handy when it comes to addressing climate change, for which I suspect all of this disruption is quite a useful dress rehearsal. Massive societal transition is coming one way or another.
When it comes to driving we know that about 1.35 million people a year die in accidents, but we're OK with that because driving is more important to society than preventing them. [/i]?
Presumably that's a global figure?
According to UK government statistics, under 2,000 people a year are killed in motor traffic accidents here. 50 years ago with significantly fewer cars on the road the total was over 6,000. We didn't accept that, introduced protective measures which did in fact reduce people's freedoms of choice over drinking, wearing seat belts, speeding. For the greater good.
Annual road traffic accident death totals are and were very small in comparison with COVID-19 deaths over a mere two months . And the dangers of further exponential increase are much greater with the virus. Surely that justifies more drastic action? Surely that changes perceptions about the risks and rewards? We need remedies to reduce the carnage. Presently all we've got are safe distancing, preventing group assembly, self isolation, careful hygiene. Some proven treatment to reduce death rates may be emerging. More will probably do so. A vaccine may emerge in a year. I really hope so. Meanwhile, what's to do?
I understand risk/reward arguments Marvin, but frankly I don't like the look of the immediate medical risks in comparison with the, admittedly serious, economic and social costs to date. And it's hard to gauge a cutover point when we don't yet know the costs of relaxation.
Lots of the relaxations happening in the US may indeed teach us something about that. And frankly, looking at their figures, many States seem to be taking much bigger gambles with people's health and lives than feel comfortable to me. I'd like to be proved wrong about that.
But I'll ask you a question in turn. If it was confirmed that this was going to be forever, and that things like pubs, sports clubs, gyms, churches and the like were never going to reopen, how many people do you think would actually be able to adapt and how many do you think would decide it's not a world they want to live in? And how many of the latter would choose instead to end it now? What do you think is the acceptable number of deaths on that side of the scale? Theoretically speaking, of course.
I didn’t say they won’t ever reopen - I said they will adapt.
Church has already adapted amazingly - come to one of our Ship of Fools Zoom communion services and find out! In Germany Churches are open, with restrictions (no singing, yet).
Locally we had a supplier of restaurants who has become a home deliverer within a week of lockdown and is doing great business.
My husband meets his mates on Zoom on a Friday night (they used to meet at the pub). From the laughter I hear from the other room they have a great time chatting, quizzing and ribbing each other.
He’s a crazy gym goer - so now he cycles instead, until they open again. They will open but they will have machines further apart etc etc.
My brother’s step daughter has had a restricted life since she was born (she’s 32 and has Retts syndrome) she has a happy, adapted life. My last Guide Dog puppy, Spencer’s owner lost his sight suddenly two years ago. From being a top manager he’s now adapting to life with a Guide Dog. To say he’s overjoyed is an understatement - it’s lovely to read his emails.
Anyone who decides life isn’t worth living (for whatever reason) needs help/therapy/medical intervention - not ideas on how to adapt to the ‘new normal’.
Anyone who decides life isn’t worth living (for whatever reason) needs help/therapy/medical intervention - not ideas on how to adapt to the ‘new normal’.
Therapy and medical intervention are just ways to adapt to a new normal. First though, we have to determine whether that new normal is something we actually have to adapt to at all. Lockdown and social distancing are choices we as a society have made, not immutable facts of life. And we as a society can choose to end them. There are costs associated with both choices, and just because the cost of one choice is measured in deaths and the cost of the other is measured in lives not worth living doesn't mean the latter should be so quickly dismissed as not a cost at all.
You're still not acknowledging the points made to you about the impact your own choices might have on other people in this specific instance, or the fact that nobody has suggested the lockdown measures should be permanent.
So...how many other people are you willing to risk to get your life back to normal?
The right wing or libertarian viewpoint is in a cul de sac, as they have no solution, except to let the the virus rip. Many in the US, and some here, have recourse to denial, thus, it's no worse than flu, or, it will burn out. I suppose Toby Young is honest, let several hundred thousand die, so I can flourish.
But we've already discussed the problem with any limit. If you decide that 50 million is a reasonable limit, world wide, will the virus be cognizant of that? So for the UK 500 000, and the US, 3 million. Why stop there?
You're still not acknowledging the points made to you about the impact your own choices might have on other people in this specific instance
I honestly thought I had. And I'm talking in my previous post about the choice we make as a society, not as individuals.
or the fact that nobody has suggested the lockdown measures should be permanent.
Neither is anyone willing to commit to a timetable by which they will cease regardless of whether we have an effective vaccine or not. Which means that in the absence of such a vaccine "permanent" is exactly what it will be - surely that is a genuine risk that has to be considered in our planning.
You're still not acknowledging the points made to you about the impact your own choices might have on other people in this specific instance
I honestly thought I had. And I'm talking in my previous post about the choice we make as a society, not as individuals.
The specific thing you're not acknowledging, so far as I can see, is that your potential impact on others if you infect somebody else is exponential, which is not the case in the example of extreme sports or car accidents.
or the fact that nobody has suggested the lockdown measures should be permanent.
Neither is anyone willing to commit to a timetable by which they will cease regardless of whether we have an effective vaccine or not. Which means that in the absence of such a vaccine "permanent" is exactly what it will be - surely that is a genuine risk that has to be considered in our planning.
There's a lot of wiggle room between having an effective vaccine and relaxing lockdown restrictions, and I don't see a government in the world that isn't using that wiggle room (or planning to). Do you?
Committing to a timeline might give you better personal peace of mind but if so it's entirely irrational, because the timeline has to take into account real-world disease factors (as well as societal issues), and these can of course evolve (for better as well as for worse) between the time of any announcement and the date given.
I presume you wouldn't want to be kept locked down for longer if the announced date were to prove unreasonably far off!
France has given a relaxation date of May 11. Everybody seems to be taking this as read, so much so that the Health Minister keeps having to remind us it depends on the growth rate remaining below 1. Relaxation of the rules is also based on a "traffic light" system for each département (county), based mostly on how much spare hospital capacity they have. My département is green, and I'm hoping this isn't misinterpreted to the point that we change colour before May 11.
(I admit this approach seems remarkably sane, as evidenced by the fact that unusually, the BBC's French-bashing Paris correspondent Hugh Schofield couldn't find a bad word to say against it).
The right wing or libertarian viewpoint is in a cul de sac, as they have no solution, except to let the the virus rip.
If literally the only other option was to stay in lockdown forever, then yes.
Here's my logic (and remember, this is in the scenario where no other choices exist) .
If we let the virus rip then maybe a third of the population will die. If it's as bad as the Black Death that could even be as high as half. But the surviving population - whoever they are - will be free to live their lives.
If we stay on permanent lockdown then fewer (but not no) people will die. But nobody will ever again be free to live their lives.
(1) is horrible, no argument there. But I honestly think (2) is worse. In a situation where there is no (3), (4), (5), etc then which would you choose?
The right wing or libertarian viewpoint is in a cul de sac, as they have no solution, except to let the the virus rip.
If literally the only other option was to stay in lockdown forever, then yes.
Here's my logic (and remember, this is in the scenario where no other choices exist) .
If we let the virus rip then maybe a third of the population will die. If it's as bad as the Black Death that could even be as high as half. But the surviving population - whoever they are - will be free to live their lives.
If we stay on permanent lockdown then fewer (but not no) people will die. But nobody will ever again be free to live their lives.
(1) is horrible, no argument there. But I honestly think (2) is worse. In a situation where there is no (3), (4), (5), etc then which would you choose?
Option 2, no question. Quite apart from the appalling thought of millions dying unnecessarily, it's pretty likely I'd be one of them.
The right wing or libertarian viewpoint is in a cul de sac, as they have no solution, except to let the the virus rip.
If literally the only other option was to stay in lockdown forever, then yes.
Here's my logic (and remember, this is in the scenario where no other choices exist) .
If we let the virus rip then maybe a third of the population will die. If it's as bad as the Black Death that could even be as high as half. But the surviving population - whoever they are - will be free to live their lives.
If we stay on permanent lockdown then fewer (but not no) people will die. But nobody will ever again be free to live their lives.
(1) is horrible, no argument there. But I honestly think (2) is worse. In a situation where there is no (3), (4), (5), etc then which would you choose?
It's an unreal dichotomy. Of course, there are other solutions, most obviously test and trace.
@Marvin the Martian the kind of world that would follow (1) would be unlikely to be one in which you could easily engage in the type of activity you consider normal.
And as @quetzalcoatl says, your dichotomy is unreal. I don't see it serving any purpose other than to fuel your own anxieties.
Do you think it would be better to permanently destroy everybody’s lives?
Social distancing will kill everyone? That's what permanently destroying lives usually means. I think you're losing perspective.
There's a difference between being alive and having a life. I've been saying since the start of this thread that merely preserving biological functions is not - and should not be - the only thing that matters.
Yes. But your difference may not be the difference of the person you've just infected, by the exercise of your freedom, and sent to the hospital to die of pneumonia, or liver failure, or internal bleeding, or all those things plus more. It may not also be the difference acceptable to someone who survives but with severely compromised lung capacity, heart and liver damage which will lead to an early unpleasant death, just a little further down the line.
Can we choose who the sacrifices should be for our idea of what constitutes a life worth living? It seems my part of the country has become the Scottish capital for Coronavirus. It is also top of the league in the Deprivation Indices. Some people think that's not entirely coincidence. It looks as if the politics dictating the quality and distribution of social welfare and health care are already sorting some of that 'difference' out for us, along the lines of 'if you're poor or vulnerable you're not qualitatively 'alive' enough to warrant staying alive'.
And anyway who has been suggesting that this should be permanent? Why would you think that? There's been no No.10 briefing seriously suggesting that we're to live like this forever - has there? Here in Scotland, the First Minister has been very clear that we're working towards living with the virus, not living with lockdown. Yes, that will include various stages of varying kinds of restrictions - probably, yo-yoing, too. But it's hardly beyond the wit of humankind to adapt and cope. For most of us our fairly comfortable worlds of entitled privilege and easy access to almost luxurious levels of living have been put on pause - and actually may never be exactly the same again - though we don't know that. But who signed a contract at the beginning of life that we'd never have to know what it feels like to be in this place, at this time? Who owes us an easy passage through the random crap of sharing this planet? Life isn't like that. Including the kind of life that's worth living. Adapting and hoping is what qualifies us as human.
And bearing that in mind, there's no point drawing false analogies between a pandemic of this sort and the controlled risks of driving a car! In itself, your example is actually a good example of a potential risk to human life which is certainly worth taking if PROPER RESTRICTIONS and CONTROLS are put it place; seat-belts, speed limits, the Highway Code, testing etc. Anyone remember the resistance to wearing seat-belts when it became compulsory? Or having to submit to the beaurocracy of MOTs and services and insurance legal requirements? In its own way that's what's happening here with the virus so we DO have the freedom we need to live worthwhile lives. But it will take a while to get there.
Option 2, no question. Quite apart from the appalling thought of millions dying unnecessarily, it's pretty likely I'd be one of them.
It's pretty likely I'd be one of them too, for what it's worth.
What this shows me is that we have very different ideas of what constitutes "necessary". Even if it was absolutely certain that I would die, I still wouldn't expect literally everyone else in the world to permanently give up all the things that make life worth living to prevent it.
Books, music, beer, wine, conversation, games, they're still here and available. It's only a subset of "things that make life worth living" that are currently unavailable.
There are even upsides; I've virtually forgotten where the physical office actually is...
And it will be temporary - the worst case is a point is reached where the lives lost through disruption exceed those not being lost to the virus - at that point there's a strong case for loosening restrictions.
What this shows me is that we have very different ideas of what constitutes "necessary".
Indeed. If you want yours altering, try sitting down for a chat with, say, a woman who's come to Europe from Nigeria illegally, overland via the Sahara and Libya and then via the Mediterranean.
Essential things I discovered when I (temporarily through theft on holiday in Portugal and only had my shorts on and a t shirt on at the time - they were all I had left - my suitcase, passport, money, everything were stolen)
1. A pair of jeans.
2. A toothbrush
3. Kind people who help those in need
@Marvin the Martian the kind of world that would follow (1) would be unlikely to be one in which you could easily engage in the type of activity you consider normal.
Probably. But in the scenario proposed, the alternative is a world where it's impossible to do so.
And as @quetzalcoatl says, your dichotomy is unreal. I don't see it serving any purpose other than to fuel your own anxieties.
If nothing else, it's revealing the people who think there is no price that isn't worth paying to avoid an untimely death.
All I'm really looking for is some kind of reassurance that lockdown and social distancing will end that isn't conditional on the hope of there being a scientific solution first. A recognition that this can't - shouldn't - mustn't - go on forever under any circumstances. And that I'm not some kind of crazy outlier for thinking there are things in life that are more important than merely avoiding death. I mean, 500 years from now we're all going to be dead anyway, right?
And you're still dodging my responses to you.
Exponential growth only changes the numbers, not the principle.
The numbers are the principle in this case. If exponential growth happens the NHS is overwhelmed and nobody is unaffected.
We are already looking at a scenario where things will be opening up even tho a treatment/vaccine are not available yet. Workplaces and other places are working on it right now. The houses of commons opened up really quickly and have shown the way, I think.
My friends, who run a soup kitchen, adapted the day after lockdown. They are serving the same people from a safe place to work from - 200 meals a day supplied to the same people as before - just in a different way.
Hopefully many things will be better in years to come,
More home working.
Less commuting.
Less air pollution.
Better infrastructure for walking and cycling.
A better attitude to wildlife.
A PM who truly understands what Covid19 does to the body.
An NHS which gets the resources it needs.
People have got to know their neighbours and this sense of community may continue.
Our lockdown is being eased and I wouldn't say we have a "scientific solution" as such. But we should be able to reopen some things as long as infection can be kept to a level where the hospitals can cope.
@Eutychus FWIW I think people are much less confident in the French Government's plan in the reddest of red zones like the one I live in. There's massive resistance to reopening schools, in particular, and no one really believes there's any workable way of opening up the public transport network. Apart from some shops being open, it looks like we're all staying at home for quite some time longer.
If nothing else, it's revealing the people who think there is no price that isn't worth paying to avoid an untimely death.
No it's not. You keep framing this as a choice between two extremes that have no basis in fact.
All I'm really looking for is some kind of reassurance that lockdown and social distancing will end that isn't conditional on the hope of there being a scientific solution first.
Are you living in a cave? Restrictions across the world are already being eased, not because a "solution" as such has been found but because coping strategies have.
And that I'm not some kind of crazy outlier for thinking there are things in life that are more important than merely avoiding death.
What you are again failing to acknowledge is that in the present case, this comes down to there being things in your life that are more important than avoiding other people's deaths. Can you not see how massively selfish that comes across as? Not to mention the consequences if everybody thought that way.
Exponential growth only changes the numbers, not the principle.
It makes the two situations incomparable in my view. The threat is not at all the same.
@Eutychus FWIW I think people are much less confident in the French Government's plan in the reddest of red zones like the one I live in. There's massive resistance to reopening schools, in particular, and no one really believes there's any workable way of opening up the public transport network. Apart from some shops being open, it looks like we're all staying at home for quite some time longer.
My sympathies - all the more so because I have family with young grandchildren in one of those zones too. What I find the oddest about this is the extent to which French red zone inhabitants, specifically swanky and/or rebellious Parisians, are on the face of it prepared to put up with so much more than @Marvin the Martian.
Letting the virus rip. What a phrase. 23 March lockdown for the UK heavily criticized with footage of Boris Johnson bragging about shaking hands. Probably it's old news to many. This was analyzed as economy before people. Also referred to was a pandemic plan review 4 years ago which had recommendations that were not followed. It disrupted my sleep. Such an idiot with dithering and delay to quarantine.
I’m not surprised people are resistant to schools opening; my 15 year old began coughing a few days before lockdown and several of his friends and our neighbours also had the same cough (one of the parents from school had a positive test).
Hopefully many things will be better in years to come,
More home working.
Less commuting.
Less air pollution.
Better infrastructure for walking and cycling.
A better attitude to wildlife.
A PM who truly understands what Covid19 does to the body.
An NHS which gets the resources it needs.
People have got to know their neighbours and this sense of community may continue.
An impressive, and positive, list.
We live in hope! (Though we might do better with a different PM - YMMV).
What you are again failing to acknowledge is that in the present case, this comes down to there being things in your life that are more important than avoiding other people's deaths. Can you not see how massively selfish that comes across as?
I'm reminded of a (probably apocryphal) story of a missionary who was captured and made to recant his faith or else all the others captured with him would be killed. ISTR in the story he refused and they all died, with the moral being he was a hero for sticking to his faith regardless.
Presumably you think he was the villain, because by simply recanting he could have saved all their lives. How selfish of him to put something in his life ahead of avoiding their deaths.
Because we are deeper in the doggie dooh dah than the Italians, French and Spanish are we have the luxury of waiting for the next few weeks to see how they get on.
And of course the next few weeks will show just how reckless some of the US States are being.
What you are again failing to acknowledge is that in the present case, this comes down to there being things in your life that are more important than avoiding other people's deaths. Can you not see how massively selfish that comes across as?
I'm reminded of a (probably apocryphal) story of a missionary who was captured and made to recant his faith or else all the others captured with him would be killed. ISTR in the story he refused and they all died, with the moral being he was a hero for sticking to his faith regardless.
Presumably you think he was the villain, because by simply recanting he could have saved all their lives. How selfish of him to put something in his life ahead of avoiding their deaths.
Or have I missed the point again?
I very much regard him as the villain, yes. It's not his call to essentially condemn other people to death.
I'm reminded of a (probably apocryphal) story of a missionary who was captured and made to recant his faith or else all the others captured with him would be killed. ISTR in the story he refused and they all died, with the moral being he was a hero for sticking to his faith regardless.
Presumably you think he was the villain, because by simply recanting he could have saved all their lives. How selfish of him to put something in his life ahead of avoiding their deaths.
You're doing the thought experiment thing again, with predicatable results. Nobody is asking you to recant your faith. They might be asking you to forego a cricket season. What society is asking of you is to be a little less selfish to help protect others' health.
If the current balance doesn't suit you, I suggest you quit your current job and go and find one that gives you more freedom of movement at the expense of greater exposure.
Comments
This is very different from, say, a decision to engage in extreme sports, which is likely first and foremost to affect the practitioner's life.
It's also one of the reasons why most of us are all having to endure blanket restrictions - giving the professionals time to figure out just how the virus propagates in real-life conditions.
I've acknowledged it lots - that's what all the comparisons to death rates from other activities like driving have been about. The fact is that we accept a number of deaths - many (most?) of which are not the driver who caused the accident - as the price to pay for a far greater social good. Sure, we do what we can to minimise those deaths, but not to the extent of permanently locking every motor vehicle up in its garage even though that would bring the number all the way down to zero.
When it comes to driving we know that about 1.35 million people a year die in accidents, but we're OK with that because driving is more important to society than preventing them. I'm just applying the same logic to coronavirus, and asking if it's possible that all the things we're currently without, when added up, may actually be more important to society than preventing the deaths it will cause.
We already make that calculation - callous though it may be - in so many other areas of our lives. Why are we so reluctant to make it - even in theory - when it's about our whole lives?
I wonder if all the people killed in road accidents have an opinion on whether motor vehicles should be allowed or not?
I don't think you've acknowledged the significant differences in risk your behaviour as an individual might have on the lives of others.
The reason the same logic can't be applied to coronavirus is twofold. Firstly, road traffic accidents don't usually result in a whole series of road deaths in exponentially increasing numbers.
Secondly, the causes of such accidents are reasonably well understood and a whole arsenal of measures are used to combat them. There are arguments about some (such as whether speed cameras are more about making money than accident prevention) but there is plenty of data to discuss.
The way coronavirus spreads is particularly pernicious to normal social life and - as yet - it's not well enough understood to be able to combat effectively in the way road traffic accidents are. I share your frustration, but as @alienfromzog says, data is coming out all the time and we can (and do indeed fervently) hope that this will help going forward.
I don't think anyone is arguing against your premise here. In the medical ethics literature this is probably the most fundamental concept. It is also well established that Quality of Life is an individual judgement. I.e. what you consider an acceptable QoL and what I consider acceptable may be very different things.
In essence, you are fully entitled to make a risk/benefit assessment for you. We all do that all the time. As an example, I fly microlights. Whilst safety is central to everything we do, there is no doubt that you cannot mitigate the risk completely. Thus when I strap in I am taking a calculated risk with my life. It would be safer to stay on the ground.
You are also right that lockdown does not come without a cost. That cost is higher for some than others.
The problem though is that at no point in your postings on this have you engaged with the point that it is not your life that you are willing to risk for your freedom. Or rather, not just your life. The problem is that if you get infected, you might infect lots of other people. Some of these will have underlying problems and die, whilst you might survive. If you are admitted to hospital, that is a large burden on the healthcare system... I'll quote you a starting figure of 25k for your hospital stay in the UK... and you put dozens of healthcare workers at risk who look after you.
Of course we need to balance the costs of shutdown against the costs of the disease - by which I don't mean financial. But, it can only be justly a community decision. Your willingness to take greater risks means greater risks for others as well.
Most of us don't like the Lockdown (and I am especially worried about how our current idiotic government will use it as justification for further austerity which will cause widespread suffering) but the costs of the lockdown at the moment are self-evidently several orders of magnitude less than the cost of allowing the infection to spread unchecked. Now, the length of the lockdown does affect that calculation but for most of us, we've got a very long way to go before we get close to parity.
When I had mild symptoms a month or so back my great fear was me or my asthmatic wife or small children being taken to hospital by ambulance, being critically ill and not allowed visitors whilst being very scared.
We are a helluva long way from the costs of the lockdown getting close to the costs of not doing it.
You are entitled to feel different. You are entitled to be willing to take that risk for you. But you are not entitled to be willing to take that risk for everyone else. I have to go to work and be put at risk regardless, many people I know are at far greater risk than me. It is not a case that individually we can decide on the level of risk we are willing to run. You are advocating risking other people for your freedom.
AFZ
ETA x-posted
How long do you think would be too long? Six months? A year? Five years? A decade or two?
How about we cross that bridge when we get to 6 months rather than try to bury ourselves in a pit of doom and gloom?
So...how many other people are you willing to risk to get your life back to normal?
And I’ve been saying from the beginning of the thread that everyone is going to need to find ways to adapt. Both for work, family life and leisure.
Finding new ways to work and interact, new ways to enjoy life.
Many businesses have adapted brilliantly already. Of course it’s a challenge. But problem solving, finding solutions and rising to challenges is what humans do so well.
The problem with that approach is we end up in a never-ending series of "what's another few weeks/months compared to all those lives" arguments, where how long we've already done it for is disregarded. Better to set an upper bound now and say that we can stop sooner if possible, but that in any event we won't go on longer than that.
It's the lack of that upper bound that's causing the doom and gloom, for me at least. I could cope with this so much more easily if I knew for certain it would end on XX/XX/XXXX. I could make plans for the future and have something to look forward to, even if it was a long way off. I can't do that now because the problem with an open-ended "we do this for as long as it takes for science to find a solution" approach is what if science never finds a solution? Is there any back-up plan whatsoever other than putting our fingers in our ears and going "la la la, can't hear you, it'll all be fine" while in the meantime we all just waste away in our own little isolated prisons?
Did you see my post?
We do what humans are good at. We adapt.
I’m busy inventing a silicon ‘hug bubble’ which can easily be donned, used to hug grandchildren, then disinfected. ☺️
‘What if’ thoughts are very destructive. I would avoid them. I went through a day of despondency fearing my son was going to die. The thoughts were awful and hurtful - and pointless. Whatever problems life throws at us they won’t be the ‘what ifs’ we were thinking of. They will be something else entirely. And we will cope.
I'm filing your answer under "we do this forever if we have to, regardless of the cost". Which is a perfectly valid answer to the question I'm asking, though obviously not one I like in any way.
But I'll ask you a question in turn. If it was confirmed that this was going to be forever, and that things like pubs, sports clubs, gyms, churches and the like were never going to reopen, how many people do you think would actually be able to adapt and how many do you think would decide it's not a world they want to live in? And how many of the latter would choose instead to end it now? What do you think is the acceptable number of deaths on that side of the scale? Theoretically speaking, of course.
I have an anxiety disorder that makes avoiding them all but impossible, especially in times of great stress and/or uncertainty.
Who exactly do you see making those arguments? Governments just about everywhere of every political hue are devising lockdown-easing strategies based partly on societal issues (which specifically take into account how long that lockdown's being going on) and partly on improved (if as yet limited) understanding of the disease.
I note you've once again failed to acknowledge the flaw in your comparison of Covid-19 to RTAs as pointed out by @alienfromzog and me, too.
To this point, firstly, I can identify with that way of thinking, but I can also acknowledge that it's irrational and that pursuing your suggested thought experiment is not going to do anybody any good, least of all you.
Secondly, you start from an assumption of having the option, which is an assumption born of privilege. Many, many people have no choice but to adapt to nigh-impossible circumstances, and do. Suicide is, by and large, a developed-world problem.
Thirdly, one semi-positive takeaway from all this for me is that people can and do comply with highly constraining requirements when it's an issue of survival. Which might come in handy when it comes to addressing climate change, for which I suspect all of this disruption is quite a useful dress rehearsal. Massive societal transition is coming one way or another.
IANAD, but PLEASE seek some professional advice, the sooner the better.
USA
1st March 75 reported cases 1 death
1st April 220 thousand reported cases 6 thousand deaths.
1st May 1.1 million case 66 thousand deaths.
UK
1st March 36 reported cases 0 deaths
1st April 29 thousand reported cases 3 thousand deaths
1st May 177 thousand reported cases 27 thousand deaths
Presumably that's a global figure?
According to UK government statistics, under 2,000 people a year are killed in motor traffic accidents here. 50 years ago with significantly fewer cars on the road the total was over 6,000. We didn't accept that, introduced protective measures which did in fact reduce people's freedoms of choice over drinking, wearing seat belts, speeding. For the greater good.
Annual road traffic accident death totals are and were very small in comparison with COVID-19 deaths over a mere two months . And the dangers of further exponential increase are much greater with the virus. Surely that justifies more drastic action? Surely that changes perceptions about the risks and rewards? We need remedies to reduce the carnage. Presently all we've got are safe distancing, preventing group assembly, self isolation, careful hygiene. Some proven treatment to reduce death rates may be emerging. More will probably do so. A vaccine may emerge in a year. I really hope so. Meanwhile, what's to do?
I understand risk/reward arguments Marvin, but frankly I don't like the look of the immediate medical risks in comparison with the, admittedly serious, economic and social costs to date. And it's hard to gauge a cutover point when we don't yet know the costs of relaxation.
Lots of the relaxations happening in the US may indeed teach us something about that. And frankly, looking at their figures, many States seem to be taking much bigger gambles with people's health and lives than feel comfortable to me. I'd like to be proved wrong about that.
I didn’t say they won’t ever reopen - I said they will adapt.
Church has already adapted amazingly - come to one of our Ship of Fools Zoom communion services and find out! In Germany Churches are open, with restrictions (no singing, yet).
Locally we had a supplier of restaurants who has become a home deliverer within a week of lockdown and is doing great business.
My husband meets his mates on Zoom on a Friday night (they used to meet at the pub). From the laughter I hear from the other room they have a great time chatting, quizzing and ribbing each other.
He’s a crazy gym goer - so now he cycles instead, until they open again. They will open but they will have machines further apart etc etc.
My brother’s step daughter has had a restricted life since she was born (she’s 32 and has Retts syndrome) she has a happy, adapted life. My last Guide Dog puppy, Spencer’s owner lost his sight suddenly two years ago. From being a top manager he’s now adapting to life with a Guide Dog. To say he’s overjoyed is an understatement - it’s lovely to read his emails.
Anyone who decides life isn’t worth living (for whatever reason) needs help/therapy/medical intervention - not ideas on how to adapt to the ‘new normal’.
Therapy and medical intervention are just ways to adapt to a new normal. First though, we have to determine whether that new normal is something we actually have to adapt to at all. Lockdown and social distancing are choices we as a society have made, not immutable facts of life. And we as a society can choose to end them. There are costs associated with both choices, and just because the cost of one choice is measured in deaths and the cost of the other is measured in lives not worth living doesn't mean the latter should be so quickly dismissed as not a cost at all.
The right wing or libertarian viewpoint is in a cul de sac, as they have no solution, except to let the the virus rip. Many in the US, and some here, have recourse to denial, thus, it's no worse than flu, or, it will burn out. I suppose Toby Young is honest, let several hundred thousand die, so I can flourish.
But we've already discussed the problem with any limit. If you decide that 50 million is a reasonable limit, world wide, will the virus be cognizant of that? So for the UK 500 000, and the US, 3 million. Why stop there?
Not that the planet will mind.
I honestly thought I had. And I'm talking in my previous post about the choice we make as a society, not as individuals.
Neither is anyone willing to commit to a timetable by which they will cease regardless of whether we have an effective vaccine or not. Which means that in the absence of such a vaccine "permanent" is exactly what it will be - surely that is a genuine risk that has to be considered in our planning.
The specific thing you're not acknowledging, so far as I can see, is that your potential impact on others if you infect somebody else is exponential, which is not the case in the example of extreme sports or car accidents.
There's a lot of wiggle room between having an effective vaccine and relaxing lockdown restrictions, and I don't see a government in the world that isn't using that wiggle room (or planning to). Do you?
Committing to a timeline might give you better personal peace of mind but if so it's entirely irrational, because the timeline has to take into account real-world disease factors (as well as societal issues), and these can of course evolve (for better as well as for worse) between the time of any announcement and the date given.
I presume you wouldn't want to be kept locked down for longer if the announced date were to prove unreasonably far off!
France has given a relaxation date of May 11. Everybody seems to be taking this as read, so much so that the Health Minister keeps having to remind us it depends on the growth rate remaining below 1. Relaxation of the rules is also based on a "traffic light" system for each département (county), based mostly on how much spare hospital capacity they have. My département is green, and I'm hoping this isn't misinterpreted to the point that we change colour before May 11.
(I admit this approach seems remarkably sane, as evidenced by the fact that unusually, the BBC's French-bashing Paris correspondent Hugh Schofield couldn't find a bad word to say against it).
If literally the only other option was to stay in lockdown forever, then yes.
Here's my logic (and remember, this is in the scenario where no other choices exist) .
(1) is horrible, no argument there. But I honestly think (2) is worse. In a situation where there is no (3), (4), (5), etc then which would you choose?
Option 2, no question. Quite apart from the appalling thought of millions dying unnecessarily, it's pretty likely I'd be one of them.
It's an unreal dichotomy. Of course, there are other solutions, most obviously test and trace.
And as @quetzalcoatl says, your dichotomy is unreal. I don't see it serving any purpose other than to fuel your own anxieties.
And you're still dodging my responses to you.
Yes. But your difference may not be the difference of the person you've just infected, by the exercise of your freedom, and sent to the hospital to die of pneumonia, or liver failure, or internal bleeding, or all those things plus more. It may not also be the difference acceptable to someone who survives but with severely compromised lung capacity, heart and liver damage which will lead to an early unpleasant death, just a little further down the line.
Can we choose who the sacrifices should be for our idea of what constitutes a life worth living? It seems my part of the country has become the Scottish capital for Coronavirus. It is also top of the league in the Deprivation Indices. Some people think that's not entirely coincidence. It looks as if the politics dictating the quality and distribution of social welfare and health care are already sorting some of that 'difference' out for us, along the lines of 'if you're poor or vulnerable you're not qualitatively 'alive' enough to warrant staying alive'.
And anyway who has been suggesting that this should be permanent? Why would you think that? There's been no No.10 briefing seriously suggesting that we're to live like this forever - has there? Here in Scotland, the First Minister has been very clear that we're working towards living with the virus, not living with lockdown. Yes, that will include various stages of varying kinds of restrictions - probably, yo-yoing, too. But it's hardly beyond the wit of humankind to adapt and cope. For most of us our fairly comfortable worlds of entitled privilege and easy access to almost luxurious levels of living have been put on pause - and actually may never be exactly the same again - though we don't know that. But who signed a contract at the beginning of life that we'd never have to know what it feels like to be in this place, at this time? Who owes us an easy passage through the random crap of sharing this planet? Life isn't like that. Including the kind of life that's worth living. Adapting and hoping is what qualifies us as human.
And bearing that in mind, there's no point drawing false analogies between a pandemic of this sort and the controlled risks of driving a car! In itself, your example is actually a good example of a potential risk to human life which is certainly worth taking if PROPER RESTRICTIONS and CONTROLS are put it place; seat-belts, speed limits, the Highway Code, testing etc. Anyone remember the resistance to wearing seat-belts when it became compulsory? Or having to submit to the beaurocracy of MOTs and services and insurance legal requirements? In its own way that's what's happening here with the virus so we DO have the freedom we need to live worthwhile lives. But it will take a while to get there.
It's pretty likely I'd be one of them too, for what it's worth.
What this shows me is that we have very different ideas of what constitutes "necessary". Even if it was absolutely certain that I would die, I still wouldn't expect literally everyone else in the world to permanently give up all the things that make life worth living to prevent it.
There are even upsides; I've virtually forgotten where the physical office actually is...
And it will be temporary - the worst case is a point is reached where the lives lost through disruption exceed those not being lost to the virus - at that point there's a strong case for loosening restrictions.
Indeed. If you want yours altering, try sitting down for a chat with, say, a woman who's come to Europe from Nigeria illegally, overland via the Sahara and Libya and then via the Mediterranean.
1. A pair of jeans.
2. A toothbrush
3. Kind people who help those in need
Probably. But in the scenario proposed, the alternative is a world where it's impossible to do so.
If nothing else, it's revealing the people who think there is no price that isn't worth paying to avoid an untimely death.
All I'm really looking for is some kind of reassurance that lockdown and social distancing will end that isn't conditional on the hope of there being a scientific solution first. A recognition that this can't - shouldn't - mustn't - go on forever under any circumstances. And that I'm not some kind of crazy outlier for thinking there are things in life that are more important than merely avoiding death. I mean, 500 years from now we're all going to be dead anyway, right?
Exponential growth only changes the numbers, not the principle.
We are already looking at a scenario where things will be opening up even tho a treatment/vaccine are not available yet. Workplaces and other places are working on it right now. The houses of commons opened up really quickly and have shown the way, I think.
My friends, who run a soup kitchen, adapted the day after lockdown. They are serving the same people from a safe place to work from - 200 meals a day supplied to the same people as before - just in a different way.
Hopefully many things will be better in years to come,
More home working.
Less commuting.
Less air pollution.
Better infrastructure for walking and cycling.
A better attitude to wildlife.
A PM who truly understands what Covid19 does to the body.
An NHS which gets the resources it needs.
People have got to know their neighbours and this sense of community may continue.
@Eutychus FWIW I think people are much less confident in the French Government's plan in the reddest of red zones like the one I live in. There's massive resistance to reopening schools, in particular, and no one really believes there's any workable way of opening up the public transport network. Apart from some shops being open, it looks like we're all staying at home for quite some time longer.
Are you living in a cave? Restrictions across the world are already being eased, not because a "solution" as such has been found but because coping strategies have. What you are again failing to acknowledge is that in the present case, this comes down to there being things in your life that are more important than avoiding other people's deaths. Can you not see how massively selfish that comes across as? Not to mention the consequences if everybody thought that way.
It makes the two situations incomparable in my view. The threat is not at all the same.
My sympathies - all the more so because I have family with young grandchildren in one of those zones too. What I find the oddest about this is the extent to which French red zone inhabitants, specifically swanky and/or rebellious Parisians, are on the face of it prepared to put up with so much more than @Marvin the Martian.
Think of those of us who stayed here as Gavroche
An impressive, and positive, list.
We live in hope! (Though we might do better with a different PM - YMMV).
It feels like it at the moment, yes.
I'm reminded of a (probably apocryphal) story of a missionary who was captured and made to recant his faith or else all the others captured with him would be killed. ISTR in the story he refused and they all died, with the moral being he was a hero for sticking to his faith regardless.
Presumably you think he was the villain, because by simply recanting he could have saved all their lives. How selfish of him to put something in his life ahead of avoiding their deaths.
Or have I missed the point again?
Because we are deeper in the doggie dooh dah than the Italians, French and Spanish are we have the luxury of waiting for the next few weeks to see how they get on.
And of course the next few weeks will show just how reckless some of the US States are being.
Isn't that prudent?
I very much regard him as the villain, yes. It's not his call to essentially condemn other people to death.
If the current balance doesn't suit you, I suggest you quit your current job and go and find one that gives you more freedom of movement at the expense of greater exposure.