The death toll dwarfs every single "disaster" in UK modern cultural history. Aberfan, Lockerbie, Dunblane, Piper Alpha, Grenfell, Bloody Sunday, Hillsborough, Herald of Free Enterprise, Marchioness, Titanic, Lusitania, Harold Shipman: COVID exceeds all of those put together. Invisibly. Any given one of those is dwarfed by the daily COVID death toll.
A rate that starts to rival wartime deaths. At the recent peak the death toll for 19 January was almost one HMS Hood per day.
Cynical thought: COVID lockdowns are extreme largely because unlike most public health problems it affects the rich too, and the decision-makers behind them fall into the high-risk categories.
Sobering thought: if you think COVID-19 is bad now, wait until there's a pandemic of something like the Spanish Flu that does target and kill the young and healthy too.
The average years lost is 10 years of life in the US and 16 world wide[1] - and I think you need to reconsider how callous your comment comes across (to me at least, and I would guess others too). [edited: added detail]
I also feel your comment entirely disregards the point made by the parent comment: “I personally know a couple of people who are now effectively long-term disabled with respiratory issues - well enough to leave hospital, but their previous lifestyle can't come back.”
By the way, the truth can be very callous. I don't think it's particularly useful for you to point out how callous someone sounds on the internet unless the other person has some demonstrable intent of cruelty. We all know that we have the potential to sound like bad people through text online.
Yes there is evidence that 10-30% of covid infections have not resolved at 6 months
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.01.16.21249950v...
which is roughly what SARS 1 looks like (and those people are still sick). But we still can't definitely say that 35 year olds who catch covid will lose 10 years off the end of their life so it's disregarded in our decision making.
> But we still can't definitely say that 35 year olds who catch covid will lose 10 years off the end of their life so it's disregarded in our decision making.
That isn’t relevant to the 10 year statistic although it is an interesting point - you are saying the final result for years of life lost due to Covid could be a higher number than 10 years (after we get to finally tally the numbers in the decades to come as people die). Depends on how you paint your statistics I guess. [para edited to add clarity]
Note I am all for people doing whatever they want with their own lives - if you want to go to a Covid party I would love to support that. I love taking certain risks myself.
However, when the choices of one age group can kill my mum, dad or friends, I would hope we agree to serious restrictions to help prevent that. With engineering balance to the compromises, given that prevention techniques cause significant human costs.
I am from New Zealand, so I can resoundingly support everyone acting together in concert to protect everyone else (as most kiwis did, with a good outcome for us).
If my anecdata is irrelevant, then so is yours.
The only people I know who have had permanent damage from COVID-19 in this age range, have all had their trauma caused by excessive lockdown policies.
You know what's even less of a joke than COVID-19? Our histrionic, insane, and completely violent overreaction to it.
Quick question: how would you propose dealing with a global pandemic? Social isolation seems like the most common sense solution, since in 2021 we know how disease is transmitted and how to deal with that.
I am not going to entertain further the notion that we have locked people into their homes, given trillions of dollars to multinational corporations, and restricted the lives of everyday people, just because of a pandemic that kills less than 1% of the people infected. This is such an obvious cash-grab and overt attempt to impose further fascism upon people, just like what happened after 9/11 in the US with the imposition of the Patriot Act.
I'm sorry, I simply cannot let this go unchallenged. Even a moment's thought should demonstrate that that's not the case:
* It may be the objectively-best-solution for society as a whole, but not-best for an individual (for instance, a young healthy individual who is at low-risk for long-term impact for COVID, but who could act as an incubator and carrier to spread it to more vulnerable folks). The overall-harm-done by these free-circulating individuals will, I am willing to bet, be much more than the "harm" done to them by asking them to stay home. * It may be the best solution, but to recognize that as such requires specialized scientific knowledge that the average person doesn't have. Meanwhile, propagandists are free to influence society as they wish with more-easily-consumable (but, possibly, less true) messages. * Similarly to the 2nd point - it may be the right solution, but that might not be obvious until late in the process. In this situation, trusting experts and following their advice earlier will reduce the overall harm done.
The calculus of impact here is "what is the harm done by following advice if it's wrong?", vs. "what is the harm done by not-following advice if it's right?". Folks are free to make their own decision on this, but almost-every analysis I've seen suggests that "staying home" is the massively better choice, _even if_ the global pandemic turns out to have been less-severe than first expected (in fact, the opposite seems to be true). All of that is leaving aside the fact that much of the harm done by isolation could have been offset by basic social welfare programs (stimulus cheques, UBI, etc.)
Contrary to the common American mindset, freedom is not, in fact, always an unalloyed good - especially when incentives for an individual are in opposition to incentives for a group. (ironically, I wrote this summary _before_ reading your second paragraph, but it works even better. Your argument that "a previous social program restricted freedoms in an unproductive and unhelpful way, therefore any social program which restricts freedoms is unproductive and unhelpful" does not hold)
* I'm not assuming that you are American, but I _am_ contrasting my position with a mindset that I have noticed disproportionately _among_ Americans.
Do you actually, really believe this? Do you really believe that if that the research studies come out and say “hey stay inside” that everyone will read the studies front-to-back and go “oh, it’s in the public interest for everyone to stay inside”? Is this a thing that you think will happen in America?
> impose further fascism
What is fascism?
When the government does something I don't like /s
Yet 3000 people in the U.S. are dying each day from COVID.
Does that not indicate that this virus is a particularly nasty virus worthy of special measures? That it’s still spreading widely when the flu can’t?
People are still dying from respiratory viruses at a totally unacceptable rate. We're a very sick culture who cannot handle a respiratory illness without freaking-the-fuck out.
We have way bigger problems than COVID-19, which is nothing more than a symptom of those problems.
Social isolation isn't an opt-in kind of measure. Furthermore, the average person doesn't have the background or tools to evaluate whether it works. It's a public health matter, and you do have to follow the advice of the relevant authorities.
This is like the law against drinking and driving in many countries: you cannot decide to opt-out of this restriction. It negatively affects others who do decide to comply with the restriction. If caught, you will be subject to some kind of penalty (such as having your license revoked), for good reason.
I'm opting out anyway.
"What are you in for, son"?
"Being outside without an excuse."
Clown world.
"Drinking and driving, but I actually drive better while I'm drunk, these cops know nothing!"
It's illegal in the UK to take a picnic to a park bench.
I'm sorry for your loss. But no, it's not drunk driving, it's existing as a human being.
Best of luck.
It's about not being selfish and helping contain or flatten the contagion. It's about thinking about others and not just yourself.
> it's existing as a human being
A selfish human being, yes.
If your country is less restrictive, I'm happy for you.
It's been illegal for me to have a friend over for 100 days.
It's illegal to have a picnic on a park bench.
So yeah, I'm not doing this any more. If you think that's selfish - cool, I'm selfish according to you. I'm not going to kill myself for your social credit score, stop trolling.
What country is that? We've had about 295 days of social distancing -- we recently moved from almost total lockdown to a less restricting stance, which also requires social distancing and discourages gatherings of people.
> If you think that's selfish - cool, I'm selfish according to you. I'm not going to kill myself for your social credit score, stop trolling.
I really hope nobody gets sicks or dies needlessly because of you then.
As for your accusation of trolling: please follow HN guidelines and do not encourage flamewars.
If you don't want to interact with me, that's cool. If you want to ban large gatherings and restrict smaller ones for a period of time, I get it.
When it gets to the point that it becomes illegal to be outside without an excuse, 300 days in, you're just subjecting people to cruel and unusual punishment at this point.
The idea that people are going to die in greater proportion than the damage caused by preventing people from going for a walk to the park and sitting down with a cup of coffee is not backed by evidence, and I absolutely believe that you are trolling if you think we can all just endure this indefinitely. You're just gonna have to throw me in prison because I will treat those basic freedoms as absolute until the day I die.
I hope you stay safe, best wishes.
It's not about you, it's about not spreading disease to others.
"You cannot leave home for recreational or leisure purposes (such as for a picnic or a social meeting)."
So your statement that the commenter's "entire argument is false" is, well, false.
> Social isolation may be the best solution. Fine. Don't force it on us. If it's the right solution, then it will be followed.
I think your own statement is proof that this is not the case. We know social distancing works, yet you don't want to implement it.
> just like what happened after 9/11 in the US with the imposition of the Patriot Act.
I agree that governments will always do this. That doesn't make COVID any less of a threat though. The lockdown isn't the only lever of authoritarian control. There's plenty of others you can fight to increase individual liberty. Things that won't put millions of others (and yourself) at risk.
I said I don't want to force it on people - I never said it was a bad idea to remove yourself from close contact with strangers during a pandemic. Forcing it on people is how you get deaths of despair, run everyone's businesses to the ground, and ruin every healthy person's life who isn't at risk.
You don't have to force it. Social distancing is a decision an individual makes, and a rational individual would choose to do this if they wanted to live without the risk of getting infected.
Allowing anyone to opt out disproportionately negatively affects people who are unable to isolate for whatever reason: essential job, medical emergency, etc. People not isolating creates more risk for the grocery checkout person or power plant operator, for example.
> Social distancing is a decision an individual makes, and a rational individual would choose to do this if they wanted to live without the risk of getting infected.
It's just selfishness (or at best rank ignorance) to believe that whether or not you personally isolate only affects your health.
The latter is just nature being nature, and while we can respond in some ways to reduce deaths, it will never be perfect. I get that in some ways that feels worse, because there's a feeling of powerlessness. But the former is humans being shitty and murdering each other in the name of nationalism, land, resources, religion, whatever.
We now know enough about the nature of disease that we can be somewhat effective dealing with it. If people embrace the science that is.
It would be interesting to do a relative comparison of physical and psych effects of lockdown versus post-Covid complications. It isn’t clear what the severity for the “33.6%” was.
The control group in that study is people who had the flu during lockdown.
It's anecdotal for sure, but once you see it with your own eyes it definitely makes you take it seriously.
I think you missed this part of their comment. They were arguing the deaths weren’t the same kind of deaths as in past catastrophes, but the long term ailments are bad and real.
Though I agree the years lost is bigger than people think.
It's a hell of a thing for someone who only had a few short and precious years left, to have those ripped away from them as well.
I'm hard of hearing - people joke that there's no point in wearing ear protection since I'm already deaf. No, the opposite. Because I have only a little hearing left, it's so much more precious to me than normal hearing is for most people. I protect it jealously.
I get your point, but I can't forget the human part of that equation.
What a disgusting attitude.
How is this different from "Why bother treating cancer patients? Most are going to die early anyway"? Do you think old and sick people simply provide no value to society?
I think you're trying to argue that it's worse if a young, otherwise healthy person dies, but it's really not necessary to rank lives against each other in this way.
This attitude seems to be what's largely made this pandemic so bad: it was viewed as "just the flu" and "only affects people with pre-existing conditions" and so rather than fast, decisive action (reducing burden on healthcare system, preventing deaths, reducing the need for lockdowns and shortening the time they take), many countries instead delayed and did half-measures, causing an exponential increase in cases, which causes everything to be worse. The completely obvious outcome of willing to let old and sick people die to "save the economy" was an economy that's in turmoil as well as a massive death toll.
> rather than fast, decisive action
It is worth noting that even if there had been the "fast, decisive action" that epidemologist advisers wanted, that would have still imposed border closures in perpetuity. Life might have gone on "like normal" within a country, but people could not interact with their neighbors.
We see already some Australians advocating for hotel quarantine to be obligatory even after COVID, because a year of closed borders has made them regard outsiders as dirty. How long before border closures awaken old nationalist conflicts that freedom of movement and actually getting to know the other side had largely put to rest?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_rationing_in_the_Un...
And global warming might as well not exist as far as lawmakers are concerned. The comfort of the old is our nation's top priority.
Locking down the near-entirety of life has long-term physical and mental health implications that we probably don't fully understand. There have already been suicides directly attributable to COVID-imposed isolation.
It's possible -- and even likely -- that the lockdowns are the right move overall, but the lockdowns themselves have destroyed lives too. Taking measures to protect against something that overwhelmingly affects one segment of the population has a big negative effect on everyone else as well.
You do realize that every day we decline to treat cancer patients because they are close to dying anyway, right?
No, the GP is pointing out the well-established social-psychology theory that people already implicitly rank things this way, and that this is why the death toll doesn’t have more of a mental impact on people in changing their decisions, even when they hear about it.
It’s the same reason that news like “baby of suburban WASP nuclear family gets kidnapped” turns into a whole-community man-hunt with special ribbons that gets remembered for years, while news like “baby of urban black single mother gets kidnapped” never even gets acknowledged by the community.
When people who are high-status to society go away, the whole of society mourns. When people who are low-status to society go away, only those directly affected mourn.
Any death-toll number, in the mind of most human beings (or rather, of any human being who’s only engaging with the problem using System 1 thinking), isn’t interpreted as “raw numbers” of lives lost, or even QALYs lost — instead, it’s felt as an aggregate of social-status lost, subjective to the listener’s personal social-status ranking function.
For the same reason that people don’t tend to worry much about disasters half-way across the world (the aggregate social-status weight computed through their status ranking function still sums low), people won’t tend to worry much about the impact of a local disaster if it’s only directly hurting local low-status people. Even if it’s indirectly impacting high-status people by taking away people they care directly about, that still doesn’t generate the sort of performative shame for not having acted that comes when high-status individuals are taken†.
And since that very performative shame is what policy-makers rely on as a group impetus to for getting changes pushed through on a society-wide level, a lack of it means that nothing can really change, even when there are clear rational reasons to implement change.
——————
† Evo-psych just-so hypothesis (i.e. take this with 50 grains of salt): people are expected to sacrifice to protect high-status people; people who do so are rewarded by the high-status people; and so, over generations, it became a eusocial instinct to feel an urge toward performative shame when you “fail to protect” a high-status person in your community—even one you never personally knew.
But people aren’t expected to sacrifice for low-status affiliations of high-status people (since it’d “only” be the high-status person, and not the rest of the community, enforcing the norm on you), so a similar eusocial instinct toward performative shame for failing to protect those people never arose.
'at least they're old'
This has wiped out FAMILES. 2.4M worldwide and nearly 500k in the US. And it flies past people due to fatigue and habituation.
One would have thought that by now we wouldn't be comparing fatality rates of a disease that propagates exponentially when left unchecked, with a more or less stable family of diseases that isn't contagious, but here we are, apple pies to orange sorbets.
Regardless, areas of the US that have mask and social distancing mandates still have high case rates. It seems like the driver of surges in those areas are mainly due to people violating other restrictions, like having indoor gatherings.
Mostly we're choosing to take our chances on the unknown long-term consequences over the fairly well-understood risks we face now. The people who pay the cost will be different.
Approximately 0.2-0.3% of the UK population has died due to coronavirus.
But my personal risk of psychosis as a result of lockdown is far higher than that, it's starting to approach 1, and when it happens, it doesn't matter if those figures are 10%.
Maybe it's just me, but I really doubt it is. Social unrest is coming if we do this for much longer, I can't see any other way.
I can't live in a world that doesn't allow me to have a friend over for a cup of tea indefinitely; compromise really needs to happen soon.
Or maybe not even that. The 6pm BBC radio news just read out the latest 500+ dead and apparent R number. It's just ... not important to the discourse somehow?
Financially I'm doing great, I've worked throughout and there's literally nothing to spend the money on. My mental health is starting to deteriorate though. I'm not sleeping well most nights, I've turned very much inwards, I feel angry and despairing a lot.
Part of the current problem is that we don't have a timetable. There is no plan. There isn't even a set of criteria around which a plan could be built.
I don't agree that this is "a risk aversion play" here in the UK though - we have well over 100k people dead from this disease, hospitals beyond capacity and all sorts. Cancer treatments being pushed out, causing more death down the line. I don't think you can say that trying to control the spread is unwarranted.
Poorly communicated, yes. Mishandled, screwed up, too little, too late every time, yes. But unfortunately necessary to stop it just getting worse.
I still highlight dumb holidays (next week is International I Hate Cilantro Day), read by the candlelight, explore abandoned buildings, ride my bicycle around etc.
I had to delay the plans for which I have strived for many years, but I don't consider that time lost. I got to try things I wouldn't have tried otherwise, and to invest my time in different places.
When I get hit by a wave of despair (usually after they push the dates further), I do something that reaffirms this.
I can't go anywhere so I have time to finish painting the hallway, fixing the garden etc etc. It helps I also have a home-based hobby (brewing) so I can carry on with that.
I should cycle more, and I'm sure I will when the weather picks up a bit. It really helps my state of mind.
I can understand why people want things to look forward to - and why businesses and people whose jobs will reopen would want dates in advance so they can plan.
But the dumbest thing the government could do is schedule reopenings before we know if it'll be safe to reopen.
That's what they did with the second lockdown - announced upfront that it was from to 31st October to 2nd December. Then they kept to their timetable and reopened things even though every metric on https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/ made it clear we hadn't stopped the second wave - and now we have a third lockdown.
Sure. But while there is no end in sight, despair will rule. Whether it's reasonable to want a fixed timetable or not.
This is also why I mentioned criteria - even if not a fixed timetable, we could at least know what sort of criteria would trigger a rule change. I.E. when we get down to X cases per day, X deaths etc etc, the schools will open. If it keeps falling then the rule of six reapplies in outdoor public spaces ...
At least something rather than just being locked down indefinitely.
I agree the lifting of Lockdown 2 was a really poor choice.
Damned if you do, damned if you don't. After the second timeline turns out to be completely made up, people will stop trusting them and add "more distrust of government" to their despair.
In the absence of Government leadership, I've had to do it for myself - I have a set date beyond which I will no longer follow social distancing. If I didn't have that, I'd have snapped long ago, which is strictly a worse outcome.
People individually snapping and choosing to do whatever they want is more dangerous than the alternative of the Government explicitly announcing that lockdown is a time-limited policy (and as such providing more support to the hardest-hit individuals).
Perfect is the enemy of the good.
Well, if that's even a good analogy, since lockdown is clearly nowhere near perfect, it's trading life for life.
When I'm tired as all hell and wishing I could just go back to bed, that's what keeps me going. When I'm not tired as all hell I actually still enjoy the work, so that helps.
Cost of living is pretty high, salaries are pretty OK (better than a lot of UK perm, not as good as UK fintech contracting AFAICT), houses are big if you live out of the city centres, the sun shines and the beaches go on forever :)
Beyond the bucket of cash dumped onto new vaccine technologies, the international DiRT for all of our emergency preparedness, the data on pandemic spread and transmission reduction strategies, we're also getting all sorts of psych and social data on how people respond to a crisis, to government orders and to isolation. A thousand dissertations and new departments of study will spring from this.
Been very popular over the last year or so. Yeah I've heard a few of the trickles of info. I'm hoping for the official reveal on Monday. Guess we'll see.
(and thanks for the link)
For me seeing the streets of my capital city completely empty at beginning of lockdown, as well as the trams and buses (even though you could ride them), made me realize that I was living in an environment that is fundamentally not pleasant. That it was people that made it alive.
Without people, I saw that this city which I always thought of as "the place where I can do anything, almost any time of the day" is really just a conglomerate of gray buildings, commerce, lots and lots of roads and noisy traffic, and very little green.
The spell was good while it lasted. That said I am also past 45 now... if I was younger I might still want to come back to a big city when I can in order to have access to more activities.
I've heard city-dwellers claim (perhaps partly in jest) to have spent decades standing with the same people at the commuter rail station every day without giving them so much as a nod or smile, let alone learning their names.
With all of that gone, the 400 sq ft apartment stopped being livable. That apartment wasn’t cheap, but I was able to afford to buy a house in another part of town. So I did — as did every other person in that downtown area that I knew.
Those areas are now severely depopulated to the point it’s not safe to walk around in after dark, despite being one of the nicest areas of town a year ago. Businesses are continuing to fail because their customers keep moving away. City centers will be absolutely dead for a decade or more. People are underestimating the long term impact to cities because office workers aren’t coming back en masse any time soon either — if ever. People are what makes a city great, and they’re not coming back for a long time.
Now it can feel pretty dodgy as soon as its dark in the city centre. No one has any reason to be there so the junkies, homeless and others have seemingly gotten more brave.
I was in the city centre around 9-10pm a little while ago and it was almost 100% drunk / high / homeless looking at me really weirdly and got approached by a couple in a semi-aggresive way.
That had never happened to me in the five years I've lived here previously.
Now even in the dead of winter, on my nightly walks I see people strolling around at night. Many times the same people, assuming they're just looking to get out of the house.
Summer was even more drastic, I don't think I have ever seen more people take to cycling and walking for enjoyments sake in my area before.
I've more had the mindset that everything I normally do can put other people in danger and potentially kill them or someone close to them. Or leave them with lingering side effects from illness for who knows how long.
But yeah, also kind of going crazy.
And unsafe, too. I'm not not going to restaurants because I'm not allowed to (they're actually opening back up a little bit here now), but because under the present circumstances it's not safe to do so.
I don't know anything about your personal situation, but if you're healthy and relatively young the risk from Covid (first catching it, then having a bad time with it) in resuming these aspects of normal life may be extremely low, even compared to activities you wouldn't think twice about doing pre-pandemic - like taking a short car ride for example.
I think there are probably a lot of people struggling with this sort of thing. Cognitive behaviour therapy incorporating aspects of exposure therapy could be useful here.
That's a very selfish way of looking at things. The problem with being a communicable disease is that even if I'm fine, others I give it too might not be. I'm trying to be a team player here.
Also, I'm not in a low-risk group personally anyway.
I'm going to go back to my normal life once I've been vaccinated. At this rate there's only a couple more months to go. I've already made it 11 months, I can do a couple more.
This kinda falls into the 'social obligation' column. Just because it doesn't affect you personally, doesn't mean you shouldn't be part of the solution. Sooner or later something WILL happen to you and you'll benefit from being a member.
Your local government may not care about you. I'd look to respected civilian experts or at least government agencies staffed by respected experts.
I'm basing this on Texas' Lt. Governor Dan Patrick being willing to tolerate a lot of death for the sake of the economy:
https://www.texastribune.org/2020/04/21/texas-dan-patrick-ec...
I mention local guidelines since I wouldn't want anyone to get in trouble with the state.
The economy is not an abstract thing, it represents living people and their lives. People who feel its important to prioritise the economy and a return to relative normality generally don't think that way because they're callous about Covid deaths, they're simply more concerned about the death, ill health and strife that result from a long term economic downturn. We can discuss the degree to which those views represent reality without impugning people's characters.
Many of these states couldn't even get on board with masks, let alone anything else more stringent (like reducing capacity).
But I wonder what claim to authority or special knowledge you are using to feel confident your own attitude is purely rational, and uninfluenced by your political beliefs and personal biases?
Moreover, whatever you think about the balance of scientific evidence, science should not be used to directly drive policy. Elected politicians create policy, and science is one sort of advice that feeds those decisions. Policy created purely from scientific advice would be a recipe for arbitrary decisions, and technocratic undemocratic rule. The politically motivated aspect is a feature not a bug!
It boils down to: "Shut up, stay in your pen". I'm not a crazy person and I agree with herd immunity and generally think we should strive for it and not fight it for the sake of the unhealthy, but excuse the language, holy-shit people... it's been a year of "flatten the curve", "lockdowns" and "stay at home orders"!! I stand by this fully: This disaster could have been solved in a month with closed borders, tracking and a dedicated, absolute and draconian effort. But, we didn't get that and instead treated the potentially "misbehaving" people like cattle because they threatened the wider herd.
It all rests on what happens after a wide rollout of the vaccine.
You're not crazy, but you are incorrect. Herd immunity only works for COVID if a) you can get 60-70% of people infected, and b) getting the disease confers immunity, and for a meaningful amount of time.
Getting to that 60-70% in the time frame that most people would tolerate would absolutely destroy our health care system, resulting in many more deaths (due to people being unable to get the treatment they need). Consider that hospitals in many areas were overwhelmed without most people going out and trying to get the disease.
And the immunity bit is still an open question. Many people have suffered re-infection, and it's not clear that post-infection immunity lasts more than a few months, which might not be good enough for herd immunity to stick.
The second bit is a bit of a gamble, so I'm totally open to argument there as to whether it's a gamble worth taking, but the first bit includes unacceptable outcomes. I'm not saying our current outcome is acceptable, but trading one bad thing for another isn't clearly better here.
Citation needed. Every source I’ve heard has said reinfection is rare in both percent and absolute terms. And resistance to the disease is proven to last at least ~9months and estimated by the medically knowledgeable to last much much longer.
It guarantees a horrible outcome (psychosis), versus a slight risk of a bad outcome.
I'm not going to put myself into a coma for multiple years on the off chance that someone else gets ill. Best of luck.
I'd say if anything, I considered maintaining a social life to be a form of self-care, one I was already struggling to get enough of.
> A month or two more and I'm going to be in the 'pitchforks and torches' group
Why wait a month or two? I'm not saying I agree with you, but nothing's going to change in 2 months. I'm pretty sure nothing's going to change in the next 5 years.
Yes, you are wrong. Everybody I know with little kids is suffering the same social isolation as you. 4 year olds do not count as socializing, especially when all of our kids are also feeling the negative effects of isolation as well.
Besides that, you specifically mentioned doing self-care. It's amazing you have the time and energy to do it. My day starts at 530am (if I'm lucky) and the only time I could work out is after the girls go to bed.
I could think of plenty of ways to get some form of social interaction if I wasn't so stretched. All my single coworkers are playing video games together and doing zoom hangouts. My friends do a poker night and I can't stay up late enough because I'm so worn out by the time it starts. I've barely spoken to anyone besides my wife, who is also being slowly ground into dust, unless you count my weekly one on one with my manager.
I'm not trying to one up anybody. If anything I think that most of us are going through some comparable form of mental anguish. The irony is that Covid keeps us from seeing how other people go through it too
Because I have just about enough left in me, and by then, in the UK we will have vaccinated the groups which make up ~99% of preventable mortality.
At that point, the moral argument of "go outside and you're putting people at risk" completely falls apart in my view.
If there are variants which escape the vaccines, then at that point it's game over since I know I definitely won't be able to make it through another year.
I don't know what the lockdowns are like in the UK. Are you guys not even allowed to go outside?
The people who are isolated by themselves are struggling much more.
In prison, the worst punishment you can receive is to be taken away from the all rapists and murderers, and put in solitary confinement. Being stuck in a prison cell with a partner and family probably sounds like a dream to the person stuck in a prison cell alone.
They are massively different.
Given the speed in which effective vaccines were developed I think this is a rather bleak outlook.
Sure, a lot is still unknown with the new virus variants and as has been expected vaccination drives had their teething problems. But in a few month time (almost) everybody who wants their jabs can get it (in rich countries, that is).
I for one, see myself on a 3 week vacation in Asia later this year. Optimistic? Maybe, and certainly dependent on a number of factors beyond my control. But I think it's a much better perspective than wallowing in misery and not seeing a way out.
Right after I posted my comment above, at 15:12 comments regarding Canadian forecasts appeared in The Guardian's COVID live blog, in which epidemologists say that restrictions must be preserved within the country because the vaccine rollout is a global problem, not a local one.
I can't find anything on The Guradian's COVID live blog talking about what you're referring to, can you provide a link?
Apparently this[1] is the permalink for The Guardian post.
[0] https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/19036150.covid-scotland-...
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2021/feb/19/coronavir...
Some people have argued that the vaccinations are evidence of his success regarding Covid-19 but I don't see any part of that that wouldn't have been proceeding with or without him. As far as I can tell, the only difference between Trump and Biden's handling of covid has been "Biden knows to keep his mouth shut about specifics and predictions, because he might be wrong" which is exactly the kind of playing-both-sides I've seen from many state and city governments for the last year (talking a lot about how we need to follow the science and keep locking down to keep the spread low, but also taking no steps to enforce the rules or financially support people/businesses.)
But getting into a tussle with states he thinks are opening up too much, etc. is almost certainly counterproductive at this point.
In any case, listening to scientists means you take their input and factor that into the tradeoffs that drive policy. Which may well involve simultaneously that there is e.g. some risk associated with allowing people to travel by air while allowing them to do it anyway.
Living in a big old house in the country with your family? Your life is probably basically the same as it always was. Potentially better, depending on the work situation. Okay, sure, you're not going on as many holidays, and depending on how strict the rules are where you are, dinner parties are off the cards.
Living in a flat as a single person in the big exciting city? Literally everything you do has been illegal or restricted in some form for almost a year now.
I have no issue with how people choose to live their lives. I'm sure one day when I settle down I'll be in that group too. It sounds lovely.
But we have to be very, very clear about this - a month or two more and I'm going to be in the 'pitchforks and torches' group. There are limits, you can't just delete my lifestyle for a year and counting as a risk-aversion play and expect me to roll over and take it. Nah.