Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

Circuit break lockdown at half term?

134 replies

Midlifelights · 13/10/2020 18:45

So I started a thread a couple of weeks ago about this and got accused of all sorts including being ‘one of those people that wants police on the streets who loves the drama & wrecked lives and other similar shite.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/4041654-To-think-we-are-heading-for-a-full-2-week-national-half-term-lockdown

Now Kier Starmer is asking for it at the recommendation of SAGE so aibu to think we will get a 2 week national lockdown at half term?

As before, I don’t want another lockdown but it seems much more likely with everything that is going on?

OP posts:
Ineedachange · 13/10/2020 20:45

PicsInRed My thoughts exactly.
I work in the NHS. I am seeing the devastation to other specialties as a result of reduced services. The services were on their knees anyway and its very hard to see how things are going to pick back up.
We are going to lose more people as a result.

PicsInRed · 13/10/2020 20:47

[quote Midlifelights]@PicsInRed I read a quote somewhere during the pandemic along the lines of ‘if an economy can collapse so easily because people aren’t buying stuff, isn’t it time to look more closely at whether our economy actually works’ and I agree with it.[/quote]
An economy IS people buying something, whether that be goods or services. It is the process of economic exchange, for money or some form of barter.

That literally IS the economy. So, no, without economy, we do not have an economy, and without the cash based economy we do not have a tax take - and without tax take we no longer have public services.

I guess you have to pick your poison. Do you want an NHS? If yes, how do you plan to fund it?

FunDragon · 13/10/2020 20:48

I’m not clear what your AIBU is. Is it that you think we WILL have a two week lockdown (what your OP says) or that we SHOULD have another two week lockdown but won’t (what your subsequent posts seem to say)?

Anyway the disconnect between the SAGE position and government policy is pretty easy to explain. SAGE have only really got one aim - to prevent/slow the spread of Covid. But there are things that pose a threat to human life other than Covid. Poverty. Cancer. Violence. Suicide. And lockdowns appear to increase the incidence of those things.

So it’s very easy to say there should be another lockdown when you have a nice secure house and can work from home. It’s possibly less easy when lockdown means two weeks locked up with a physical or sexual abuser, for example.

Ineedachange · 13/10/2020 20:48

Midlifelights Its not "buying stuff" that's the problem. Its travel, entertainment and hospitality that are being worst hit. Retail is simply happening online now.

Original poster
Midlifelights · 13/10/2020 20:51

@FunDragon I don’t have the answers but if the purpose of SAGE &’public health experts is to protect public health and they are saying public health is at risk then what do we do? Ignore them & just let the virus spread? We then risk a Spanish flu type pandemic that kills millions- is that the answer?

OP posts:
Original poster
Midlifelights · 13/10/2020 20:52

There doesn’t seem to be a middle ground- local lockdowns aren’t working so what is the answer? Just let it spread exponentially through the population & hope for the best?

OP posts:
VinylDetective · 13/10/2020 20:53

Given that Starmer wants it, I think we can safely assume it’s not happening.

Original poster
Midlifelights · 13/10/2020 20:53

People keep saying ‘oh the economy’ without any solutions to contain the virus spreading & thus killing millions

OP posts:
MarshaBradyo · 13/10/2020 20:55

Op it’s a balance

You need to see the harms on the other side to make a decision

It f one of them is that at this point we can no longer fund healthcare then that’s not help either

All we can do right now us find a balance between harm

MiracletoCome · 13/10/2020 20:55

@VinylDetective

Given that Starmer wants it, I think we can safely assume it’s not happening.
Very true
Original poster
Midlifelights · 13/10/2020 20:58

@MarshaBradyo but I think the point here is that the public health people are saying we have passed the point of balance - we are past tipping point again

OP posts:
MarshaBradyo · 13/10/2020 21:02

Op I mean balance of harm

So yes sage are saying numbers mean we need to act, we are at tipping point, but it’s only half of the picture.

The other half is the economic reality and the harm of closing sectors again. And that list is long

Basically it’s terrible but the best we have is hopefully treading a line until hopefully we get a vaccine

WanderingMilly · 13/10/2020 21:12

What a crap half term that will be....everything planned to do but everything bloody shut again. And for what? It won't make a bit of difference at all....

FunDragon · 13/10/2020 21:13

Ignore them & just let the virus spread? We then risk a Spanish flu type pandemic that kills millions- is that the answer?

Well, I’m happy to be corrected as I’m far from an expert but I don’t think there’s ever been any suggestion that Covid is anywhere near as deadly as the Spanish flu (which primarily killed young adults if I recall correctly from school) and I think had a mortality rate of 10-20%? I don’t know what the current estimated mortality rate is for Covid, but it’s less than 1% isn’t it? I’m not trying to minimise Covid but I don’t think comparisons with Spanish flu are necessarily helpful.

And we aren’t just letting the virus spread. Life is far from normal, anywhere in the country. But a balance has to be struck.

Smellbellina · 13/10/2020 21:17

but the best we have is hopefully treading a line

This, because the effects of locking down would be terrible for the economy and if the virus swept through the population infecting the majority of the workforce that would also be terrible, you can’t have schools/hospitals fully operational with a lack of staff after all.
And as alluded to up thread whether the NHS is unable to continue to provide all services either because of lockdown or because of overload/lack of work force makes little difference to the patients affected, except the first one should be more easily controlled and possible to recover from, but then you get into the problems of economic downturn and lack of public funds... so a ‘circuit break’ seems like a plausible proposition, maybe, so to some up...

Fucked if I know!

Littleposh · 13/10/2020 21:18

Why don't people understand it's easy for the opposition to agree with the popular public ideas as it has absolutely no bearing on anything?? They do not have ANY repercussions from going along with any old clap trap so they can and they do

Hellohey · 13/10/2020 21:19

@Midlifelights

People keep saying ‘oh the economy’ without any solutions to contain the virus spreading & thus killing millions
The economy is important without people working, they won't be able to access or pay for things like prescriptions, that could cause more burden for things like NHS.

Another example, if people can't buy healthy and organic food and eat more processed food because they lost their job, there is health implications to that which can cause strain to NHS.

Smellbellina · 13/10/2020 21:19

I don’t know what the current estimated mortality rate is for Covid, but it’s less than 1% isn’t it? I’m not trying to minimise Covid but I don’t think comparisons with Spanish flu are necessarily helpful.

True, but I was listening to programme on Radio 4 today about ‘long COVID’ and the potential impact of that on the workforce/economy going forward made me pause for thought.

Hellohey · 13/10/2020 21:24

@Smellbellina

I don’t know what the current estimated mortality rate is for Covid, but it’s less than 1% isn’t it? I’m not trying to minimise Covid but I don’t think comparisons with Spanish flu are necessarily helpful.

True, but I was listening to programme on Radio 4 today about ‘long COVID’ and the potential impact of that on the workforce/economy going forward made me pause for thought.

I had no taste/smell for 2 months.

I still wouldn't have a second lockdown.

I've just rowed back on social interactions, avoid high risk situations like University and avoid high risk people (like a close relative).

If, only everyone could follow those rules....why does the government have to tell us what to do? Why can't we just do it ourselves?

PostItJoyWeek · 13/10/2020 21:34

@Midlifelights

There doesn’t seem to be a middle ground- local lockdowns aren’t working so what is the answer? Just let it spread exponentially through the population & hope for the best?
Yes.

You can't abolish death. We can't cancel the pandemic. Viruses spread. Get the infections over with.

Smellbellina · 13/10/2020 21:38

@Hellohey that can’t have been pleasant but it wasn’t the kind of symptoms they were discussing, they were talking about extreme fatigue/lethargy/continuing breathlessness 6 months + after infection and a study which aims to follow people with these symptoms for 1 to potentially 25 years because obviously they have no idea at this time how long these effects could last.

Morsmordre · 13/10/2020 21:40

@FunDragon

Ignore them & just let the virus spread? We then risk a Spanish flu type pandemic that kills millions- is that the answer?

Well, I’m happy to be corrected as I’m far from an expert but I don’t think there’s ever been any suggestion that Covid is anywhere near as deadly as the Spanish flu (which primarily killed young adults if I recall correctly from school) and I think had a mortality rate of 10-20%? I don’t know what the current estimated mortality rate is for Covid, but it’s less than 1% isn’t it? I’m not trying to minimise Covid but I don’t think comparisons with Spanish flu are necessarily helpful.

And we aren’t just letting the virus spread. Life is far from normal, anywhere in the country. But a balance has to be struck.

Spot on FunDragon!
PostItJoyWeek · 13/10/2020 21:45

[quote Smellbellina]@Hellohey that can’t have been pleasant but it wasn’t the kind of symptoms they were discussing, they were talking about extreme fatigue/lethargy/continuing breathlessness 6 months + after infection and a study which aims to follow people with these symptoms for 1 to potentially 25 years because obviously they have no idea at this time how long these effects could last.[/quote]
Long term post viral conditions exist for pretty much every virus that exists. Covid is just another. We don't wreck lives for other post viral syndromes.

Anyway, the option to end the virus and have nobody catch it ever again isn't on the table. Only spreading it out over time is in play. The person susceptible to long covid will still get long covid, but it might be in six months not two months.

Crayolo · 13/10/2020 21:48

Schools and universities are by far the biggest areas of spread, just because someone from SAGE says hospitality is the biggest risk, without any supporting stats then no, I don't think it's wise to believe every word they say. A 2 week 'circuit breaker' would only have a chance at doing much if absolutely everyone could stay in. Thats not possible. Even if everyone stocked up on food (which some wouldn't be able to afford to do), there'd be riots if you closed all of the supermarkets. Healthcare workers still need to go to work, utilities workers, emergency services etc- all of these need to carry on, therefore we can't fully halt transmission. The scientists don't have to consider the implications beyond covid, and neither do Labour at the moment.

Crayolo · 13/10/2020 21:50

@Smellbellina the same as every virus then. Some illnesses such as glandular fever can actually have really bad lifelong effects.