Do you think the Covid situation will ever deteriorate again so badly that we need another lockdown?

[goaskmum]

Posting here for traffic.

I’m in no way suggesting the situation will ever deteriorate and I’m in no way advocating another lockdown.

I’m genuinely curious though, do you think the situation will get worse again, perhaps in the winter, were the hospitals can’t cope and we end up back in lockdown again?

Or do you think because most people are immune to covid either through having it or being vaccinated that it will keep on getting better from here on and there will never ever be a single restriction imposed again?

YABU - there will never ever be anymore restrictions. It’s over
YANBU - there could very well be another lockdown in the future if it gets out of hand

I think governments realise even if the message is too unpalatable to say that lockdowns created more problems than they solved. The data from countries with no lockdown is roughly similar to those with lockdowns when you compare countries with similar demographics. We will live with the economic consequences of lockdown for at least a generation. If we have another lockdown it'll be for political not health reasons and I hope most refuse to comply this time.

@HardyBuckette

To be clear, are you saying that a strain of the Covid 19 virus that doesn't respond to any of the quite effective treatments and vaccines we have now and that essentially reverses the pattern of all previous strains wrt who is most vulnerable is as likely as a new strain that does none of these things? I know it isn't impossible, but nobody thinks it is.

Yes, it is not at all unlikely that the vaccines and treatments we currently have will not work on all future strains. There has already been a problem with Omicron- some of the treatments no longer work and vaccines are less effective. They will be able to tweak the vaccines and hopefully produce effective treatments against new variants but there would always be a delay.

It is less likely that new variants will attack younger people as much as older people but there are certainly no guarantees. I don't think they know that much about why older people are more susceptible at the moment but I think one of the reasons is because the virus attaches to particular receptors in the body which increase as people get older. That could change.

UK Covid cases are at an all time high. Vaccines will lose their effectiveness. I don’t think it’s inconceivable we’ll return to masks and social distancing.

@Aishah231

I think governments realise even if the message is too unpalatable to say that lockdowns created more problems than they solved. The data from countries with no lockdown is roughly similar to those with lockdowns when you compare countries with similar demographics. We will live with the economic consequences of lockdown for at least a generation. If we have another lockdown it'll be for political not health reasons and I hope most refuse to comply this time.

What countries have had no lockdown and similar results to other countries with the same demographics/healthcare systems?

Honestly of course there’s a risk. There could be a truly properly deadly variant. It could be much worse!

Not really too sure of point of this thread!

I don’t think there will be another lockdown as there is a vaccine now. I do think winters for the NHS, which are hard enough as it is, will get worse. They need more funding chucked their way and better allocated at that, rather than national lockdowns.

Yes, it is not at all unlikely that the vaccines and treatments we currently have will not work on all future strains. There has already been a problem with Omicron- some of the treatments no longer work and vaccines are less effective. They will be able to tweak the vaccines and hopefully produce effective treatments against new variants but there would always be a delay.

It is less likely that new variants will attack younger people as much as older people but there are certainly no guarantees. I don't think they know that much about why older people are more susceptible at the moment but I think one of the reasons is because the virus attaches to particular receptors in the body which increase as people get older. That could change.

We know there are no guarantees and nobody thinks there are. It isn't about certainty. The question was whether people think a Covid 19 variant that's resistant to all of of our existing vaccines and treatments, not merely less effective but ineffective because that's what you said, and that also reverses the existing age profile for vulnerability, is as likely or more likely than a variant that doesn't do these things.

It seems you acknowledge that this is less likely, so it appears we do agree on that point. And because it's less likely, this is why people's responses are located in what we've already experienced and we know to be the most likely possibility, rather than something that is unlikely.

There's also the point that if for whatever reason we want to ask the what if things were completely different question, as well as the people whose low risk informs their views now, there are people whose high risk informs their views now. There are people who are in their 60s, 70s and 80s who take precautions and are/would be supportive of restrictions because they feel personally at risk from covid. If this were no longer the case, that raises the question of how their attitudes would change. It wouldn't be the case that everyone who complied with previous lockdowns and would comply with future ones because of their own fear would continue to hold this attitude if their risk profile suddenly dropped.

We know there are no guarantees and nobody thinks there are. It isn't about certainty. The question was whether people think a Covid 19 variant that's resistant to all of of our existing vaccines and treatments, not merely less effective but ineffective because that's what you said, and that also reverses the existing age profile for vulnerability, is as likely or more likely than a variant that doesn't do these things.

Of course the virus could change so that current vaccines and treatments weren't effective at all. We have been lucky in that so far they have just been less effective rather than completely ineffective. They would probably would be able to tweak them to be effective but there would be a delay and restrictions could be necessary in the meantime.

@Belladonna12

We know there are no guarantees and nobody thinks there are. It isn't about certainty. The question was whether people think a Covid 19 variant that's resistant to all of of our existing vaccines and treatments, not merely less effective but ineffective because that's what you said, and that also reverses the existing age profile for vulnerability, is as likely or more likely than a variant that doesn't do these things.

Of course the virus could change so that current vaccines and treatments weren't effective at all. We have been lucky in that so far they have just been less effective rather than completely ineffective. They would probably would be able to tweak them to be effective but there would be a delay and restrictions could be necessary in the meantime.

Once again, nobody thinks it's impossible. The question is why the focus on this rather less likely scenario when people respond based on what is most likely. And also why, even in your focus on that point as you argue that further lockdowns could happen during this pandemic, you don't address the impact of lower risk on the behaviour of many who are higher risk now.

I think we need one. A proper one this time. But it wont happen.

Tests now cost individuals so most people will not test. This will reduce the reported numbers.

I think we need one. A proper one this time. But it wont happen

Based on what information?

Tests now cost individuals so most people will not test. This will reduce the reported numbers.
The ONS prevalence survey will tell us how many have covid. The daily case numbers are basically irrelevant now.

A proper one this time

Wtf is a 'proper' lockdown?

And what would it achieve?

Have you cast your eye over what's happening in China these days for example?

If the past two years have taught us anything, it’s that no amount of lockdown is ever going to count as a ‘proper lockdown’ by some people’s criteria.

@GoldenOmber

If the past two years have taught us anything, it’s that no amount of lockdown is ever going to count as a ‘proper lockdown’ by some people’s criteria.

That much we do know.

A more severe strain would change the situation in many ways, but what people don't factor into this scenario is the role of essential workers.

Would people obediently pop out to stack shelves/deliver Amazon orders/drive ambulances/keep your electricity and wifi going if they're exposing themselves to a virus with a much higher death rate? I doubt it.

The comfy lockdown conditions that certain people experienced in the first phases of the pandemic wouldn't be happening if we had a much more severe strain. It would be grim as fuck.

I don't believe the conditions that enabled the lockdown of March 2020 are replicable again.

The recent variants have been so transmissible that it's hard to see how a lockdown would help as lots of people still need to go to work, food shops stay open, there would be support and childcare bubbles again and generally lots of mixing.

However I don't think covid will be the last pandemic in our lifetimes and I hope governments around the world are doing some serious planning for the next one to avoid the delays when things start looking serious.

I don't think lockdowns work Sweden never locked down in 2021 their death rate was exactly the same as 2015-2019 5 year average ie no excess deaths ( they did have excess deaths in 2020 but much lower than UK and Scotland) Sweden is very much like Scotland rather than England with similar and lower population density but most people living in urban areas the equivalent of Scottish central belt ,
in this country deaths have been below the pre covid 5 year average since January, yes people are still dying from covid but perhaps these are the same people that might have died from flu pneumonia and other respiratory diseases in a different year as flu deaths are tiny tiny now
Scotland still has masks some restrictions and a much lower population density than England but it's case rate is much higher, doesn't really suggest that these precautions help at all if they did it should be the other way about,

Sweden had restrictions in 2021. They are more like Norway and Denmark than Scotland and their covid death rate has been much higher than those countries.

Once again, nobody thinks it's impossible. The question is why the focus on this rather less likely scenario when people respond based on what is most likely.

It's not unlikely that a more deadly variant will emerge and it's not particularly unlikely that vaccines and treatments will not initially be effective.

And also why, even in your focus on that point as you argue that further lockdowns could happen during this pandemic, you don't address the impact of lower risk on the behaviour of many who are higher risk now

I'm not sure what your question is? Are you saying that older people will refuse to comply with lockdowns if they are at low risk even if younger people are being hospitalized and dying? I doubt it. 80-year olds don't party much anyway and are unlikely to want their children or grandchildren to die.

@Belladonna12

Once again, nobody thinks it's impossible. The question is why the focus on this rather less likely scenario when people respond based on what is most likely.

It's not unlikely that a more deadly variant will emerge and it's not particularly unlikely that vaccines and treatments will not initially be effective.

And also why, even in your focus on that point as you argue that further lockdowns could happen during this pandemic, you don't address the impact of lower risk on the behaviour of many who are higher risk now

I'm not sure what your question is? Are you saying that older people will refuse to comply with lockdowns if they are at low risk even if younger people are being hospitalized and dying? I doubt it. 80-year olds don't party much anyway and are unlikely to want their children or grandchildren to die.

It's interesting that you water down what you were asking about again. You mention a deadlier variant that isn't responsive to vaccines and treatments, omitting reversal of the age risk profile you mentioned previously. Meaning that in this scenario, the elderly would still continue to be the ones most likely to die. You're kidding yourself if you think there would be willingness to weather all the damages of lockdown yet again so that people who have already had long lives could live longer. The political and economic factors making lockdown so unlikely would still be in place, and there wouldn't be the general buy in from the population.

And yes, I'm stating that if you want to talk about a total flipping of the age risk profile, that means considering the impact it would have on everyone's behaviour, not just that of people whose risks would increase. You've alluded yourself to some people's attitudes being linked to their own risk: that's true in some cases and everyone knows it. With that in mind, you can't simply assume that all these people will be willing to voluntarily limit their own activities (presumably you understand that it doesn't need to be a party to transmit covid...) for someone else's benefit. Some will. They won't all. Much as I think this isn't a very useful way to view people's takes on the likelihood of a lockdown, if you're going to do it then do it properly.

@TheKeatingFive

A more severe strain would change the situation in many ways, but what people don't factor into this scenario is the role of essential workers.

Would people obediently pop out to stack shelves/deliver Amazon orders/drive ambulances/keep your electricity and wifi going if they're exposing themselves to a virus with a much higher death rate? I doubt it.

The comfy lockdown conditions that certain people experienced in the first phases of the pandemic wouldn't be happening if we had a much more severe strain. It would be grim as fuck.

I don't believe the conditions that enabled the lockdown of March 2020 are replicable again.

This is also true. In order to construct even hypothetical scenarios where they can argue that lockdowns are plausible in the near future, people not only have to engage in very strangulated reasoning, they also need to ignore various structural factors.

Basically, if we were to get to the stage where a lockdown might at least arguably be considered necessary (arguing from a pro lockdown perspective for a moment) then the building blocks from the last two probably aren't going to be in place.

It's interesting that you water down what you were asking about again. You mention a deadlier variant that isn't responsive to vaccines and treatments, omitting reversal of the age risk profile you mentioned previously. Meaning that in this scenario, the elderly would still continue to be the ones most likely to die.

There doesn't have to be a reversal of the age risk profile. Even if elderly people were still at high risk, the risk could also increase quite a lot in younger people.

@Belladonna12

It's interesting that you water down what you were asking about again. You mention a deadlier variant that isn't responsive to vaccines and treatments, omitting reversal of the age risk profile you mentioned previously. Meaning that in this scenario, the elderly would still continue to be the ones most likely to die.

There doesn't have to be a reversal of the age risk profile. Even if elderly people were still at high risk, the risk could also increase quite a lot in younger people.

There doesn't have to be, but you mentioned plenty of contagious diseases hitting the young more than the elderly when the point that the elderly would likely still be at the highest risk of a new Covid 19 strain was made. So that's what we were discussing.

There doesn't have to be, but you mentioned plenty of contagious diseases hitting the young more than the elderly when the point that the elderly would likely still be at the highest risk of a new Covid 19 strain was made. So that's what we were discussing.

Ok, I believe that the majority of older people would limit their activities for the benefit of younger people if they were at highest risk from covid.