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

Ok. There's a large gap between the majority limiting their activities and the elderly as a cohort advocating for and observing a lockdown despite being low risk themselves. Remember that you need the population to do both in order for lockdowns to do what they're aimed at doing, and the state needs to be pretty confident that this will happen before being willing to instigate one.

@Lougle

There's no routine testing now except NHS etc. So there won't be an accurate number of infections to work from. See no evil....

How would they decide to lockdown without any numbers?

Agree with @Lougle

Remove free tests = reduced testing = number of positive test falls = Tories claim success

Remove free tests = reduced testing = number of positive test falls = Tories claim success

Except ONS survey. 1 I’m 13 in England with covid at the moment.

@HardyBuckette

Ok. There's a large gap between the majority limiting their activities and the elderly as a cohort advocating for and observing a lockdown despite being low risk themselves. Remember that you need the population to do both in order for lockdowns to do what they're aimed at doing, and the state needs to be pretty confident that this will happen before being willing to instigate one.

I don't think that there is a large gap, particularly as as the majority don't work. They are not going to be rioting because pubs and restaurants are shut. They wouldn't want to mix with their younger family members and potentially give them a life-threatening disease. What do you think they would they be doing in order to not observe lockdown?

Very unlikely, though less drastic restrictions may be imposed from time to time. Vaccinations make death much less likely, even if you get it - and most of us probably will, sooner or later. But there may be other pandemics!

There would have to be no hospital beds. We won't find out how many deaths there are, but we will be told if hospitals are in crisis. Even then, I imagine restrictions, but no lockdown.

I don't think that there is a large gap, particularly as as the majority don't work. They are not going to be rioting because pubs and restaurants are shut. They wouldn't want to mix with their younger family members and potentially give them a life-threatening disease. What do you think they would they be doing in order to not observe lockdown?

Of course there's a large gap. Because there's a huge amount of activity limitation that can be done that's way short of lockdown. Being willing to limit activities and being willing to observe lockdown are not remotely the same thing. A person who is willing to take an LFT before going to a large event and not go if they're covid positive is a person who's willing to limit their activities, but it doesn't follow that they'll then support or observe a lockdown. This is before considering whether a majority and a sufficient number to make lockdown viable are the same thing.

The things the elderly might do to not observe a lockdown in such a situation are the same things that many of us, including the elderly, did when not observing the last lockdown. For the over 80s in my family that included having whoever they liked in their house, visiting the homes of other family members, meeting outside, having haircuts from hairdressers and barbers who continued operating on the quiet and in one case going to a party. I'm not aware of any octagenarian who rioted whilst ignoring the last lockdown, but tbf I also don't know anyone under 80 whose lockdown breaches looked like that either.

And you just cannot say that a whole cohort of people will definitely all have the same attitudes just because they're the same age, because of course they won't. Any more than all twentysomethings do.

The things the elderly might do to not observe a lockdown in such a situation are the same things that many of us, including the elderly, did when not observing the last lockdown. For the over 80s in my family that included having whoever they liked in their house, visiting the homes of other family members, meeting outside, having haircuts from hairdressers and barbers who continued operating on the quiet and in one case going to a party. I'm not aware of any octagenarian who rioted whilst ignoring the last lockdown, but tbf I also don't know anyone under 80 whose lockdown breaches looked like that either.

I disagree that they would be doing the same thing as they were in the last lockdown if it was their children or grandchildren whose lives were they were risking rather than their own. It's a bit different risking your own life if you're near the end of life anyway compared with risking the lives of your children or grandchildren. How would they get a haircut if hairdressers didn't want to work because they were younger and at higher risk?

Don't even whisper it. Few could cope with another lockdown.

@Belladonna12

The things the elderly might do to not observe a lockdown in such a situation are the same things that many of us, including the elderly, did when not observing the last lockdown. For the over 80s in my family that included having whoever they liked in their house, visiting the homes of other family members, meeting outside, having haircuts from hairdressers and barbers who continued operating on the quiet and in one case going to a party. I'm not aware of any octagenarian who rioted whilst ignoring the last lockdown, but tbf I also don't know anyone under 80 whose lockdown breaches looked like that either.

I disagree that they would be doing the same thing as they were in the last lockdown if it was their children or grandchildren whose lives were they were risking rather than their own. It's a bit different risking your own life if you're near the end of life anyway compared with risking the lives of your children or grandchildren. How would they get a haircut if hairdressers didn't want to work because they were younger and at higher risk?

Again though, the elderly are not a monolithic bloc. It's horribly patronising to assume they'd all think the same way and just plain daft to assume they've all got children and grandchildren. There would be variation, just as there is in other age groups, just as some people in their 20s were actively calling for lockdown and others ignored it. Because people over 80 don't share a hive mind or hive life.

Also, since when were all hairdressers and barbers young? My gran's is in her 60s. The retirement age is closer to 60 than 70 and, as we know, people fall through the financial cracks in lockdown.

Much as I know no one wants another lockdown and the harm on some people, all it takes is another more serious variant and then we’re back at square one.

People seem to be lulled into a false sense of security by the fact that Omicron is less severe that other variants, but that is pure chance. Viruses always try to mutate to be more infectious (as Omicron is) but their severity is pure chance. All a virus wants to do is replicate - it doesn’t care if it kills you or just gives you a runny nose.

Obviously I hope Omicron is the worst we will get from now on, but realistically in the next few months we’ll get another variant that will more severe. Given that the government and people seem to have given up on any restrictions, no one seems fussed about boosters or masks, there is little surveillance, and we haven’t bothered to take the sensible steps (increase ventilation in schools, hospitals, etc) I do worry that we’ll be back to severe restrictions in Autumn.

We all want it to be over, but the best way to actually stop this virus from mutating is stopping its spread.

We all want it to be over, but the best way to actually stop this virus from mutating is stopping its spread.

But we cannot actually do this. It is not within the power of humanity to do. We can potentially slow the spread temporarily, at great cost, to buy time for vaccines. But all the measures in the world, from whatever ‘sensible measures’ you personally prefer to whatever hellish authoritarian response China is trying at the moment, are not able to stop it.

I also wouldn’t be so sure that ‘nobody wants’ another lockdown, personally. Most people don’t, but…

Good point. I agree, my words were poorly chosen and the word ‘slow’ and “the vast majority” are more appropriate, but I don’t believe that changes the underlying message. We should be doing whatever we reasonably can to slow the spread. Every time a virus moves from one host to another there is a chance that it will mutate, and with C19 it’s likely that the next mutation (that becomes dominant) will be will be more severe.

As someone with a CEV dh, I’m probably more cautious than many others, but I can’t see how opening windows, adding ventilation to workplaces and testing/ wearing masks when seeing the most vulnerable in society is a hardship.

What do you mean by back at square one LarGoo, in the context of lockdowns? Because I can see how circumstances might arise where at least some people outside the crank wing are calling for it again, but a perceived or arguable need is only one of the factors that need to be in place for a lockdown to be feasible.

There also needs to be a government who'll implement one led by a PM who can survive doing it, substantial public buy in and some mechanism to pay enough people to stay at home for there to be a sufficient drop in contacts. There's also the schools issue. It's very clear that any attempt at another national closure would be politically toxic, so the government aren't going to want to go anywhere near it, and would additionally be accompanied by even greater numbers of parents quite understandably desperate to get key worker places. But it's not a lockdown in any meaningful sense if the schools are open.

I can see next winter being chaos if people get complacent/ don’t get a booster etc. My friends who work in the NHS say they’re worried about it and already planning.

I completely agree @HardyBuckette that there isn’t the political or social will for more lockdowns currently. There would have to be a clear and obvious need for it even to be contemplated and the only situation I can see that happening is if a far worse variant develops.

What I mean by “back at square one” is that we could face a future variant which escapes current population immunity (both from vaccine and prior infection) and has severe outcomes - essentially the situation we faced in early 2020.

If a variant emerges with a high death rate in children or young adults, public and political opinion could change quickly and some form of lockdown, whether local or national, could be backed temporarily (eg to give time for new vaccine rollout). It would have to be a dire situation to get enough public support and political backing though.

If a variant emerges with a high death rate in children or young adults, public and political opinion could change quickly and some form of lockdown, whether local or national, could be backed temporarily (eg to give time for new vaccine rollout).

Yet I think you're assuming that you'll get essential worker cooperation for this, as happened in March 2020.

In the case of a more serious variant, this can't be relied upon and planning should be done accordingly.

When you're talking about young, healthy people genuinely risking their lives to keep the lights on, food in the shops, it would be a totally different situation to March 2020.

I think the only scenario where we'd see further lockdowns is if a strain develops that is much more dangerous to younger people. Barring that, no further lockdowns, I'd say.

Again though, the elderly are not a monolithic bloc. It's horribly patronising to assume they'd all think the same way and just plain daft to assume they've all got children and grandchildren. There would be variation, just as there is in other age groups, just as some people in their 20s were actively calling for lockdown and others ignored it. Because people over 80 don't share a hive mind or hive life.

I didn't say that they all have children and grandchildren but many do and they wouldn't want them to risk their lives. They don't need to think the same way way for there to be be little chance of them doing anything that would significantly affect lockdown. The fact is that the great majority of the elderly do not work, and most socialise less than younger people. Also, if they can't go to pubs clubs events and hairdressers because working age people don't want to work due a high risk from covid what would be left for them to do?

We should be doing whatever we reasonably can to slow the spread.

Define 'reasonably'.

Everyone wears masks in indoor spaces?

Nightclubs shut?

Schools and unis doing remote learning?

Capacity limits on public transport?

"Nonessential" shops shut?

What's 'reasonable' to some won't be 'reasonable' to others. Plus, there's the obvious question as to what exactly these 'reasonable' steps would achieve with such a contagious virus.

I also wouldn’t be so sure that ‘nobody wants’ another lockdown, personally. Most people don’t, but…

It's been obvious for me for the past two years that some MNers are quite comfortable with lockdowns, at least with lockdowns which mean Amelie and Toby still go to school and the Ocado man still delivers.

@IcedPurple I agree there are some who would welcome a set of restrictions akin to March-June 2020, or even January to May 2021. (I never called it a lockdown as unlike in Spain and Italy you could leave the house at least once a day). There are some who welcome things such as not hugging.

However, there is no way Mr Johnson will ever introduce anything remotely like that.

I never called it a lockdown as unlike in Spain and Italy you could leave the house at least once a day

What is this policing of the word lockdown about? Why would leaving the house once a day mean it's not a lockdown ?

@helpfulperson

I suspect if it mutates again and the next strain starts being fatal for younger people and/or children then yes we will lockdown again.

Yes, this is what I think too.

@Lougle

There's no routine testing now except NHS etc. So there won't be an accurate number of infections to work from. See no evil....

How would they decide to lockdown without any numbers?

We didn’t have widespread testing when the first lockdown happened