Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

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

215 replies

goaskmum · 01/04/2022 07:15

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

OP posts:
PinkiOcelot · 03/04/2022 10:44

@JangolinaPitt

YABU - people just would not be suckered again.
This.

No way would I go down that route again. We were taken for complete mugs whilst Downing Street partied on!

HardyBuckette · 03/04/2022 10:50

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.

Yy thekeatingfive. One of the most interesting things about this discussion is the way people who think another lockdown is possible assume the conditions we had that allowed the previous ones can be replicated. Or exactly flipped in the case of the poster who thinks we'd see one if the age risk profile was reversed, with everything else essentially the same. No factoring in of how the experiences of the past two years have changed the fundamentals.

Lockdown needs people who are willing and able to do the necessary work out of the house to keep the rest of society at home. We're already seeing, even without deadlier strains that affect younger people, staffing crises and a shortage of essential workers in many sectors. That would get worse rather than better if people in those sectors felt more physically threatened by covid.

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?

You didn't say they all did, but you listed it as a reason why elderly people would comply with lockdown and ignored the fact that they don't all have children and grandchildren who are living. That obviously can't be a factor for the cohort who don't, and the ones who do still don't have a hive mind. As I said, that's patronising.

As for what they'd do, socialise with each other and with every working age person, some of whom are pretty old themselves, who was willing to meet with them and also provide business services. Remember too that there are millions of workers in their 60s. This is really obvious, honestly. I always think it's very telling on MN how some people struggle with the idea of people just not following lockdown rules if they don't want to, and not having to either. There's a resistance to the idea: I know the demographic on here skews more towards living in areas where people had to at least pretend to give a shit, which explains part of it, but the idea that there wouldn't be people who either can't or won't obey incredibly restrictive but impossible to police laws is pretty odd at this stage.

GoldenOmber · 03/04/2022 13:33

Also, I don't think you can assume that greater risk to young people would make young people willing to go through another lockdown in big enough numbers.

Young adults as a group already have more to lose from lockdowns, socially and financially, and now we've been through two years of this most of them will be very keenly aware of what they dealt with previously.

Add that to younger people already in general being less concerned about their own mortality and happier to take bigger risks in life. And add that to younger people being more likely to be in customer-facing and service professions that would be expected to keep working through lockdowns. And then say to them "actually Granny's fine now, she's not at risk at all, but you are, so you have to go to work and come home and do no socialising or travel or anything" - I think a decent proportion would say "no way, you only live once and I'll take the risk thanks."

dianthus101 · 03/04/2022 17:32

I think a decent proportion would say "no way, you only live once and I'll take the risk thanks."

Not if their friends were all dying.

Puppylucky · 03/04/2022 17:45

@dianthus101 Did you live through the AIDS crisis? Plenty of people saw their friends die and whilst it impacted their behaviour to a degree they didn't lock themselves away. Life is for living and the young know that more than anyone.

GoldenOmber · 03/04/2022 17:49

@dianthus101

I think a decent proportion would say "no way, you only live once and I'll take the risk thanks."

Not if their friends were all dying.

That’s a different scenario to the one suggested above, where young people were at as much risk as old people were pre-vaccines. Even in the first lockdown most old people who got it didn’t die.

And if it gets that bad it’s hard to imagine the age group it’s killing most of being happy to spend their days on Tesco checkouts or delivering Amazon packages to facilitate less at-risk others staying at home.

dianthus101 · 03/04/2022 18:01

[quote Puppylucky]@dianthus101 Did you live through the AIDS crisis? Plenty of people saw their friends die and whilst it impacted their behaviour to a degree they didn't lock themselves away. Life is for living and the young know that more than anyone.[/quote]
I did live through the AIDS crises and it made a massive difference to the behaviour of people I knew. We didn't need to lock ourselves away to avoid it so not hardly the same.

HardyBuckette · 03/04/2022 18:07

Yes, 'their friends all dying' is a big move of the goalposts. If it were to get to that stage, societal order would be under serious threat. All the comments about riots and the like would actually not be strawmen in that situation. The comfortably off not getting their Amazon and Deliveroo as usual would be the least of anyone's worries.

It's a good point about teenagers and young adults not being very good at recognising their own mortality, or at staying away from risky behaviour. The idea that they'd suddenly acquire the ability to do this in the face of a virus that, even if it matched the risk profile for the elderly still wouldn't kill that many of them, flies in the face of what we know about adolescent behaviour and brains.

LenaLena10 · 03/04/2022 18:53

No more likely to just grind to a halt....

Too many sick people will bring about closures anyway.

Schools are crippled with ill staff, some on their third infection, my GP is only open very limited hours, their staff are ill too. Our local hospital had a sign up yesterday - long waits, staff absence - only one staff member working in A&E, my DM needed her care package increasing - no staff to do that either due to absence.

Infections are rising, people are ill.

LakieLady · 03/04/2022 18:59

@PastMyBestBeforeDate

Unless a new variant that makes a far higher percentage of vaccinated people very ill I think it's unlikely. The public would only lockdown if they were scared.
I agree.

If a new variant developed that made people very ill, led to huge numbers of hospital admissions and had a high death rate, I can't see that there'd be any alternative, tbh.

Carpy899 · 03/04/2022 18:59

@dianthus101

I think a decent proportion would say "no way, you only live once and I'll take the risk thanks."

Not if their friends were all dying.

But why would that happen? You're in fantasy land I assume
Quartz2208 · 03/04/2022 21:48

I think the point other posters are making is a good one.

The previous lockdowns worked because the parameters for them was to reduce contacts between people, therefore artificially flattening the curve in order to gain time to vaccinate. Whilst it was tough those who had to work were happy in order to achieve those goals.

You start changing the parameters to high death rate affects those younger etc on here the lockdown we experienced simply wouldnt happen

Dinoteeth · 03/04/2022 22:55

I also think an awful lot of people are worn down by lockdowns.

For 9 months Glasgow people weren't allowed visitors, illegal to have a coffee with a friend in the house but 'safe' in a coffee shop before 6pm.

People will not accept that again. Its also almost impossible to actually police that sort of lockdown - how are police meant to know someone is visiting - without a neighbour picking up the phone. The same neighbour who is probably having sneaky visits to friends too.

ForcedOut123 · 03/04/2022 23:19

Never say never. Good place now though as we’ve done it once. Would be different next time. New government too maybe.

HardyBuckette · 04/04/2022 09:16

@Quartz2208

I think the point other posters are making is a good one.

The previous lockdowns worked because the parameters for them was to reduce contacts between people, therefore artificially flattening the curve in order to gain time to vaccinate. Whilst it was tough those who had to work were happy in order to achieve those goals.

You start changing the parameters to high death rate affects those younger etc on here the lockdown we experienced simply wouldnt happen

Exactly. Personally I don't see that much point in answering a question about the future of this pandemic based on a set of assumptions that are quite different to what we've had already. It certainly isn't the gotcha at least one poster appears to think it is.

But if people think that's a worthwhile thought experiment on the basis that a more deadly vaccine resistant variant affecting younger people rather than older people isn't impossible, fine. Have at it. Only do it properly. Think about all the implications of that, rather than just reimagining March 2020 again but with a few swapped around risk profiles.

New posts on this thread. Refresh page