(Poll) If a new disease with a similar fatality rate to pre-vaccination COVID appeared again…

[user1477391263]

And the government started to issue instructions about rules, hand washing, masks, social distancing, not meeting up with people, and the like, similarly to what happened in 2020-21….

What would your response be?

A: I would follow the rules more strictly than I did last time (because WFH has made it easier OR because the deaths from COVID make me feel we should have been stricter last time).

B: I would follow the rules about as strictly as I did last time, for the most part.

C: I would follow some rules or follow most rules to an extent, but would be significantly less “strict” about this than I was during COVID.

D: I would be much, much less strict or would completely ignore most rules/instructions, insofaras I was able to disregard them.

I’m just trying to work out whether the COVID experience and aftermath has shifted the Overton window and made people more open to the idea of following rules etc. to contain infectious diseases, OR alternatively whether people have grown a bit more blasé about diseases, disillusioned about governments or concerned about negative aftermaths of pandemic control measures.

For what it’s worth, I’d be a C (although I was never very strict first time round either to be honest).

And MNHQ, can we please get a proper poll selection option that goes beyond YABU/YANBU options?

I agree, but I think it's about more than willingness to support. Because even with the best will in the world, and general societal agreement that households with children should be financially supported, there'd still be a huge gap in the essential workforce to fill. Some of those jobs are relatively low skilled and could be filled easily enough by a willing and able bodied adult, but lots aren't, even if there were definitely going to be enough of them.

A lot of them have no recourse to public funds, or are not on contracts that pay furlough, most would rather be in work, so they can eat.

I thought that it was ridiculous that people stopped doing childcare and watched why family members went into poverty, lost their homes etc.

B because even though I felt I was at a low risk of serious illness, I had vulnerable relatives and friends and I couldn’t live with myself if I thought I’d been responsible for their death/illness.

I lost one relative to COVID (caught in hospital), and two friends (healthy people before) are still suffering the effects of long COVID.

It’s easy to look at something with hindsight knowing you’re still here with your family and friends but for too many people that just isn’t the case.

I don’t agree with many things our government advise but in this case they were taking advice from ‘experts’ and actually I think they were less strict than what we would have had if it were left solely to the experts.

Just to add my eldest DD and her partner took part in anti lockdown matches (she works in MH and LD provision), this time I'd join her.

There's no examination of how the workforce or society would cope with a significant minority of the workforce having a much bigger reason to refuse to work. I mean, I expect some attempts would be made, yeah, but how does that actually work? Human resourcefulness and toughness certainly doesn't have to translate to observing a particular set of rules. Arguably a person who chooses to withdraw their labour to protect their child is being tough and resourceful.

I agree that a person withdrawing labour to protect a kid (or any other person they love) is being tough and resourceful.

People prioritise their loved ones, but as a species we do also collaborate for the benefit of everyone in times of crisis.

I think we saw examples of that with covid. There are examples of it when there have been ebola outbreaks in West Africa. With any natural disaster or war zone, there are always people trying to organise help in different capacities.

Lets just hope they've not created a Boy Who Cried Wolf situation if a very serious one did actually occur.....

This worries me.

Whether you think lockdowns were the right choice or not, we know for certain that there was deliberate behavioural manipulation and gaslighting, from a leadership who were shitting all over the rules themselves and even the ones who didn't were pretending it was fine when the others did. We also know that while covid was awful, pandemics can be a lot worse. There were a lot of cards played there that can't be played again for a while, maybe ever. I don't know whether there could be another lockdown again in 20, 30, 40 years, but there certainly couldn't be another one again now.

D

I don't doubt for a second that lots of people will try to help, yep. But a virus that's really dangerous for children means a huge number of adults are going to refuse to work. We'd need a lot more than positive vibes and a bit of selflessness to be able to get through that without real societal problems. And the hypothetical situation you mentioned is a lot more widespread than the small, quite localised ebola outbreaks you refer to here.

D

d

Agree I hope it never happens.

I'm not sanguine about it at all. I don't think everything would all be grand. It's almost certain that unrest would arrive, in those sets of circumstances.

But I do think people would ATTEMPT stuff to cooperate and help and improve the situation.

I think we are hardwired to want to help each other - especially when the dangers are starkly obvious - but of course will put our own family first.

C

general societal agreement that households with children should be financially supported, there'd still be a huge gap in the essential workforce to fill.

But wouldn't there be more of a "war effort" type scenario if the threat was actually great enough to justify it. I mean if we have an ebola level virus affecting children, and my partner is a firefighter and my brother is a shunter and his wife is a nurse, the logical thing to do is isolate me with the four kids in one house while they drop stuff off at me. Send kids out to farms in the country ala WW2. Move them in with granny. It would be living hell but people would grin and bear it in the same way carers physically left their families and moved in with their patients to protect them when the risk seemed great enough to justify it.

The problem with covid is that the risk did not feel great enough to the vast majority of people who were being forced to go through hell. At the start when we didn't know what we were dealing with, perhaps. But not when we saw the numbers and started catching it ourselves.

But a virus that's really dangerous for children means a huge number of adults are going to refuse to work. We'd need a lot more than positive vibes and a bit of selflessness to be able to get through that without real societal problems. And the hypothetical situation you mentioned is a lot more widespread than the small, quite localised ebola outbreaks you refer to here.

With any hypothetical situation, there are a range of elements to consider. It's not automatic that it is airborne.

The localised ebola outbreaks are an interesting example of how communities did work together during a really dangerous time for those communities - diverse public figures such as religious leaders, musicians and beloved activists like Leymah Gbowee all influenced behaviours which helped to stop transmission.

Who said we'd get through it with positive vibes and a bit of selflessness? Because it certainly wasn't me.

the logical thing to do is isolate me with the four kids in one house while they drop stuff off at me

Thats exactly what my SIL, who works in ICU, did. Her kids came to us for the lockdown. Two of her colleagues did the same and basically isolated themselves from their families.

D

The thing is that even if this 'war effort' scenario happens, that still leaves the practicalities. If we lose, say, 10% of NHS clinical staff because they have DC at home, grinning and bearing it is only going to get us so far. More workers with specific skills can't be magicked up. As we're learning now!

I also don't think for a second that people are going to be willing to send their kids out to the countryside with someone they don't know, or even someone they do know, so they can carry on being a Tesco delivery driver. I fucking wouldn't. Most carers didn't move in with their charges during covid either, so there's no reason to think they'd be willing to in the future.

And help to family might just as easily look like financial assistance. If this happens in a generation, I'd be more inclined to spare my DGC the trauma of separation from their parents and give them money instead. This all sounds extremely naive.

We were told last time that the risk of death for the elderly was 4%, ie 1 in 25, that it was high for those with co-morbidities, and that hospital beds would be assigned on the basis of "frailty" - in effect, those who were elderly and at highest risk would be on their own.

Yes, we face all sorts of risk in life, but most are not that high, and most that are not immediately fatal come with some expectation of medical help.

I remember attending a small concert in mid March 2020. Many of the audience had not turned up, and those of us who had were going purple in the face trying not to cough in case anyone thought we had Covid! If lockdown had not been ordered by the government, I believe there would have been a very high non-participation rate, certainly in voluntary activities.

Of course in 2020 many of use believed the government were giving factual information. That belief may not be so widespread now.

B

Well, if you prefer a direct quote we can use that instead. I don't think any of the exact things you've described would be nearly enough to deal with the inevitable refusal of a lot if not most parents to work outside the home. People would try, yes, it wouldn't just be a fuck this, but the idea that we'd be working together until the children's hospitals collapsed is far too optimistic. Massive problems would kick in way before that!

B
as my spouse hasn’t magically changed from being CEV

B. I love outside UK and we had very strict rules and I followed them to the letter. I'm glad I did and would do it again for the common good.

@StormShadow yeah I get you. I think what I'm saying though is that we all probably subconsciously knew covid wasn't a big deal because if it WAS, you wouldn't be getting a paddling pool delivered by Amazon and a Chinese from Just Eat. You'd probably be hoping that you'd be getting rations from the army + volunteers at the end of your street who'd be calling you out one-by-one over a tannoy? While you, the former Tesco delivery driver, stayed home with your kids, your brothers kids, the downstairs neighbours kids or whatever because they had seriously critical jobs like ICU nurses and Army etc. Or it would be the oldest person on the street doing the Costco run (if it were indeed kids at risk). I know that's what one of my neighbours did for all the elderly in our street in the early days when everything felt very serious and delivery slots were like hens teeth.

I accept I may be totally naive but I do think if "the big one" happened and it was a subset of society at risk, people tend to rally. Especially if the difference in risk amongst different demographics was as apparent as it was during covid with some virtually no risk at all.

D - never ever again!

Well, if you prefer a direct quote we can use that instead.

You can't @StormShadow

I never said that things would all be fine with positive thinking or selflessness.

You haven't read my posts accurately.