(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?

B

D.

D

@Oliotya No but they cant come out with propaganda bullshit like "we are all in this together" then expect people not to point out the hypocrisy when things go back to the default setting. You cant say "all in this together" then expect people to believe that again when its already been disproven

Its now even more obvious that "we are all in this together" when it came to masks and vaccines was really wear a mask to protect your "betters" And before anyone starts check out the award ceremonies from 2021 when yet another lockdown was lifted but there were still restrictions , Masks for the help but not the celebs. Ditto G7

B
but it’s complicated isn’t it.

Firstly I’d think about it in terms of public health not government (yes they were a bunch of lying selfish devious bastards but that doesn’t change the fact that advice and direction should come from health experts first - so SAGE should be independent like the BoE or something).

I’m naturally risk averse or at least like to learn more before taking a calculated risk, not a leap before you look kind of person. So that would keep me fairly careful.

Once it seems safe (ish) for younger healthy people like it was last time, then I’d wear a mask, use sanitizer etc but not worry outdoors and so on

As pp have said, the difficult dilemmas come with schools, care homes and essential services. I am still uncomfortable that essentially we protected the over 80s at the expense of the under 20s, and I say that as someone with elderly parents and over 50 myself. But they’ve had their lives, and the impact on children, teenagers and parents has been massive and only just reckoned with. I’d give youngsters far more freedom, which then leads to segregation by age, which leads to problems with health and care home staffing - how do you do that without insisting on masks & vaccination? Tricky.

I think the whole thing would be a lot simpler if the rules were logical, the government a paragon of virtue and morale held (as it appeared to do in the first lockdown). So, complicated.

B for me!

B

B

B (I followed quite strictly)

D

Firstly I’d think about it in terms of public health not government (yes they were a bunch of lying selfish devious bastards but that doesn’t change the fact that advice and direction should come from health experts first - so SAGE should be independent like the BoE or something).

@MotherOfCatBoy I thought your post was generally well stated and useful, but thought this bit needed more discussion. Because the process of choosing which expertise we want on bodies like SAGE is political, so is what they advise on and so is the question of what we do with their direction. Someone has to decide how to weigh up the views of the epidemiologist against those of the child psychologist, the obesity experts etc. I can't see how that could be anything other than the business of government, either directly or indirectly.

Covid legit almost killed me...so I should say A but honestly, my 6 year old is still non verbal and the waiting time for S&L was and remains so long and intervention during lockdown was non existent. Teenagers at my Daughter's school have zero social skills and there are massive problems with violence that friends in other parts of the UK say is the same at their schools. Kids gave up way too much, it would be difficult to agree to it again.

Firstly I’d think about it in terms of public health not government (yes they were a bunch of lying selfish devious bastards but that doesn’t change the fact that advice and direction should come from health experts first - so SAGE should be independent like the BoE or something)

Advice and direction is given from the health experts. As well as being published by the NHS and public health bodies, the advice is given to the Government, who have the final say on policy.

It is quite likely when there were the long delays while the entire country was on the edge of their seats waiting for a 5/6/7 pm announcement that eventually came at 8 pm (I remember a couple of occasions like this) that there were arguments going on behind the scenes because BJ and senior cabinet ministers weren't implementing policy as advised by Chris Whitty etc.

It is also likely that if it hadn't been for the timing, ie it would have fucked Christmas at short notice for the second year in a row, we would have had a 2 week lockdown or at least strengthening of restrictions when the Omicron variant emerged late in 2021 but it wasn't known straight away how it would spread and affect people.

If the profile of the illness was like covid (where the majority of deaths affected the elderly) then C. I'd have continued to take extra precautions around my older parents like mask wearing, testing etc to reduce their risk, and would respect if there were social measures put in place to protect them such as a special shopping period eg 10 -12 where masks & distancing were required.

I'd happily be vaccinated.

I would not:

• keep well children at home or out of school
• stay off work unless ill myself
• test constantly unless symptomatic
• distance from healthy friends/family

D

Somewhere between B and C depending who was in government, how credible they were and what we were being asked to do. DH and I would find some way of being able to visit our respective elderly mums, we wouldn’t leave them without visits again.

it is quite depressing though how many people have regressed on things like hand washing. It’s really simple basic stuff like that that improves everyone’s health.

It is also likely that if it hadn't been for the timing, ie it would have fucked Christmas at short notice for the second year in a row, we would have had a 2 week lockdown or at least strengthening of restrictions when the Omicron variant emerged late in 2021 but it wasn't known straight away how it would spread and affect people.

I doubt we'd have had another lockdown after the 2021 one ended at any time, because they have to be paid for and there needs to be a reason that persuades the public.

It's true that the general public were particularly unwilling to adhere to restrictions due to it being Christmas, which made them functionally impossible. You're not wrong there. But I can't see how the government would've been willing to fund one if it had all happened a month later and the decision was being made in January 2022. The downsides of restrictions were also being discussed much more by then, and the Overton window had moved. The ICO forcing the government to publish the equality impact information in December 2021 was a big reason for that, I think. And the start of the Partygate revelations. But there's just a limit to how long people can be expected to buy into restrictions.

C/D. I followed everything to the letter last time (never snitched on anyone though!) but I'm completely disillusioned and would never put myself or my family through that again. I wrote and told my MP that too when all the party stuff came out.

I'd weigh up the risks myself and take measures accordingly. Like myself, and all my friends and family did. Sensible and measured. Unlike the absurd lengths the media and government lead us to believe we had to go to.

Quite.
My dad is elderly and vulnerable, his letter from the government said he shouldn’t go in his own garden or take the bins out!

D

B

B

D

B, we followed quite strictly the first time round

I have a child with complex needs although not strictly medical, severe autism. Many families were correctly reporting that dnr's had been placed on their relatives medical files. I was scared to death of him not getting the help he would need if he becae ill. Knowing that dnr's were put in place, I'd never risk them making those same decisions again znd putting him at risk whether reported or not.