(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, but how strictly I followed them last time was pretty strictly.

D.

D

@user1477391263

I don’t think I’d think of it in terms of ‘the government’ or ‘our government’. I’d see what was happening on global level, look at the reasoning behind the safety precautions, evaluate the risk to my family/others - and decide from that whether I need to take more precautions than advised.

Our Tory government is more about economy, allowing the rich to thrive while the less fortunate are left to flounder. In particular I think Sunak would go economy over safety.

Across Europe, I think Finland possibly had the best Covid response, and lessons and better strategies could be learnt from that.

I don’t think it’s right to think : well I hate our government, they’ve been wrong on so many counts, they haven’t followed the rules themselves, therefore I’m not doing what they say. A pandemic should be thought of more as a global response. If our government are handling it badly, what are the rest of the world doing? If the majority of the world think a certain course of action is most likely to have the best outcome, then I would go with that.

Yes, this thread does seem to be dominated by 'our government are shits so I'll deliberately break the law' and the 'cool rebels'.

I find it hard to believe that if we were back in a position where we had a new disease that was easily transmissible, couldn't be vaccinated against and was causing serious illness and death that the majority would do nothing to protect themselves or their loved ones.

A or B

I know of too many unnecessary deaths or long-term after effects.

I think a lot of it is about trust. There aren't a lot of institutions or bodies whose trust levels have emerged unscathed from the past 3 years. The WHO, the most obvious rest of world body, have hardly covered themselves in glory.

Additionally, doing what the rest of the world, did, or the rich world anyway, got us a lockdown that our pandemic planning had advised against and that was essentially a punt. It should be obvious why a lot of people wouldn't want that again, either because of views on the lockdown itself or on not following our existing pandemic plans. Even if you don't feel that way yourself.

B

E - I would follow the advice of the actual scientists / medical experts. As I did in 2020.

It’s a D for me!

Somewhere between C and D. I started ignoring many of the mandates before they were removed but I did get some pretty dirty looks for going maskless.

Obviously it would also depend how strictly it was all policed. Here in Australia we had some people arrested for refusing to wear a mask outside when asked or for attending protests. I’m not willing to get a criminal record.

Yeah, I'd assume most people are talking about going about their business quietly rather than trying to draw attention to it or protesting. I may be wrong, but that's how it worked for me and the people around me last time. None of us went near a protest and I think we all did masks when that was the law too. I expect the Ds would look like reciprocal childcare for friends and family, kids birthday parties in houses, having your mum or your mate round for a brew, playdates etc.

B. It would be ridiculous not to.

Ime, whatever people say now, people's behaviour will depend very much on who's dying and how visible the disease is in their communities.

If we get a disease like Spanish flu where suddenly all the young are dying I can't see the population at large being that chill.

All it took was the death of one pregnant school mum in my community during the swine flu epidemic and suddenly the queues for vaccination were round the block.

D 100%

No way would I waste my time again like that.

D.
DH and I are both in ‘vulnerable’ groups. We utterly repudiated the idea that the young and fit should have their lives ruined for some notional benefit for us. We could predict the financial and emotional ruin that masking, lockdown and all the rest of the no…..sense would inevitably entail .

not in my name.

People definitely wouldn't be chill in that situation, no. But if anything, that potentially makes it less likely that there'd be sufficient trust in the authorities for people to adhere to restrictions. Fear doesn't necessarily translate into trust. I know it did last time, but it isn't a given.

I'd also distinguish willingness to be vaccinated from willingness to adhere to lockdowns. Given that most people during covid were vaccinated and a significant number will have broken the rules at least sometimes, ticking both boxes will be common enough.

A mixture of C & D.

@StormShadow

I agree, it is about trust. But no organisation or government is ever going to be 100% honest, truthful and right 100% of the time.

It’s about likelihood. So if most governments, organisations, bodies across the world think this will probably be the best course of action then I would follow that.

The bodies that advocated no lockdown, no masks, no vaccines at the time of the pandemic : what guarantee was there that these bodies were ‘better’, more trustworthy, less biased, better researched, better scrutinised?

D

D.
We knew from early on last time that the rules were unnecessary, ridiculous and damaging.
We also need to be far less sentimental about death, coz it happens to all of us and we just have to take our chances and accept it when it happens.

@Hbh17

Far less sentimental about death? When it’s yourself or a loved one who is in pain and dire need of hospital treatment and can’t access basic humane care because their hospital is too overwhelmed and short staffed…

D

I believe you if you say you would, but you're going a step further when you say other people are in the wrong for disagreeing and seeing no reason to have the level of trust you do.

After all, there was no proper contemporary scrutiny of the actions much of the world took in early 2020, and in some cases (like ours) it went against our existing pandemic planning. What guarantee would the ordinary person have that, say, the WHO wouldn't be subjected to significant political pressure as they were from China again? Pandemic management is innately political.

And the bit about other bodies is sort of the other half of my point. I agree there aren't any such guarantees for them either, so wouldn't expect them to be accorded any more legitimacy by the general public than, say, the WHO. There's a vacuum in that space. For completely valid and understandable reasons. And it's not immediately obvious at this point if and how it's going to be filled.