(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?

@KnittedCardi

Who should be given that power over pandemic control?

D

D

D
It riles me that I followed the rules and the PM and his crew were doing what the fuck they wanted.

D

B

D - not sacrificing my children again.

D. I followed the rules strictly at the start and as a result went through a massive trauma 99% by myself. Looking back, most of our rules didn't help and it was utterly laughable to me that in June we were in strict lockdown and then in August it was ay ok to be out in overcrowded restaurants for eat out to help out.

B

Until I got a sense of exactly what we’re dealing with. Then I might adjust my behaviour depending on what I thought the risk was.

D

D and I wouldn't make myself ill with even 1 vaccine this time either

thing47 · Today 15:01
Part of the problem is that politicians and governments don't deal in nuance, they want attention-grabbing headlines and media soundbites. Science doesn't work in this way. Leaving aside some of the outrageous forecasting that went on, in general scientists gave the best possible advice based on the evidence available at the time; when the evidence evolved or shifted, so the advice changed. Politicians like to adopt a stance and then double-down on it when questioned, which is the exact opposite of how scientific discovery works.

So I would still be listening to scientific advice in the event of another pandemic, I would just try to get it straight from the horse's mouth rather than filtered through politicians who I do not trust and may – as we have since seen – have an agenda of their own.

But scientists were also divided on the correct approach so which ones would you listen to ?

D

The pre & post vaxx mortality rates vary very little. In fact, if anything, the risk of death is greater post vaxx.

The government wanted to know if they could control the masses & it appeared they could in the beginning.

As the smoke & mirrors disappear & more truths come to light I hope to see more and more people become capable of independent thoughts.

People have short memories. Weren't we all blaming Boris for not locking down sooner when he saw what was going on in Italy? And blaming events like the Cheltenham Gold Cup for thousands of preventable deaths? Our death toll is and always was higher than most other countries.

People have short memories. Weren't we all blaming Boris for not locking down sooner when he saw what was going on in Italy?

All? Nope. I certainly wasn't begging for a lockdown.

I think probably B because the clue's in the description "a new disease" - the thing with new diseases is we just don't know how they'll play out. Covid could easily have had the same case fatality rate as SARS or MERS and then we'd all be saying "how could the government have been so irresponsible as to only order a half-baked locked and millions have died".

No, you just didn't notice all the people who weren't.

Granted, those who do hold that view have taken up rather a lot of space in the past 3 years, especially 2020-1.

But scientists were also divided on the correct approach so which ones would you listen to ?

Actually, they weren't, by and large. Epidemiologists and virologists were largely in agreement in terms of the efficacy of vaccination, the risks faced by catching Covid for the various age groups, the impact of lockdown (scientifically speaking, it wasn't their job to consider the economic impact), the benefits of masking, and the likelihood of catching Covid outside. Vanishingly few supported the shutting of schools.

Were Uganda wrong to impose a (late) lockdown for Ebola in late 2022? Given that it’s deadlier in children? Would you still give an answer of D if an Ebola-like virus hit the UK?

And then there is the sexism behind what got allowed to open. Men in barbers having their nose hairs plucked while beauty salons remained shut. Us dirty women eh more likely to spread the virus than men 🙄

Caroline Hirons was furious and it became the basis for her Beauty Backed campaign.

I had to walk past three pubs where everyone was maskless and drinking and getting smashed and then don a mask to walk into a supermarket.

You can totally tell men were in charge. Cunts.

I recall research showing women were hit harder generally by lockdown

It didn’t surprise me

You can totally tell men were in charge. Cunts.

So true. I'm in ROI. Power tools and alcohol were 'essential items' but children's shoes were not. 😡

D all day. I followed the rules, was pregnant on my own and the govt was fucking around doing what they liked. Never again.

B

D