(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?

Exactly!

If you don't want lockdown or restrictions, surely that's a good reason TO get vaccinated?

(Assuming that a vaccine is available.)

It's a long time since people have had their lives restricted by the threat of polio, for example- and that's because we do get vaccinated.

D, unless virus was worse for children, then B

The world isn't divided into The Truly Vulnerable, and Everyone Else.

There's a sliding scale of vulnerability. And you can't shield all the medically vulnerable indefinitely without losing a huge number of older workers and the collapse of charities relying on (often retired) volunteers, and the daycare provided by grandparents.

I am - like many people- moderately vulnerable by virtue (vice?) of age and chronic health issues. In fact, I did NOT (to my knowledge) get Covid, and I DID suffer deterioration in some of my other health issues probably as a result of lack of availabili5ty of doctors, and perhaps also due to extreme stress. So you might expect me to be more opposed to precautions - and yet, without the precautions, I might well have got Covid badly, and there might have been even fewer medical services for all like me, and for everyone.

But it's interesting that you mention Sweden. It's at least possible that Sweden was able to get by with fewer restrictions, in part because higher public spending meant less crowding in schools and public transport and healthcare settings; less risk of overwhelming health and other services. British preoccupation with 'efficiency'; i.e. having as few staff as possible, may have meant less resilience in the face of a crisis. Yes, Scandinavian levels of services would mean paying more tax.

And the PM got a life-threatening case of Covid, probably because of his own stupid carelessness. He should be seen as a cautionary tale, not an example to follow.

A

I got covid in my late 30's - NO underlying health issues so not in a high risk category; this was before the vaccinations came out, and had to be monitored for weeks after the infection left due to heart issues as a result of the infection. It scared the shit out of me, quite frankly.

He was overweight like a lot of them were, he said that himself

I'd ignore them completely, just as I did with Covid. I haven't taken any jabs, am totally fine. My parents also ignored the rules and have taken no jabs.