(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?

D

i ignored most of the ones i could get away with ignoring last time and would do again.

And would hope the 'protect the vulnerable' included mental health conditions and people awaiting life saving/changing operations and treatment. I however am angry about a friend in her 20s who died due to a return of cancer being missed as oncology apts went to telephone only.

D, as a lot of the government did that set the rules

I'd wear masks again if necessary. I wouldn't do anything else though and I'd protest if they closed schools or care homes again.

B

The government lost so much credibility during the pandemic due to their own non-following of the rules and general uselessness, not to mention all of the money that siphoned off to dubious companies (ie their mates) who were supposedly providening PPE.

Some of the rules around people in care homes were far too harsh and went on for far too long but I think people have forgotten how bad it was at the start with normally fit and healthy people being very, very ill and dying. The NHS would collapse if we had another pandemic under similar circumstances where there are no vaccines and little data on how it is spread.

Not necessarily. Someone could have picked and chosen the rules last time and do the same again.

I followed the rules where they made sense due to risk. Because I do understand the inverse square law and epidemiology unlike most people who 'did their own risk assessment'.

So I might have gone walking in the countryside in remote uncrowded places for 2/3/4 hours a day when it might not have strictly been allowed.

But I also avoided other people by going to supermarkets when I knew it would be quiet, because I couldn't be arsed with all the queuing up And I didn't hug CEV MIL when I took her shopping round and dropped it over her garden wall then stood in the middle of the street to talk to her.

D
I was going to put C as it would depend on the repercussions but I'd definitely aim for D.

C/D

Yes, this!

What we have to remember is that, at the beginning, we didn't know how dangerous COVID was, or how long it would be before a vaccine could be developed and given to people.

Without lockdowns/rules, there could have been far more deaths and far more cases of serious illness/long COVID. If the restrictions hadn't been imposed, the government/health advisers would have been criticised for that too.

D

I couldn't have been that dangerous or they wouldn't have allowed the supermarkets and Amazon to work and we would have heard about lots of deaths in supermarkets and Amazon warehouses, we didn't.

D along with don't trust a thing the government says

D

B

B. We could see from the stats that the rules helped to avoid infections and deaths, so I can't see any reason why I wouldn't follow them pretty strictly. For what it's worth, even with the current useless government in power, I would have more faith in them than I ever had in Johnson and Hancock.

A

D - because the ent analysis has shown that lockdowns and restrictions made little difference to death rates, but caused untold damage to economies, health, education, mental wellbeing etc etc

C for me.

B.
I was careful first time, would be careful again.

I considered that I was reducing the likelihood of other people who had less choice catching it.

I don't see why staying home to reduce the number of busy crowded places was considered such a big deal.

D

Well, obviously we didn't, people weren't keeling over in supermarkets and warehouses. We still had horribly high infection rates pre-vaccination, but they were lower than they were when we had no or relaxed precautions in place. This is really weird logic.

B for me.

hmm interesting.

B

I actually think that most of us didn't experience or encounter Covid badly.
I only know one person who has long covid, no-one personally who died, and no-one personally who was very ill. My family all had it and it was mild.
It makes it very hard to understand how serious it was (or wasn't)
I think of the medics in London who died doing their jobs, and the over crowded morgues. Those early pictures form Northern Italy which were horrifying. Those people we not CEV or vulnerable they wer efit adults doing their jobs.

I think government lost all credibility, and no-one will follow them next time because of partygate etc.
But that doesn't mean that that would be wise or sensible.

I wish that instead of covid enquiry, we actually had people assessing what we should do next time, so decisions don't come from people like Boris.

D without any hesitation.

Possibly A, but more likely B. Definitely not C or D.