(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.

B. Because I now have medical problems that I didn't have before catching Covid twice. I also wouldn't want to pass anything potentially murderous on to anyone that is not healthy.

A little bit C (where it suited me ie can't come to a party/wedding/event that I don't want to go to, I've tested positive) but mainly D

If children were at that much risk, the majority of society would modify their behaviours alright, but it wouldn't look like following the rules. It would look like many of the people who worked outside the home last time refusing to do so this time, and basic services collapsing. We wouldn't have an observed lockdown, we'd have massive civil unrest.

Yes, after a while if children's hospitals collapsed.

But before that there would be a period of society trying to reduce transmission, and trying to work together to muddle along.

Civil unrest wouldn't happen immediately, imo. There would be panic but also hope and attempts to keep the essential plates spinning.

It seems that some posters want we vulnerable people caged while they get on with their lives regardless. That's hardly fair.

A fair solution is for everyone to take basic precautions. The healthy are no more important than the vulnerable so they should do the right thing.

Would that include workers at Amazon being expected to martyr themselves and risk their lives for the sake of your kids?

I don't have children.

And no, I expect most Amazon workers would refuse to go to work in that situation, funnily enough.

D which is exactly how I acted during covid after the first few weeks.

C. I'd avoid large gatherings but would see family still and I'd push for my children to go to school. They were eligible last time under key worker provision but managed to keep them home.

But as I say I think if children were dying in alarming numbers (god forbid) most people would become very cooperative and want to do what they could.

Do you think essential workers who are parents would cooperate by going into work and putting their families at risk?

B. People forget that the rules worked! When they ere relaxed for Christmas, the number of infections and deaths spiked again.

B

It depends how you define ‘worked’ I suppose

D they can naff off the next time.

They feel justified because they were ok and most reasonably healthy people were ok (not forgetting those who died, of course, but most younger and healthyish people did recover) and now assume that it will be the same going forwards. That 'only' old or medically fragile people will be at risk.

Or some of us have faced various other adverse life events, losses and health issues and accept that living comes with risks, that we face multiple risks every day so I'm not going to flap over one more.

There'd be a lot more to worry about than children's hospitals.

We were only able to have lockdowns and societal functioning in 2020 and 2021 because millions of people were willing to go out to work outside the home. That's the NHS, yes, but it's also people working in food production, delivery, fast food for those who rely on it to stay alive and retail. It's carers, utilities, those in schools, prisons and policing, public transport and highway maintenance for them to get there. And those are just the basics. If you want it to last more than a week or two you also need people who supply treats and things to keep others entertained, like Amazon and Deliveroo staff. You probably know that most of these sectors don't have much built in slack when it comes to staffing, and many are short of workers already.

Now imagine that, say, 25% live with a child under 18. Think about whether they're going to come into work if they have good reason to believe that their child is at significant risk. What does that do to the food supply, the goods available in supermarkets? Remember our system runs on the just in time principle. How do you think people would respond to this consequence? What about if our utilities become more patchy? If people without kids who want to go into their essential jobs can't get there because the bus they got was driven by a mum of a 4 year old who's refused to work?

You cannot just assume that people would respond in the same way as they did with covid if you change one of the most significant aspects of it.

If you had had my job you wouldn’t be so blasé about it. We had a refrigerator lorry in the car park as additional storage for the mortuary.

And I will always remember the screams of relatives down the phone and Imans tending all faiths.

It was like being in a war zone - I know a lot of my colleagues would simply refuse to go through it all over again.

You cannot just assume that people would respond in the same way as they did with covid if you change one of the most significant aspects of it.

@StormShadow

I assumed they would behave quite differently which was the whole point of my post...

However, I am optimistic that society would try to organise and collate and at least attempt something cohesive and not just going straight to civil unrest

Humans are resourceful and quite tough even when facing adversity.

D
I was quite liberal with the rules last time anyway ( and live in Wales and we had some crazy different rules , which made no sense )
One good thing about Covid , I wash my hands even more often now , and have a liking for proper bars of soap

D

Nope. As I said already.

Why on earth would they put their own family at risk?

D

But there is a vast difference between taking sensible precautions depending on type of sickness and having mandated rules and regulations that are for the large part non-sensical IMHO.

I'm opposed to the blunt authoritative approach and have no trust in the government.

My DM died at our home after the first month of lockdown from advanced ovarian cancer. She wasn't safe to at her own flat. It wasn't big enough for me to stay there with her and the "shielding" rules made it unworkable anyway.

When we approached MacMillan for help to facilitate the move, we were told no, because it was against the rules. There was no hospice provision and the MacMillan nurses went to ground. They did ring to see how she was after she died....

Anyway, my Mum had to speak to her GP to get admitted to hospital for 24 hours to stabilise her sodium levels (which were causing her to have falls) and we then set up her room for her to be discharged to at our house as the hospital and GP were in agreement that they couldn't discharge her to her own flat.

I was quite scared that "the authorities" were going to take her away because we'd broken Covid rules...., which I now know was madness obviously but I think some people have forgotten the initial paranoia and inhumane responses that came out in the first part of the first lockdown.

It was absolute insanity and I will never respect or trust the state again because the decision making and execution and manipulation have pretty much turned me into an enemy of the state. And I care not one jot.

However, I am optimistic that society would try to organise and collate and at least attempt something cohesive and not just going straight to civil unrest

This debate has come up before on here. I would not be too sanguine about the likelihood of society supporting those who have families to stay at home with them, while everyone else runs around keeping the show on the road. From what I've read. Let's just hope it never happens.

This just sounds like platitudes, to be honest.

There's no examination of how the workforce or society would cope with a significant minority of the workforce having a much bigger reason to refuse to work. I mean, I expect some attempts would be made, yeah, but how does that actually work? Human resourcefulness and toughness certainly doesn't have to translate to observing a particular set of rules. Arguably a person who chooses to withdraw their labour to protect their child is being tough and resourceful.

Absolutely agree, some people are coming at things from this perspective.

There is also a whole section of people out there who basically now feel almost invincible when it comes to a new pandemic, because they well, didn't die after all, so they dismiss it all as nothing more than 'fearmongering' in hindsight.

I think one of the largest drivers was how nonsensical the rules actually were, its no wonder people just gave up as it was hard to find the fairness or common sense.

Yep absolutely! One I will never forget is a friend who worked in a nursery in the babies and toddlers room - weren't allowed to wear masks for development reasons, fine, but if they were walking alone down an empty corridor to get something from another room or go to the loo or take their break or do paperwork, they had to be fully masked. On, off, on, off etc. The sand had to be put away but the books were safe.

You could see your partner if he lived two streets away but not if he lived in the next town over. You could go to the theatre if you'd been vaccinated with a vaccine that "stops you going to hospital" but doesn't stop transmission but if you hadn't you had to take a test in front of a witness at the venue only to go and sit right next to someone who hadn't taken a test and could well be coughing away and positive. You could go maskless sitting down but not standing up. If one person in the class was ill they all had to stay home but siblings could come in. You could walk alone in the woods with a coffee but not sit down on a bench with it.

I swear this was the single most intelligent fussy illogical virus in existence.

All that to say - I believe people on the whole can gauge the risk and do what feels sensible for them. The word "selfish" was bandied about for those against lockdown, and usually by those who were higher risk. So basically being "selfish" themselves because it benefited them. And I don't think there's anything wrong with that except to say I don't think it's selfishness, I think it's base level human nature of self-preservation. Where self might extend to your children and closest loved ones too. Some wanted to preserve their health while for others they needed to preserve their income, or their relationship, or their education etc. If another one happened tomorrow and it was ebola levels of death, or mainly affected children, or mainly affected women etc etc self preservation would kick in and people's behaviour would adjust accordingly. You're a woman? Your husband / brother / uncle / neighbour leaves stuff at the door for you.

With covid, they had to fabricate that "adjustment" by ramping up the levels of fear. That's why way back in July, random people surveyed guessed that 10% of the population had already died from it. 10%. That's the entire population of Scotland gone in a few months. THAT is how blown out of proportion this virus was. Three years on I still don't know anyone who actually died from it, and I have relatives in their mid 70s and know many of their friends.

Lets just hope they've not created a Boy Who Cried Wolf situation if a very serious one did actually occur.....