To be depressed that lockdown would happen again tomorrow if there was another new disease

[Pavementworrier]

We talk about all the things that are worse "since the pandemic"but government prep is based on all the same mad nonsense that caused the worsening

Grim

Yes if it’s sooner rather than later there might not be the option for a Covid version.

For a more severe one which makes people not go out that’s another and different major problem.

Yep agree with pretty much all your posts 😀

Just because he’s a nob it doesn’t mean everyone else should be.

Why did you want people to discuss this for. I'd rather forget about it.

Because he’s an idiot. I’m not.

There was, and is, nothing mad about lockdown in principle..When a novel pandemic strikes, minimising contact between people is literally the only way to slow the spread and prevent overwhelm of health services.

Certainly, Boris Johnson was dithery, self serving and incompetent and locking down schools while pubs were open was madness, but that was Tory incompetence.

I would hope that when the next pandemic arises, if it is warranted due to the seriousness of the virus, and until otherit mitigations are available, that lockdowns would be considered.

The alternative, is simply that no precautions are taken until it is too late and a government is forced to act anyway. If the hospitals are overwhelmed and there are bodies in the street no government, no matter how bonkers and conspiracy-minded, will be able to hold the no lockdowns policy.

We currently have policing ‘by consent’ but it doesn’t have to be that way.

Already, in normal times, we are seeing an increasingly muscular police force (far more armed, tasers, pepper spray etc) in response to a population who are increasingly disrespectful of public servants.

Look at the summer riots. It really didn’t take many asylum centre rioters hauled into court and handed public long sentences to start immediately, to dissuade others from rioting.

I am sure we have all seen the epidemic films where soldiers shoot people who push past checkpoints. Again, you don’t need to shoot many people to stop others pushing through.

People are neither as brave or rebellious as they pretend to be. Deterrence works.

Obviously the level of enforcement would depend upon the level of threat, but no government is going to just sit back and allow mass civil disobedience in a national emergency.

If a new disease came along, it would be just like COVID at the start, little known and understood and possibly far more lethal

This is also true, which is why many of us were prepared to go along with the restrictions to start with

However once it became clear the virus wasn't going to result in some of the more drastic predictions, and that too many measures were merely money making/employment opportunities, the perception changed - and rightly so IMO

This.

They would have been better looking seriously into air flow and ventilation in schools for covid - as that would also help with winter virals loads like colds and flu.

I was in Wales - lock downs/fire breaks and restictions year groups being sent home all dragged on and on - well past many MN experinces apparently - and stuff like resitcion on what you could buy were clearly stupid when announced and nothing to do with virus spread.

A lot of people lost all reason and media was incredibly unhelpful with that but there are some really nasty viruses out there where lock down/quarantine would be vital - though hopefully more targeted and they'd likely shut air travel down much faster.

I actually think this should be an option.

Anyone who doesn’t want to comply with the rules - they should continue to go out to work, as we still need workers.

Those that want to comply should stay home and wfh or be furloughed.

No one can moan then, we’ll still have workers and there will be less people being furloughed so cost less.

He milked it though filled up his sack and run off into the sunset.

You would have been forced to comply to a certain degree because of th closures

If there is a war, there will be all sorts of restrictions, curfews etc. I don't see the point of worrying about what might or might not happen in a hypothetical future. Isn't there an asteroid that might hit the earth in 2032.

Yes, there will be children's coffins on all channels round the clock. Just like they posted "Italian coffins" non stop in 2020.

Doesn't matter they're fake. Whatever works.

The single most effective measure to allow less severe lockdowns would be identifying and locking up superspreaders.

Many clusters can be linked to a single person.

Some people, due to the structure of their vocal cords, emit 20x as much aerosol as others. You could get everyone tested and lock up the superspreaders, allowing more freedom for everyone else.

But, is that ethically acceptable? Personally I don’t think so. Any more than trying to lock up the old to allow the young more freedom (which doesn’t work anyway, as people don’t live in age-segregated communities).

There is no money left :). Nothing to pay for people to bake banana bread at home.

You still haven't got anywhere close to explaining exactly how mass non-compliance would be prevented in a population who didn't want to lock down. The asylum seeker protests example isn't even close to that, because so few of the population have shown any sign that they actually want to go and stand outside hotels containing women and children and threaten to set fire to them.

I notice also with interest that you don't mention any of the things our increasingly stretched police force simply don't bother with- I doubt people who have been subject to a crime they do bugger all about think they're increasingly muscular, for example.

The idea that soldiers are all going to be fine shooting ordinary people who might very well be of the same view or even in the same community as their loved ones is laughable, not least because one of the potential outcomes of this is them getting lynched themselves. I think your problem might be that you've seen too many films, actually.

People complied not necessarily because they believed in it, but because people who didn't wrre getting handed down fines og up to £10k. I think this would again be enough to ensure compliance with any future lockdowns.

The point of lockdown was supposed to be to keep the NHS functioning, not to prevent Covid deaths.

I don't think lockdown would ever happen in the same way again, with schools closing.

I definitely think we'd see a real stepping up of behavioural nudges in the event of a new pandemic, albeit that could just as easily be to try and persuade people against lockdown. But that tactic is the best one we've got for trying to control people's behaviour.

I think, although not perfect, the idea of testing and then isolating for 2 weeks if positive worked pretty well.

We did have a couple of staff off for months at a time as they apparently ‘kept getting reinfected’ so it’s not ideal but actually I think it worked well, as most of the time there were enough staff to keep things running and slow the spread and the entire country didn’t need to isolate.

If I ran the country and similar happened again, I would have an immediate 2 week lockdown and then anyone who is not positive can go back to work and school etc and then if they test positive to isolate for 2 weeks.

I worked all the way through Covid, putting myself, my children and my family at risk. I never had the comfort of being safe at home. I 100% would not work through another lockdown but I would welcome one

Obviously the level of enforcement would depend upon the level of threat, but no government is going to just sit back and allow mass civil disobedience in a national emergency

But they did, Newbutoldfather - unless you're forgetting entire communities where the only real restrictions which happened were those they chose for themselves?

Entire shopping streets remaining open ... mass weddings and funerals ... BLM marches ... places of worship still open ... door-to-door encouragement of vaccines ended because they were deemed insensitive and doubtless others I've forgotten or never knew about

@Binus ,

‘You still haven't got anywhere close to explaining exactly how mass non-compliance would be prevented in a population who didn't want to lock down. The asylum seeker protests example isn't even close to that, because so few of the population have shown any sign that they actually want to go and stand outside hotels containing women and children and threaten to set fire to them.’

The proportion of those willing to after the sentencing and before was miniscule. You are seriously claiming that people would risk a 10 year prison sentence to avoid staying at home for a couple of months. Who is being unrealistic here?

‘The idea that soldiers are all going to be fine shooting ordinary people who might very well be of the same view or even in the same community as their loved ones is laughable, not least because one of the potential outcomes of this is them getting lynched themselves. I think your problem might be that you've seen too many films, actually.’

This is a very extreme example and would only ever be used if we had a population threatening pathogen. But soldiers in uniform are totally anonymous and will follow orders when they are told they are saving the population. And they will police areas far away from people they know. It sadly worked in Tiananmen square and during the Hungarian revolution. Neither were movies.

I don’t want to go too far down this extreme route, as it is vanishingly unlikely to ever happen.

More realistically, the idea that people won’t comply with police roadblocks is a fantasy. The Paris police checkpoints were effective as people just don’t shove past an armed policeman telling them to go back home. It’s not ‘consent’, it is fear of an unknown consequence.

You’ve posted it’s only necessary if it’s a population threatening pathogen.

Why don’t you think people will react to that instead? In the case your major problem will be everyone would want to stay home, not even work.