Page 26 | To be depressed that lockdown would happen again tomorrow if there was another new disease

Pavementworrier · 2026-01-05T07:35:41+00:00

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

EasternStandard · 05/01/2026 17:29

flatfootedfred · 05/01/2026 17:15

Also in a really catastrophic scenario, we wouldn’t be fucking about with bespoke Tesco orders, we’d be getting rations delivered. We might be using supermarkets as distribution centres but it wouldn't be like normal click and collect.

Show quote history

Yep. The other issues would be healthcare workers turning up at all and essentials such as water or lights on.

It could probably be done idk really but it’s a different scenario to Covid

Binus · 05/01/2026 17:29

BustopherPonsonbyJones · 05/01/2026 17:22

But the point is, you wouldn’t know if it was a novel virus. And the buggers keep mutating. Hence, we prepare for the worst and hope for the best.

Show quote history

We do, but that of course has to include realistic expectations of how people are going to behave in any given pandemic scenario. So things like willingness to work and trust levels. I also remain to be convinced it's a good use of resources to prep much for the doomsday pandemic, although I appreciate that may be a difficult sell politically.

sprigatito · 05/01/2026 17:30

Unpaidviewer · 05/01/2026 17:11

It was my opinion at the time that we didn't lockdown soon enough. And I stand by that even though its probably an unpopular one. There was too much dithering and the governement flipped from one course of action to another. We are incredibly lucky that the fatality rate wasn't higher. Then I think they let lockdowns drag on too long. Once we had a good idea of what covid was, how it would impact us, and we had hospitals ready to go then I believe they should have been lifted and only those most at risk should have been shielding.

Hopefully if and when it happens again the data on the impact on our children will be considered. But as others have said I dount so many will be compliant. There is so much anger on what we missed during that time, especially in light of the behaviour of some of those in the government at that time.

I agree with you. We should have had earlier, stricter lockdowns which would have had a chance of actually being effective. Unfortunately we would have needed an actual adult leader in No. 10, rather than a sociopathic libertarian buffoon who cared more about being liked than he did about saving people’s lives.

TheKeatingFive · 05/01/2026 17:33

EasternStandard · 05/01/2026 17:29

Yep. The other issues would be healthcare workers turning up at all and essentials such as water or lights on.

It could probably be done idk really but it’s a different scenario to Covid

Show quote history

I hope there are people looking into this now, but I wonder how 'bare essential' the country could/would go?

Basic food packages? Limited light/heat/internet? No additional deliveries of any kind.

Newbutoldfather · 05/01/2026 17:36

There have only ever been two diseases with both high infectivity and case fatality rates; smallpox and bubonic plague (which is bacterial and responds to antibiotics).

So, while the odds of another pandemic are reasonable, it is likely to be controllable and for society to survive (unless deliberately engineered in a laboratory).

The worst in recent times was the Spanish Flu with
a case fatality rate of 2.5% and an R number of around 2.5. Strangely it mostly killed young healthy adults. Although communities self isolated, essential work continued (including fighting a war) and essential workers continued to work.

Binus · 05/01/2026 17:38

What we've never had before is something that most people would believe themselves to be realistically likely to die of, combined with modern communication methods allowing us to see exactly how bad things were getting all over the world. That is brand new, and the thought isn't a pleasant one.

GoldenGail · 05/01/2026 17:38

Overthebow · 05/01/2026 07:47

I’d rather get I’ll with something like Covid then my DCs development and mental health being damaged, yes. If it were a much more severe illness and affected kids much more then I would lockdown but apart from that I’ll take the illness.

Show quote history

But the point is when they started lockdown we had no idea of how severe the illness would be. You say you would comply with a much more serious illness but that would mean that a huge number of people had already died which could have been avoided by another lockdown…even if it turns out to be not needed ……. A real conundrum

TheKeatingFive · 05/01/2026 17:39

Newbutoldfather · 05/01/2026 17:36

There have only ever been two diseases with both high infectivity and case fatality rates; smallpox and bubonic plague (which is bacterial and responds to antibiotics).

So, while the odds of another pandemic are reasonable, it is likely to be controllable and for society to survive (unless deliberately engineered in a laboratory).

The worst in recent times was the Spanish Flu with
a case fatality rate of 2.5% and an R number of around 2.5. Strangely it mostly killed young healthy adults. Although communities self isolated, essential work continued (including fighting a war) and essential workers continued to work.

Well that would be an different situation also. Covid was not a big threat to the working age population in the main, so working patterns stayed in place (allowing g some more vulnerable people to shield).

If the mortality rate was high in young adults, but lower in older adults, would we arrange for young adults to shield and older people pick up a greater share of the essential f2f work?

GoldenGail · 05/01/2026 17:40

Switcher · 05/01/2026 07:50

I agree entirely. It's absolute bullshit as a strategy but all you'll get on here is a bunch of lockdown lunatics who see no problem with economic meltdown.

Or lunatics who don’t care about people dying or protecting the vulnerable.

scalt · 05/01/2026 17:50

Newbutoldfather · 05/01/2026 17:16

I think people’s resentment to the very necessary lockdown was caused by events around it as much as lockdown itself.

The stupid petty rules like taping park benches, closing public tennis courts whilst allowing personal training and preventing loved one’s accompanying one another into hospital. These prevented very little spread but caused very real hardship.

And, of course the hypocrisy of allowing ‘necessary’ corporate entertaining and COVID parties dressed up as work events.

Finally, the government-sanctioned profiteering that no one has yet gone to jail for.

In addition, the messaging of ‘save the NHS’ was asinine. It was always about preserving a functioning medical system in order to save lives, not about saving the NHS per se, but that was poorly explained with the four word slogans.

I am assuming hopefully we will not see another pandemic in our lifetime but, if I’m wrong, we need a government leading with dignity, gravitas and self-sacrifice, the opposite of BJ and his shower.

Exactly. Because there was so much focus on stupid, petty rules, like closing playgrounds, taping up park benches, police persecuting the coffee drinkers (and I still say that story was orchestrated, to make an example of how “powerful” the police could be): it was a race to the bottom, with Scotland and wales competing to impose the pettiest rules. It suited the government to have the public fighting over whether Easter eggs were allowed or not, or whether you were walking your dog more than once a day. And I haven’t forgotten “the government might have to kill your cats”. They would have had to have killed ME first.

There should have been much less focus on this, and much more about what the government was doing to get things moving. Less grovelling about deaths, and much more grovelling about the very real damage caused by prolonged lockdowns, instead of partying when they thought nobody was looking, and proving that they were ruining people’s lives in the full knowledge that the virus was not the mortal threat they were telling us it was. Because the government pledged “we will do whatever it takes to beat the virus”, and told the public that the virus was an extremely deadly threat, they painted themselves into a corner, and made it politically impossible to ease restrictions, because they had frightened the public so much. Their extremely damaging campaign of fear had worked too well. That’s one reason lockdowns dragged on, and on, and on.

Binus · 05/01/2026 17:52

scalt · 05/01/2026 17:50

Exactly. Because there was so much focus on stupid, petty rules, like closing playgrounds, taping up park benches, police persecuting the coffee drinkers (and I still say that story was orchestrated, to make an example of how “powerful” the police could be): it was a race to the bottom, with Scotland and wales competing to impose the pettiest rules. It suited the government to have the public fighting over whether Easter eggs were allowed or not, or whether you were walking your dog more than once a day. And I haven’t forgotten “the government might have to kill your cats”. They would have had to have killed ME first.

There should have been much less focus on this, and much more about what the government was doing to get things moving. Less grovelling about deaths, and much more grovelling about the very real damage caused by prolonged lockdowns, instead of partying when they thought nobody was looking, and proving that they were ruining people’s lives in the full knowledge that the virus was not the mortal threat they were telling us it was. Because the government pledged “we will do whatever it takes to beat the virus”, and told the public that the virus was an extremely deadly threat, they painted themselves into a corner, and made it politically impossible to ease restrictions, because they had frightened the public so much. Their extremely damaging campaign of fear had worked too well. That’s one reason lockdowns dragged on, and on, and on.

Show quote history

Yes, that's a good point. The shite governance during the last pandemic caused a lot of damage that's nowhere near being fixed.

Sesma · 05/01/2026 18:07

I lived in a Tier 2 area just before one Christmas, all around was tier 4 and the queues at our shopping mall were huge, it was a ridiculous scenario, of course folks from the surrounding tier 4 counties were going to come to our shops.

Imdunfer · 05/01/2026 18:23

scalt · 05/01/2026 17:50

Exactly. Because there was so much focus on stupid, petty rules, like closing playgrounds, taping up park benches, police persecuting the coffee drinkers (and I still say that story was orchestrated, to make an example of how “powerful” the police could be): it was a race to the bottom, with Scotland and wales competing to impose the pettiest rules. It suited the government to have the public fighting over whether Easter eggs were allowed or not, or whether you were walking your dog more than once a day. And I haven’t forgotten “the government might have to kill your cats”. They would have had to have killed ME first.

There should have been much less focus on this, and much more about what the government was doing to get things moving. Less grovelling about deaths, and much more grovelling about the very real damage caused by prolonged lockdowns, instead of partying when they thought nobody was looking, and proving that they were ruining people’s lives in the full knowledge that the virus was not the mortal threat they were telling us it was. Because the government pledged “we will do whatever it takes to beat the virus”, and told the public that the virus was an extremely deadly threat, they painted themselves into a corner, and made it politically impossible to ease restrictions, because they had frightened the public so much. Their extremely damaging campaign of fear had worked too well. That’s one reason lockdowns dragged on, and on, and on.

Show quote history

Great post.

People will probably remember Derbyshire Police showing drone footage of 2 people walking a dog in the Goyt Valley and inferring that they wanted to trace them and prosecute them.

That spot was within walking distance of my home at the time and those people could have been my husband and me walking completely legally. It was outrageous.

MichaelmasDaisiesAndAutumSunset · 05/01/2026 18:27

feistyoneyouare · 05/01/2026 17:05

Your prerogative. Personally I think it's quite silly to extrapolate from an off-the-cuff remark in the way you have done. I said precisely none of the above, you're just assuming I think it.

Show quote history

Well, I think given the brevity of your comment, it was fair to draw inferences. I can live with being called silly by you.

LoveItaly · 05/01/2026 18:36

P1nkElephant · 05/01/2026 17:00

Well they’re going to have to come up with better evidence for that if there’s a next time- as they well know.

Show quote history

Given that deaths within 14 days of a positive Covid test were recorded as a Covid death whatever the actual cause of death, I hope you are right. It would be nice to know the actual real number of Covid deaths, obviously significantly lower than the official figures.

Puzzledandpissedoff · 05/01/2026 18:47

Newbutoldfather · 05/01/2026 17:16

I think people’s resentment to the very necessary lockdown was caused by events around it as much as lockdown itself.

The stupid petty rules like taping park benches, closing public tennis courts whilst allowing personal training and preventing loved one’s accompanying one another into hospital. These prevented very little spread but caused very real hardship.

And, of course the hypocrisy of allowing ‘necessary’ corporate entertaining and COVID parties dressed up as work events.

Finally, the government-sanctioned profiteering that no one has yet gone to jail for.

In addition, the messaging of ‘save the NHS’ was asinine. It was always about preserving a functioning medical system in order to save lives, not about saving the NHS per se, but that was poorly explained with the four word slogans.

I am assuming hopefully we will not see another pandemic in our lifetime but, if I’m wrong, we need a government leading with dignity, gravitas and self-sacrifice, the opposite of BJ and his shower.

Excellent post, Newbutoldfather, except for the bit about needing a government to act with dignity and gravitas ... it's not that I disagree with the principle, but good luck with that in the UK

Ubertomusic · 05/01/2026 18:49

Binus · 05/01/2026 17:38

What we've never had before is something that most people would believe themselves to be realistically likely to die of, combined with modern communication methods allowing us to see exactly how bad things were getting all over the world. That is brand new, and the thought isn't a pleasant one.

Modern communication methods allow us to see as many deep fakes as we are willing to consume.

Ubertomusic · 05/01/2026 18:51

GoldenGail · 05/01/2026 17:40

Or lunatics who don’t care about people dying or protecting the vulnerable.

Show quote history

Were those lunatics forcing the vulnerable out of their lockdowns?

Ubertomusic · 05/01/2026 18:57

Sesma · 05/01/2026 18:07

I lived in a Tier 2 area just before one Christmas, all around was tier 4 and the queues at our shopping mall were huge, it was a ridiculous scenario, of course folks from the surrounding tier 4 counties were going to come to our shops.

Our friends lived on one side of the road with no lockdown whilst the folks literally 3m across the road were in lockdown.
Of course they all complied 🙄

thinkingofachange · 05/01/2026 19:17

I’d carry on key workering in healthcare/ children in school/still exercise outside. not having and even 1st vaccine this time either thanks

Smoosha · 05/01/2026 19:22

Newbutoldfather · 05/01/2026 15:06

I think some people have invented an alternative narrative for what happened in COVID and honestly believe that that packed wards and ICU units with one nurse per two beds (or worse) were made-for-tv government propaganda films and real hospitals were empty.

Ot they forget that we actually had an oxygen crisis despite lockdown, and several hospitals lowered their SAT levels for supportive oxygen from 92% to 88% to avoid running out.

And, don’t forget, the very high survival rates of younger people often depended on basic supportive hospital therapy. Who knows how many 40 and 60 year olds would have died without hospital access. And don’t forget, the second lockdown was in winter, with bronchiolitis circulating, so babies were also competing for oxygen and ventilation.

COVID was, and is, a strange illness. For some it is ‘just a cold’, others get really ill. And I myself have had both versions, with one infection raising my resting heart rate for months afterwards.

You will never manage novel viruses of any severity at all without some form of contact reduction. How severe that is will depend on the infectivity, morbidity and medical resources available (in the UK, we don’t have many).

Hopefully we won’t see another pandemic in my lifetime. And, hopefully, when the next one comes, vaccines will be available within weeks.

COVID was, and is, a strange illness. For some it is ‘just a cold’, others get really ill. And I myself have had both versions, with one infection raising my resting heart rate for months afterwards.

That’s the same with many viruses/illnesses. Some people are deathly ill with flu (and in some rare cases can kill healthy adults) and others will barely notice. Despite what everyone says on here, you can have mild and even asymptomatic flu. Some children have chicken pox and just get a few spots with no real illness, but in rare cases some children can die. Some viral illnesses have always had the possibility of causing long term issues after. Flu has been known to cause cardiac issues as well. Covid is not actually that unusual in many respects. The main issue is it was hitting many people at once as no one had any immunity to it and it was highly contagious. Not that it was really that weird.

ThirdBanana · 05/01/2026 19:30

I’d comply with another lockdown if it was serious.

Puzzledandpissedoff · 05/01/2026 19:41

Modern communication methods allowing us to see exactly how bad things were getting all over the world

Modern communication methods allow us to see as many deep fakes as we are willing to consume

Another example of both things being true at the same time

Like so much else the internet is a tool which can be used for good or ill, the trouble being that it attracts the malign along with the well intentioned ... plus far too many unable to spot the difference (which admittedly isn't always easy)

Binus · 05/01/2026 19:54

I have no doubt that the AI slop would be coming thick and fast!

IllMetByMoonlight · 05/01/2026 19:57

Stopbringingmicehome · 05/01/2026 08:08

My DS worked in the Covid wards, at 22 she was phoning people up to tell them their family member had died , and holding up mobile phones to dying patients mouths so they could speak their last words to family. Nurses and doctors ended the day crying because of how many people had died that day or were severely ill and they were unable to help.

We were on the receiving end of such a call the day before DBiL died, having contracted Covid at the very beginning and been admitted to hospital. Medical staff like your DS are often on my mind, and I remain grateful they were by DBiL's side in his last week -he must have been terrified.