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

Agree. But does that not make the likelihood of it happening again even more likely given that the figures are based on natural factors and not human stupidity ?

Agreed. They will never learn.

Covid is the only disease that has led to a lockdown in anyone's memory. We have had other diseases, of course, but nothing that led to lockdown.
Scientists may well say when not if but without giving a timescale that means nothing. At some point there might be another global pandemic that doesn't mean it will be in your life time or your children's life time. Or there might be another global pandemic next year, but is that really likely?
Regardless, if it does happen in the near future no-one will pay attention to social distancing or not meeting friends/family so it won't have the effect of the first lockdown.

And what will they do if virtually everyone refuses to comply?

Most of it is guess work. Nobody has any idea what the next pathogen would be or when. The only thing that is not guesswork is that human beings want to survive so if the virus is very transmissable and deadly they will voluntary lockdown if they can. Only the stupid will not comply.

There's also the possibility that if jobs were going and workers were given effective PPE lots of people would decide to do those jobs rather than remain at home in lockdown.

I'd hate another pandemic but I would LOVE another lock down. It was one of the best times ever.

Also for those saying they wouldn't comply, that is so crazy. My husband worked in covid front line all the way through the pandemic and it was very very real. Lock down undoubtedly saved many hundreds if not thousands of lives.

When considering this we should keep in mind the efforts to prevent the spread of dangerous viruses - MERS was successfully contained, for example.

And also consider what happens if funding for that work is reduced.

Out of interest would your husband still have gone to work even if the death rate was 70%? So a 70% chance he’d lose you and/or your children if he brought it home?

You think? In a less dangerous pandemic, maybe, though that makes the case for lockdown weaker in the first place. I can't imagine there'd be many volunteers to go and work on the Aldi checkout or petrol station night shift if people felt that in doing so they'd endanger themselves or their loved ones. Especially because, as the last pandemic shows us, many people would be able to privately, illegally socialise as an alternative to staying at home.

I'll quote and reply to your other post here as it's clunky to have two different conversations going on.

Most of it is guess work. Nobody has any idea what the next pathogen would be or when. The only thing that is not guesswork is that human beings want to survive so if the virus is very transmissable and deadly they will voluntary lockdown if they can. Only the stupid will not comply.

The guesswork in this scenario is whether 'if they can' will actually happen. Because though lots of people will no doubt want to lock down nice and safe if there's a very dangerous and transmissible virus, that doesn't create other people who are willing to take one for the team so they can do it. Lockdown is not necessarily going to be one of your choices. If the pumps are dry, shelves are empty and order is breaking down, what do you think is going to happen?

I am suggesting that people might be happy to work if they had effective PPE and other procedures were followed so their lives weren't in danger though.

Well the stuff after PPE is an addition.

There could be some people who'd do it if they thought their lives weren't in danger I guess, but again, not only is this a fairly specific group but there are also lots of pandemic permutations where they might be too afraid.

So again, you don't know whether any future pandemic would hit the Goldilocks spot. Serious enough for people to be willing to lock down, but equally not so risky as to prevent sufficient volunteers who are fed up at home to cover essential face to face work. Which we didn't get last time. The shortage of carers, for example, remained throughout the pandemic.

Which means you're talking about something that was a pretty narrow space even before we all experienced covid 19. It's fine as a thought experiment, but you do need to be aware it might not bear any relation to reality.

I know lots of people who worked in the last pandemic with PPE but were also keen too stay at home when they weren't working. None of them think there should not have been a lockdown. Don't judge everyone by your own standards.

The point is that with a disease with a much higher death rate for working age people, you are not going to have essential workers happy to risk their lives to keep your lights on. The issue would not be about people complying, but about avoiding societal collapse.

The conditions that allowed a 'lockdown' to work were actually very specific. It's very unlikely that a future pandemic would work in the same way.

I wasn't talking about a situation where the death rate was very high. In that case most of the human race would die if the virus was also very infectious. Society collapse could not be avoided.

We're not talking about whether there should've been a lockdown during the last pandemic though.