How long do you think we can tolerate this lockdown?

[TeethingAgain]

I know it's necessary and for thy e greater good, but how long do you think society will tolerate it before (more) people start flouting the rules? Are there psychologists who the government are consulting about how long humans can be expected to live like this? I know people say we are just being asked to sit on our sofas but that's a very simplistic way of looking at a gargantuan change in lifestyle and social habits which are engrained within us.

I think people could manage 8-12 weeks and I think the toll on mental health will start to outweigh the physical health benefits.

How many of the chronically ill or disabled completely lack social interaction? Those I know in this situation still have visitors, family and carers, even if they go out rarely.
For many people living alone, there may now be zero interaction with others. The mental health aspects of this will be considerable.

@Amtopm with regard to your little one.... Why not tell her the truth in very basic terms. I did with my two (3&4) I knew it'd cause them more anxiety to keep making up excuses as to why we weren't allowed to visit family or why school was suddenly off. I told them that at the minute there's germs about that are causing lots of coughs and we're all having to keep indoors as much as possible so the bugs and germs don't hop from person to person and give someone else a cough. I told them we were pretty safe but some older people it could make poorly so we're all doing our bit to help. They got it and at least understand why we're not out and about as usual. (i only mentioned older people it affects as they wouldn't understand the complexity of comorbidities etc) they jdbe in fairness really settled after I explained. I told them it was called 'coronavirus' they'll hear it bandied about. I'd rather I explained

The problem is that people's incentives are misaligned.

A lot of people living in shitty cramped accommodation and worrying about the rent, their next weekly wage in their gig economy job, and going quietly mad because they're trying to homeschool young children are not remotely at risk themselves of getting seriously sick, and don't have family members / close friends who are at risk either. The risk for a 20-something with no preexisting health conditions is tiny. Therefore that person (e.g. my neighbour who I talked to a lot before this lockdown happened!) is being asked selflessly to sacrifice their own well-being for that of older, often richer, more privileged people. I think we ought to be giving young people in tough circumstances more credit for doing that at the moment. Scaremongering and saying that the virus can take people of all ages, in an attempt to invoke bogus self-interest, isn't helpful. A 20-something parent with four kids under 10 (like my neighbour), in a three bedroom tower block apartment in central London, in very good health, would be acting irrationally if they stopped going to work for months on end because they were worried about their own health or their family's. (esp. if their own parents are in another country, so the immediate family consists only of young people plus children.)

I wish we could find a way to state more clearly that, as a society, we're asking young healthy people to make sacrifices on behalf of older and less healthy ones. (An unusual situation, because most viruses have a U shaped or W shaped curve, so young people ARE more at risk than with this coronavirus.) If we lived in an economically equal society, that would be fine. The rub comes when we're asking the underprivileged to make sacrifices on behalf of the privileged. The school on my street in central London has a high proportion of refugees. They don't think of a person dying at 70 or 80 after a healthy life untroubled by war, famine, or the loss of children as being in any way unlucky or, very sadly, a big deal. I think if the lockdown goes on for more than a few weeks (as I assume it will) we need as a society to be incentivising low-risk people to follow the rules by paying them -- essentially we need to tax people who benefit more from lockdown and lose less from it (a person on a generous pension in their 70s is financially secure in the way that an Uber driver or shop assistant living in council housing with their kids isn't) to compensate those who benefit less (because infection isn't a big issue for them or their relatives) and lose more (their livelihood). Otherwise after a few weeks the rules on social distancing will get broken, and people with little (selfishly) to lose in terms of their health, but a lot to lose otherwise, will be going out and infecting others to carry on working, praying, being part of their community etc.

@hopsalong I completely agree, great post.

If that meant you got your freedoms back, could earn a living again, send your kids to school and go back to a normal life... I'm sure there would be a percentage who'd take their chances

Not gonna lie, I bloody well would

How many of the chronically ill or disabled completely lack social interaction?

More than you'd think - I've frequently visited people who see no one else at all, they were even alone at Christmas. Especially older people who never had families or children.

I get that the MH toll will be high. Some of what they are seeing and decisions they are having to make will also affect the MH of many frontline workers. But again - what is the alternative? Mass death would also worsen and increase MH disorders.

Not gonna lie, I bloody well would

Then you need to educate yourself. The NHS workers should not be put under even more pressure by having to provide care for people daft enough to hold coronavirus parties or willingly put themselves at risk.

@hopsalong you raise some really good points and I admit I've been thinking about this over the past week too.

Full disclaimer I haven't left the door other than to take the dog for her toilet in two weeks - so I'm doing my bit for society!

But... Rishi basically said in his speech that we will be paying more tax to make up for this. I'm SE and don't have 3 years of accounts so won't benefit at all from the 80%. The whole furlough thing hasn't benefited a single member of my family. One works for the council and the other in a Gov building, both premises are closed but they're still going in to clean and basically walk around empty buildings. The others whose work has dried up have just been sacked - no furlough.

So we are all going to be paying for this, when the benefits aren't even being evenly distributed.

I think in some ways a Universal Basic Income would have been much simpler and made the resulting higher taxes a much easier pill to swallow.

Added to that - I was just reaching adulthood at the time of the last recession. Out of my high school friendship group I'm the only one who has managed to get on the property ladder - and that was only due to having gained a trade through family and being able to flip properties. The same generation who were completely fucked after leaving high school with a terrible job market and a credit crunch are now about to get seriously fucked again in their late twenties when they should be getting on the property ladder / starting families.

It does make you wonder about the unfairness of what each section of society is sacrificing.

A government can keep businesses closed for as long as it's in power
Close more kinds of businesses down if it thinks necessary

Currently, polls show the lockdown has 95 % support vs 3% opposed

• MN is sometimes not typical of the wider general public

So lockdown will continue for as long as necessary, if most people support it
Then restrictions will be eased gradually, to keep the cases curve flattened

However, to avoid unrest, the govt must ensure people have enough money to pay essential bills and that the food supply continues

That means spending billions each month, that the better off will be paying for years, ln taxes
So the better off won't be getting a free ride, after all

After lockdown ends, some businesses won't pick up for a long time, maybe never
Things won't be the same as before

There will be a lot of career changes;
Also maybe a lot of SE and micro-business owners having to become employed or go gig

Foreign holidays could be banned - by most countries - until everyone has been vaccinated or has an immunity certificate
So anything related to foreign travel could be dead for a couple of years

There'll be a deep global recession, maybe even a depression and many people will be cutting back on luxury spending
So less on entertainment, hair, nails, clothes, eating out, taxis, tat etc

I think this is really going to highlight inequality. People on minimum wage/zero hours/gig economy will be the most fucked as usual, defaulting on rent payments. People in nice cushy office jobs who can WFH/are getting furloughed can now sit at home farting about doing arts and crafts (disclaimer - this is me). Public services like nurses yet again have to work the hardest for a pretty crappy wage.

It's understandable that a young person who has lost their job and can't pay their bills anymore might be pissed off at having to sacrifice all of the important things in their life to prolong lives of mainly older people they don't know. Harsh but also reality.

"It does make you wonder about the unfairness of what each section of society is sacrificing"

Will some of those who were comfortable, but now are struggling financially, change their attitude,
if they used to look down on those on JSA and other benefits
used to think what an easy life it is

• now they know how shit benefits are ?

The NHS workers should not be put under even more pressure by having to provide care for people daft enough to hold coronavirus parties or willingly put themselves at risk.

Playing devil's advocate but if that's the case we should also not treat anyone who was out drinking at the weekends, anyone who takes drugs, anyone who caused a road traffic collision etc. Do we stop treating people who smoke? People who are obese? Where do we draw the line?

They say the fatality rate is 0.2% but it could be less depending on how many people don't show symptoms.

The only way this actually ends is with a vaccine / cure. If that takes 18 months, and we had to keep measures up for 18 months, I would rather take my chances of 0.2% even if it meant signing a DNR. Just being honest 🤷🏻‍♀️

If that takes 18 months, and we had to keep measures up for 18 months, I would rather take my chances of 0.2% even if it meant signing a DNR. Just being honest 🤷🏻‍♀️

Me too.

The workers - all ages - forced to stay home should be paid their 80% of wages
at least 80% of NMW where wages can't be established
plus housing benefit etc

The better off, who are frequently older, will pay for this for years via higher taxes,
which is only fair

The triple lock on pensions will surely go

The problem with you having a DNR stamped on your forehead is that you could be infecting essential workers who might be at higher risk and / or not want that risk

"no man is an island"

Also remember:
the young continue not to vote
the old - who outnumber them - continue to vote in large numbers

No surprise that the govt - like nearly all Western govts - very much panders to the old

However, if the Imperial predictions are on schedule, the home lockdown might not be extended more than another 3 weeks, if at all

Instead, they would keep restrictions on other things
e.g they could keep pubs, clubs, gyms, hairdressers, most businesses etc closed for some weeks after lockdown ends
and leave very little to go out for

Then relax gradually and let things open

The last to return:
it could be a year or two before anyone can take a holiday abroad - probably few countries would accept them anyway

I think you're probably right BigChock, they will just ease up on the restrictions
it's a bummer that gyms will still have to be closed but it makes sense really so just had to put up with it🤷🏼‍♀️

I think they're hoping that enough people will do the lockdown properly early doors over a sustained period of at least a few weeks to make enough of a difference. The likelihood of people doing it for more than a month or two seem slim. The longer it goes on, the more people will start to make exceptions and the more others see that, the more likely they'll be to do the same themselves. It's not really sustainable without everybody totally buying in to it and that observance won't last an awful long time. Suppose that's just human nature though.

I live alone

Luckily no one can call an ambulance for me. Would I still be infectious by the time anyone knew I was dead? Say for the sake of theory it was 24 hours?

I think the hardest thing is the invisibility of a virus, sadly if bombs were falling from the sky or it was like natural disasters, hurricanes/volcanoes/tsunami where you can see the devastation then people would cope better.
But when you're sitting in your home, with no one you know infected (yet) and the view outside the same, but you've lost your job or WFH whilst corralling small kids or stroppy teens. Then it all seems distant and theoretical.

Bucket because the socially decent thing is to care about whether the people handling the body are at risk.

I can’t say I care about any of this tbh. I thought we were overdue a pandemic long ago, the earth can’t take this level of overpopulation, it has to fight back. What I didn’t realise is that these numbers would be considered a pandemic, or that people were so terrified of early death.

I thought a pandemic would reduce the population by at least 30%. In the UK, the worst case is 0.7% is it?

The next pandemic will be much worse, yet human beings will insist they can fight it and we’ll all end up paying 70% tax to maintain a miserable existence. Well, I won’t, but apparently a lot of people want to.

I never thought I’d see this much fear and hysteria.

Oh well, I’m off to bed. At least this introvert gets another quiet day tomorrow.