Do we need a stricter lockdown?

[Gingerkittykat]

On my Facebook feed today I've had one person post pics of her new hair that her friend helped her do (They don't live together) and my cousins met up for a socially distanced walk (ie stayed 2m apart) and they walked past a friends house for a chat. There were three drunks walking along my street, I'm guessing they didn't live together and even if they did there would be no reason to go out.

My DD also got a phone call from my friend asking for help to set up her friends new phone, the friend was there in the livingroom with her.

These are all sensible people normally who are just getting fed up of lockdown and doing their own risk assessments.

I can't decide whether or not this means we should have a stricter lockdown like France to make people stick to it or we need to lighten up and just let people get on with it.

I've noticed less of the posts with people screaming that people going out are killing others too.

[Reginabambina]

Why? What would that achieve?

[Kokeshi123]

At the risk of sounding like a stuck record, the virus generally requires prolonged close contact to spread.

This thing is spreading a) within households and b) within key workers' workplaces. We need testing, tracing and (voluntary but encouraged) out-of-home quarantine to stop the spread of the virus. People in shops and workplaces also need to be wearing masks unless they have a good reason not to wear one.

[PhilCornwall1]

Why? What would that achieve?

Many posters on MN would be very, very happy. The competitive misery and neighbour reporting posts would be through the roof!! The "can I do...." threads would have them in a right lather too.

[twinnywinny14]

@LilacTree1 it doesn’t say Robert Dingwall is part of SAGE he is part of NERVTAG, some of whom are part of SAGE. Also worth noting that just because there isn’t yet enough scientific evidence doesn’t necessarily mean something isn’t worth doing, especially if the measure is seemingly ‘over cautious’

[twinnywinny14]

@ToffeeYoghurt I agree re Robert Dingwall. His point though isn’t that 2m is too close and we should be further apart, rather it just needs to be 1m?

[Lynda07]

I'd keep it as it is, too soon to ease lockdown in my opinion but we'll see how things pan out over the next couple of weeks. Most people I know are being very sensible and not panicking. As long as you can get the food and other things you need, why worry? It's very hard for those in confined spaces, particularly if they have children, they and the people who've lost their jobs are the ones with whom I sympathise most of all.

[therealmrshardy]

I don’t see the point in it now

[weepingwillow22]

What we needed was
a) an earlier lockdown to stop the initial spread of the virus.
b) quaranteening of international arrivals to prevent introduction of the virus
c) better aftercare for infected patients rather than sending them to care homes.
d) earlier medical care for those infected rather than leaving them to die at home

It is debatable whether a stricter lockdown would have made much difference in light of the above.

[Newjez]

Personally, lockdown is bleeding me dry financially. I am highly vulnerable, so I couldn't work even if lockdown was eased other than WFH, and it is not easy getting a WFH job.
There must be people like me who have fallen through the gaps. Why do some people get given £2500 a month by the government, but others get nothing?

[Ilets]

I never realised how cowardly the Great British Public were until this year. Are people ever going to venture outside again? How about you stay in and those who have had it already or are able to risk assess and are happy to take the risk, go out?

I blame extended furlough for this. Most people are essentially living their normal life (ie same amount of money) in a kind of 'boring holiday' way, with zero insight into the forthcoming economic tsunami their lazy actions are creating. Sure, stay home til it's eradicated (which is no time soon) but do it from your own savings.

[Waxonwaxoff0]

No, we don't need a stricter lockdown. The virus is here to stay and we need to learn to live with it. No amount of lockdown is going to get rid of it now, it's too late.

I don't think I'm above catching coronavirus but looking at the death statistics for people my age I'm not particularly scared of catching it either.

[Waxonwaxoff0]

@Ilets fuck off. I'm on furlough and I didn't ask to be. My boss made that decision.

[rwalker]

I really don't understand why people think lockdown is the solution . The fact is you can't lockdown indefintley . On strict lockdown people are not exposed to CV so when you end of it everyone is vunerable . Lockdown buy's a bit of time but is not a cure.

Currently we have a steady rate of infection which until we find vaccine and cure it's all we can do.

Lockdown for 12 weeks CV is still there at the end . These countries with have smaller populations and very strict lockdown are in danager of massive second wave , WHEN we have a second wave a chunk of our population have already been exposed so not as many hopefully vulnerable to it.

We are not helped by the fact we are one of the fattest (63% of uk population) and unhealthiest in Europe. The small area of London has a dense population the size of other countries entire populations

[Ilets]

And if your boss wasn't getting paid to keep you on, they would either have reopened or started the redundancy process and you could start looking for a job elsewhere.
Millions are going to be unemployed. Until people realise that, why would they want to ever leave their house on full salary?

[Bluntness100]

Op, I think you’ve misunderstood the point of lock down, it was to ensure the nhs stayed within capacity not to eradicate the disease.

As such clearly the answer is no we don’t need a stricter lock down as the nhs has not been overwhelmed. If it had, yes we would need a stricter one.

I really don’t understand how people are still confused on the point of lock down, it’s been so widely published and spoken about every single day in the press conference.

[Waxonwaxoff0]

I want to leave my house. I'm not particularly worried about the virus on a personal level. I'm more worried about the economic impact.

Of course millions are going to be unemployed. But a lot of people will have their jobs back. Furlough is a better option than having millions of people on Universal Credit. And the scheme won't last forever. The unfortunate fact is that a lot of companies have abused the scheme. That's the problem, not the actual furlough scheme itself.

[Freethefrogs]

Why would we need a stricter lockdown when the infection rate is slowing?

[Peggysgettingcrazy]

How on earth is social distancing nonsense? It's a highly contagious disease. People mixing spreads the infection.

Is it? Because apparently the app in development will only alert you if you have been in close contact for more than 15 minutes.

If its so highly contagious, why are executes saying only 4% of the population have had it? Even though there were lots of cases before lockdown.

Lockdown didn't need to be stricter. It doesn't need to be stricter now. It worked. The point was to help the NHS. Not stop people getting it.

New Zealand, imo, having no cases isnt a good thing. They cant stay like that. They could enforce citizens returning into 14 day quarentine. They could also ban all non citizens until a vaccine is produced, distributed and only let people in who have had the vaccine. But at what cost? What about peolle who rely on tourists, what damage to their economy, what about the deaths from that.

The facts are, everyone is guessing who got it right and who got it wrong. That cant be known until a couple of years down the line. What countries look like in a year or 2.

You may find countries who coped with the first wave, with strict lockdown have an awful 2nd wave. And economy that's destroyed and deaths resulting in that extremely high.

You may find places like Sweden who haven't done lockdown, emerge with a decent economy and overall less deaths if you look at deaths relates to xivid and the economic downturn.

Controlling this first wave is not the end of the game.

The country cant lock down for 18 months. That will cause deaths itself. We can not just say those deaths don't matter because at least its not covid.

[Bluntness100]

why would they want to ever leave their house on full salary?

This is a very real and significant problem I think. As I read many of the fear mongering posts, and then you can see the posters back ground on other posts, you start to realise for many it’s not fear, it’s they like being home and either working from there with no commute, or being furloughed, no school run etc and want it to continue,


This clearly doesn’t apply to the op, who has misunderstood why we have locked down, and is obviously scared.

[Freethefrogs]

I blame extended furlough for this. Most people are essentially living their normal life (ie same amount of money) in a kind of 'boring holiday' way, with zero insight into the forthcoming economic tsunami their lazy actions are creating. Sure, stay home til it's eradicated (which is no time soon) but do it from your own savings.

I don't disagree with you about the economy but you do realise that most people didn't actually ask to be furloughed don't you?

Also, what about schools and other childcare settings? How are people with children meant to get back to work until those are open?

[maa1992]

I think we do.

I have two close family members who are nurses, 3 weeks ago one tested positjtve. She was drinking in her mothers who is a nurse's back garden - claiming to be social distancing.

Yesterday nurse family member #2 was drinking over the road in her sisters, surrounded by 5 family members including a tiny baby.

PEOPLE ARE STUPID.

This has resulted in a massive fall out, they don't seem to care or follow rules, it doesn't apply to them.

Meanwhile I haven't seen my Mum in months.

[majesticallyawkward]

I think a tougher lockdown at the start would have been better. But there's little point now. We're not that far from it being relaxed now, relatively speaking.

Really, rational people doing their own risk assessments isn't increasing risks much (2 people who have been isolated for example), it's the people who have flagrantly ignored guidance the whole time and not done risk assessments at all that have been irresponsible.

But I'm still jealous because I want to go see my mum but she's 40 miles away and has been working the whole time and dh is very vocal about it being too risky. I know he's right, she's frontline doesn't stop me sulking like a child.

[Freethefrogs]

Here's the thing I don't get re seeing family. If I and my dh and my ds have been following all guidelines for the entirety of the lockdown (in fact haven't been been to a shop in over 4 weeks now), and my mum and stepdad have to, then how is it any more risky for me to go and see them today than it would be in, say, 3 weeks when/if the lockdown is still loosened? The virus will still be here until there is a vaccine.

They are both 50s with no comorbidities.

[Freethefrogs]

God so many typos in that post, sorry!

[Bluntness100]

you do realise that most people didn't actually ask to be furloughed don't you?

I think you’ve completely missed the point the poster was making. They did not ask to be furloughed in the first place, but let’s be clear, a shit ton of them are asking for it to continue.