So basically the government are removing themselves?

[princesstwinkle]

So Boris has just tweeted what I presume is going to be announced later. To me it is the government removing the responsibility from themselves so that they can blame to public when a second wave occurs. All very vague and unhelpful!

Sorry not excel , excercise

Cool. I just think it is important people understand that is the outcome in whatever scenario as seems there is some hysteria about the term when it is what we have for many diseases we vaccinate against and what will happen if there is a vaccine for Covid.

I find it fascinating none of you see the bigger picture that if we did have a bigger second wave then the economic impact would be devastating.

Even if you look at it in terms of human psychology - in the sense you would be too scared to go out to the shops to get things if people start dropping like flies. This would have a major impact.

I think this will signal a change in attitudes towards home working for those companies that have realised that they are able to do so which is a positive change. However it will be interesting to see if there are any cases of employers forcing people to come back to 'unsafe' environments which sadly I think may well be the case. You only have to look at hot desk offices etc which in order to socially distanced you'd need to loose 2/3rds at least of the work staff.

I also think parents should be able to choose regarding schools going back and not be penalised if they decide they do not want their children to go (for example the use of fines). I also wonder how schools will cope with social distancing. They are not built for the amount of pupils they hold now let alone if social distancing needs to be observed. I feel it will be psychologically hard on them, especially the younger ones, trying to understand why they can't get close to each other etc.

Can you explain why a second wave would be more devastating? I've seen this a few times and I don't really understand it (genuine question).

If we largely adhere to restrictions already in place then there may be a second wave but a small one.

I think the government is scared to tell the truth given the backlash about the people will die comment. I find that a bit sad, they don't think we have the intelligence to cope with bad news.

There's a lot of talk about herd immunity being the way out, I didn't think this was something which could be achieved.
There are lots of conflicting pieces of research and most point to antibodies not lasting in the body for more than a year, and for some it's just weeks dependent on how sick you were and how much viral load you had, or have the second time.
Is there now evidence that people can achieve long term immunity through catching the virus?

@BreakingGlassCeilings from what I have read and understand it is the following

1. Obviously with a majorly increased death rate and infection rate companies will face major staff shortages meaning they cannot operate properly and therefore cannot open as a business. For example high street shops if key holders are all unwell or having to self isolate then the shop cannot open. If they cannot open but the government are expecting them to be open then they receive no funding and as a consequence have to close permanently.
2. If the public all for example went out next week and went about their usual shopping habits then the second wave hits the confidence of that public to go out to shops will be damaged. This means that consumers will simply stay away in the future for fear they will get ill. Whilst this is fine for online businesses etc for those that rely on a customer presence you create major issues. Again if the government expect you to be open you will receive no help.
3. A second lockdown will trigger a harsher response from employers. Many of whom will not receive funding as they have already had it (this would obviously be dependent on government guidelines at the time). The idea that we will fluctuate in and out of lockdown as different waves emerge will mean that employers are more likely to consider redundancies. After all those who have children, are vulnerable etc are going to be the ones who cannot feasibly go into work and the best way to combat this is to make them redundant.
4. A second wave would mean stricter social distancing measures etc would need to be observed once we could reopen. Most offices, shops, firms etc aren't built to accommodate this. The only way they could do it is by reducing staff hours to go onto a rotational basis or make redundancies.

I see, thank you. I maintain that this limited opening is designed to prevent this but time will tell.

I can see that massive numbers of redundancies are coming either way. And yes, I would imagine they will hit those who can't act as normal hardest.

My job is safe for now but I can see my organisation making redundancies in future because of the knock on effect of other businesses closing.

@princesstwinkle you may well be right but I think there are also biological reasons why the second wave would be far worse. Sorry though I can't find a source atm. This is what happened with the Spanish flu in 1918-19.

Also if the second wave coincides with the normal flu season the NHS will not have capacity.

@StrawberryJam200 oh yes totally agree as well there are lots of reasons it will be awful!

It is basically what Sweden are doing but worse becasue we closed things half heartedly and we have no trust in the government so many people now won't go back to cafes and shops so the damage to business has been done.

It has been half arsed all the way. Other European countries have closed down properly, or like Sweden they have relied on individual action from the beginning. In the UK it has been a mess with the government being very reactive instead of proactive

I have to agree with this poster (sorry I didn't get your name) the PM has bungled and flibberted and blustered and just basically been totally crap during this whole pandemic. Shaking hands with patients in Covid-19 wards FFS!

I don't know why people hold Sweden as an example of how to do things. Their death rate is much higher than neighbouring countries and many economists say their economy is as likely to tank as everyone else's anyway in the long run. They can't manufacturer because the can't get parts from abroad. Restaurants and café's etc may be open but not enough people are in them to make a profit because they are following guidance to stay at home.

Mystery to me too, Sweden really isn’t doing too well, per capita.