Why do so many people think that lockdown is about getting rid of the virus?

[TheDailyCarbuncle]

At what point did people stop understanding that the purpose of lockdown is to restrict infections, not stop them entirely?

Why are some people saying they're willing to lockdown 'until the virus is gone'? How have they got the idea that that's possible?

Because the government media has scared people into thinking they’re likely to die if they contract it.

Fixed that for you.

OP

In answer to your question, yes. I have enormous concerns. As many concerns as you I expect. Please don't think I'm under estimating the hardships. But I have always had massive concerns about most people in this country. The gap between rich and poor is like an apartheid. It's always been appalling and I have been ranting about it for years. I don't get why people who have never been militant about social justice or mental health funding are suddenly deeply concerned. It makes me suspicious.

I'll be frank, I'm not personally struggling with lockdown the way some are. Not that it's in any easy for anyone but we're well placed to cope. I'm not personally desperate. That said, I'm constantly thinking of what it's like for others and trying to weigh it up. That's all I can do.

I was looking in disbelief at those ridiculous threads about going on holiday a couple of weeks ago (Should I still go to X next week? Yes, why wouldn't you?). That was the time to be concerned about what lockdown would look like because that was the time to make test and trace work without this large scale suffering. Now it's so much harder but honestly, we locked down for a reason and the transmission rate is not really reliably lower across the board for test and trace to work, nor are we prepared even if it was. So the reasons for coming out of lockdown aren't really met by anyone's reckoning.

a couple of months ago

But bring on the randomised mass testing and guaranteed proof of immunity and at least there's a basis for a conversation about whether or not we're in a different position to two months ago.

Several people I know have actually said that the harder we lock down, the sooner it will all be over, and we can get back to normal.

It doesn't appear to have yet dawned on them that there is no going back to normal as it was.

ohlook

They're not entirely wrong. The lower the transmission rate, the more chance of testing and tracking working which is the only way we can get out of lurching between lockdowns. But you need a really low transmission rate for that to work, and a really good test and trace system-so a competent government and a hard, prolonged lockdown with prolonged social distancing. Everything that would give test and trace the best chance of working.

That would mean more people could be 'normal'. I don't quite understand why this isn't understood.

What is wrong with us? Why have we been so brainwashed to accept that this is ok? We're many years on from Spanish flu - have we not evolved in our expectations at all? Why are we so brainwashed into accepting these deaths? NZ has had no new cases for the past 3 days? Why are we not demanding the same? We rant on here about how unreasonable people are for not accepting death but if those people genuinely thought that death would come to them or theirs, how accepting would they be?

In a country where our default mentality is very much "No it wouldn't happen to me", which is I believe partly why we've gotten to where we are now, why do we spend so much time defending career politicians with thin talent for anything other than prepping themselves for the dinner party circuit, who have never held down a job, when they stand in front of a lectern every day and read out numbers that other civil servants have written for them and have the gall to tell others that they should accept it because they do?!

Re: Herd Immunity

I am sure I read that Boris & his mates were planning to opt for this strategy and they when they were told that meant a likelihood of maybe 250,000 dying (and that was only somebody's guess) - they decided we couldn't do that. The way this has been handled is so radically different from one country to another, I think we REALLY need to question this.

Vietnam has a population of 95 million and is on the border with China and has recorded zero deaths. It hasn't handled things just a bit differently and is not a country with unlimited finances.

Because as much as we like to think we are omnipotent we sadly aren’t. Viruses have been our nemesis for years

The truth is countries made choices - we failed to act as swiftly as other European countries and we should be held accountable and compared to them. Once it is over and the data is in and we can see the differences.

But the comparison to Vietnam - I looked it up they were in military style quarantine camps that just wouldn’t work here. And the longer term economic effects look huge

Same for New Zealand they have backed themselves into a corner

For me I think Denmark/Norway have handled it well

But no comparison can me made properly for 10 years when the full effects of each decision have made

The only way out of this now is comprehensive antibody testing, contract tracing and testing but without rushing

And accepting that getting back to normal will come on phases

Hong Kong:

No lockdown
Death toll: 4
Population 7.4million

www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/17/test-trace-lessons-hong-kong-avoiding-coronavirus-lockdown

@Quartz2208

We may of course know more in 10 years time. But this is an ongoing situation and I think the way things are being handled needs to be really questioned.

we need to contain it and control and manage the breakouts that occur

This is the purpose of lockdown - getting infection levels to a number where it is possible to trace and isolate new outbreaks. As well as getting infection numbers down low enough, we also need the testing, tracking and tracing infrastructure in place. The trouble is, infections have not dropped to low enough levels yet to manage this (and tbh, we still aren't testing enough people to know what the true infection level is) and they're not going to continue dropping quickly enough if we start reopening things too soon.

We're in a really bad position compared to many other countries because we abandoned community testing and let the virus take hold across the country, so not in a more containable geographic area. Then we went for a loose lockdown rather than a short, sharp one which could have suppressed infection rates more quickly.

At this point, I can't see how we can get the infection rates to a level where we can keep a lid on it, when more people have started going out and about. Likely it will just result in a series of rolling lockdowns. Hopefully I'm wrong and the rates will continue to fall, but people are going to need to continue to modify their behaviour to allow this to happen.

Possibly because the government's scaremongering message worked too well.
People's fear and willingness to carry on lockdown irrespective of the deleterious effects of that on wider society is far more frightening than the virus. Not sure how we get back from this though.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/coronavirus/3907734-If-Britain-has-mishandled-this-crisis-what-steps-do-we-take-now-to-turn-things-around

Even keeping the R at 1 or slightly above will slow the virus down to manageable levels, as long as we carry on with other measures and develop better treatment protocols. Especially in areas that have already been hard hit. It's going to be interesting to see what happens in NYC over the next few months.

Slovakia Population 5.45 million
Death toll: 27

Not so far from italy.

www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-04-28/european-nation-with-least-virus-deaths-proves-speed-is-key

I don’t understand how you can ask this question to be honest.

Possibly because the government's scaremongering message worked too well
Well they had to be extreme because most British have no knowledge or experience of being at serious risk of dying from infectious illnesses. I think that's why they waited the extra week for lockdown, the message had to sink in properly first.

@jobhunter7 and I dont disagree I think we have handled it badly.

I just dont think comparisons to Slovakia are helpful. For at least a month the virus was travelling around the world but it was travelling in some places in a far more concentrated way. London/Paris/Berlin/Amsterdam/Brussels/New York/Los Angeles etc are all massive airport hubs and all places that would mean huge transmission and puts those places on the backfoot.

Our record is shameful compared to Germany who I think we are commensurate to.

Slovakia acted when Italy started because for them that was the danger point. We cant look at them and say why didnt we handled it that way because London is a huge huge hub.

The Government let us down with testing - and not shutting down London earlier - PPE and running around like headless chickens. But we were never going to keep it to Slovakia

@Quartz2208

This is an ongoing situation. And I know it's not an even playing field. But perhaps we could look at what other methods have done that have worked and start applying them pretty sharpish.

@Quartz2208

New Zealand they have backed themselves into a corner

Well that's one way to look at it - another is they can spend the next few months deciding if they want to open the border and let the virus in or not...

Exactly op. We need to develop herd immunity to stop it spreading to the very vulnerable. It’s not that we are aiming for it not to spread, we are aiming for it to spread slowly so the NHS can cope.

And actually if it has spread widely, that’s better for reaching herd immunity.

The World Health Organisation has condemned the “dangerous” concept of herd immunity for managing the coronavirus pandemic.

Dr Michael Ryan, executive director of the WHO’s health emergencies programme said it was wrong to think that countries can “magically” make their populations immune to Covid-19.

From The Independent