Do you reckon we could go on lockdown again

[Italianmoma1983]

If there is another spike ? I’m happy to go back to work but also scared and I can’t really explain why. I’m young and healthy so not really at risk...just a bit scared to leave my bubble

Yes, most probably, but likely to be localised lockdown in most badly affected areas (high infection rates) I would imagine.

No. This one has hammered the economy enough.... The nhs is better prepared for the next peak so I think we will be expected to ride it out with herd immunity being the long term solution

Some restrictions were lifted but we're still on lockdown.
not in England, there might be guidelines about distancing and a few places still shut, but we are most certainly not on lockdown.

Looking at the weather, it's a very good thing! It's half term next week, and as people know their kids are due back at school the week after, many don't bother at all any more.

I also doubt the government can afford the furlough scheme for a second time.

I don't think we will have a full lockdown all areas again unless the R rate goes dramatically back up (let's say 1.2) and subsequent death rate ...the economy just can't take another battering like Apr May June. And the furlough scheme is costing billions (I forget but is it 8 billion a week?)

Unfortunately it's our children and our children's children who are going to spend many years paying for this clusterfuck.

Reading some of the comments just feel how sad people are. Isn’t it funny how people judge one an other. I would usually work sometimes in excess of 90 hours a week across two jobs just to be able to keep my home and teenage kids with a roof over their heads and food on their plates. I love my work. But......I’m actually really enjoying having this time to be with them now. However, this can’t go on forever. When you look at the grand scheme of things two months to be with the ones you love the most when you constantly work so much just to be able to live, is nothing. And tbf I have paid way more taxes and national insurance over my short life to be able to allow myself and those a little bit less fortunate to gain a little. I wish I could stay at home and get paid by the government to do this all the time. And that’s sarcasm by the way. Don’t judge anyone. Everyone’s situation is different. It’s none of your business how the next person lives! Do what is right for you and live your life. Sadly this is a virus that will be with us for years to come. What will be will be. Life is short. Think about those who have already lost their lives to this!! Worry about you and yours. Everyone else is not your business!

Apologies I posted that under the wrong subject heading. But either way, same goes.

And by the way. @dustyparadeground. This life is only ever going to be about what our childrens children’s children will have deal with. Nothing that happens now, in this life, will ever effect us too much. It’s generations to come that will suffer from everything that is beginning now. People just don’t like change and don’t see the impact of what we do now and how that will effect future generations. Sad world we live in really.

Unfortunately it's our children and our children's children who are going to spend many years paying for this clusterfuck.

Yes. I'm surprised that the leaked Treasury document about the impact of the coronavirus didn't gain more traction.

Weird.

If the R rate goes above 1 for any significant length of time we will have to do some kind of lockdown because R over 1 means exponential growth and the NHS eventually being overwhelmed. That is why the R number is so critical

We are only just barely over the first peak and beginning to edge down the slope. I'm not frightened or upset about it, because I know there are human costs to maintaining the lockdown too, but I do think from an epidemiological standpoint we are relaxing the lockdown too soon. And we will see the results in a few weeks.

The cost of the furlough scheme is, according to the BBC, around £14bn per month. But then that does postpone businesses crashing, with all the unemployment/health costs that would involve.

I agree with you Localocal. I think the lockdown is being relaxed too soon. If they'd waited even another month to get the numbers right down and so they could prepare testing and isolating properly, make sure lots of PPE was ready to go, then it might have helped. As it is, if there's another wave now (and what's in place to stop that happening at the moment?), then this lockdown will go on even longer.

Or course, once flu season hits. This is just the beginning

If the R rate goes above 1 for any significant length of time we will have to do some kind of lockdown because R over 1 means exponential growth and the NHS eventually being overwhelmed. That is why the R number is so critical

But R numbers are not an exact science. Even different areas of London can have different transmission rates, let alone different parts of the country. Which is why it makes sense to have a localised approach. In the far south west it feels as though we have had London's lockdown for no reason sometimes, whereas now things are improving there, it would well start to be our turn.

No I don't think we will.

Most people I know would be less anxious if they were just told that lockdown would be for 12 months ... instead of this uncertainty and will they - won’t they situation.
We can cope with lockdown once , but tasting freedom then being subjected to a subsequent lockdown is very mentally challenging.

Yes and this was explained at some of the very early press conferences.

Early on, the conferences used to have more detailed science sections after Boris and co had spoken. It was explained back then by the science bods that there would probably be a strict lockdown for a period of time and then a lighter lockdown and then a strict, then light and so on, and that this could go on for months, even years

Flaxmeadow but it was also explained at the start that the lockdown was to flatten the curve and buy time to increase capacity in the NHS which we have done. It was said that it was very much expected that there would be a second peak and that it would be better coming in the summer rather than in the autumn and winter.

But now it seems that any second peak is something to be avoided at all costs. The only way we can do that appears to be locking down indefinitely until the virus vanishes which is clearly not possible.

No we don't need to lockdown forever to avoid a second peak

We need to understand the set of actions that will avoid a second peak and at the same time give people freedom

Following the example of other countries, using test track and trace seems to be a very effective solution

Following the example of other countries, using test track and trace seems to be a very effective solution

Yes it does. Which is why we ought to be able to avoid another lockdown this disruptive, damaging and depressing. I don't think anyone is advocating a return to total normality, like it was before.

@namechangergamechanger1 what are you doing to get organized? Tips?

Check out how much the government bailed out banks after the 2008 crash. It’s more than this furlough. Fat cats sitting on bonuses to this day

I feel that the government is going about this like a headless chickens. Unless they stop and think about their decisions and it’s effect we will end up with more cases and deaths sadly.

Flaxmeadow but it was also explained at the start that the lockdown was to flatten the curve and buy time to increase capacity in the NHS which we have done. It was said that it was very much expected that there would be a second peak and that it would be better coming in the summer rather than in the autumn and winter.

Yes flatten the curve but it was shown back then that there could, even would, be many peaks and troughs. Repeated flattening of curves. This was explained in great detail. The graphs showed the flattening of the cuves could take 18 months or longer. I remember this and it had always stuck in my mind, because one graphs had a horizontal line showing an over a year period. I think even 2 years.

But now it seems that any second peak is something to be avoided at all costs. The only way we can do that appears to be locking down indefinitely until the virus vanishes which is clearly not possible.

Im not sure it's the case that the govt and science are talking specifically about avoiding a second peak as such

As I understand it. There will be a number of alternating strict and lighter lockdowns over a long period of time. That more peaks cannot be avoided but we must flatten each one as much as we can

I'm honestly starting to think the very early conferences were much more accurate. They were certainly more detailed. Some of those science sections at the end went on for hours. But as time has gone on the need for them has changed. Probably because people just switch off now. But I think they were more honest. Not saying the conferences are not honest now, just more about the mechanics of the lockdown than the science

No way can they afford to keep furloughing repeatedly and successive lockdowns will just finish off many businesses that survive the first wave.

I understand the economic need but I’m fairly married to the idea of short term pain long term gain.

I like your optimism, but the economic and heath issues caused by this first lockdown will certainly not be short term pain. It'll be far worse than the bloody virus itself and for sure very few will escape the economic pain.

I also do think that the public will be less receptive to a second one and will kick against it.