If R Goes above 1 we won't be lockdowned again

[Lifejacket]

What are people's thoughts on what will come next? With schools going back (eventually but obviously planned by the gov), the gov meeting to discuss unlocking more, people out and about anyway etc and the virus still in the community I can't see how R won't rise again. We've been told that r gas to stay below 1 in order to manage the virus but if it's currently between .7 and 1 now and we're unlocking further it's going to creep up. I can't picture the government ordering lockdown again even by area. So where does that leave us, are we now at a point where if you know you're high risk you just gave to stay in and everyone just keeps their fingers crossed that it's ok and we just get on? Does anyone think winter will make a difference? Just looking to read others views and a few ideas.

I have been saying exactly this op. It seems to be a free for all now. If you catch it then you'll just have to take your chances. They're already debating the 2 metre rule. I can't see them ever locking down again, unless in extreme circumstances of course. I think this is partly because they've found it so difficult to bring us out of lockdown.

Isn't the Dominic Cummings issue that he travelled 260 miles while he and/or his wife were symptomatic and therefore should have been in 7/14 day quarantine? Rather than "just" that he travelled 260 miles when we were only meant to be travelling for work/food.

I agree that the "one rule for them and another for the rest of us" does make it less likely that we will meekly comply in the event of another lockdown.

Singapore, South Korea & Japan have had rolling control measures (sometimes including lockdown) imposed lifted re-imposed lifted again etc. I don't see why we wouldn't fall into that pattern

Dont be silly. We're British, we dont need to do what the rest of the world does. Except for maybe America, we might have something to learn from them. But no one else

All this talk about rules just makes people sound like they want the nanny state to decide what they can and can't do. People need to take personal responsibility for the level of risk they are comfortable running and be sensible, dependent on their individual vulnerability.
I don't think the whole country will lock down again, I expect there will be local mini lockdowns, possibly more stringently controlled by police, and tracked more closely, but they will try to keep the rest of the country going. London should open up soon.
I hope that it quickly becomes socially unacceptable to gather in large groups, or shake hands, or otherwise engage in super spreading activities, until this is under control, because social pressure would work just as well as "rules".
I"m just reading about a pub that opened up in Germany and it was rented out for a private party, causing another bubble of infection, so they have closed that area until things settle down again. That's the way it will have to be for us.

Megan bacon, that makes no sense.

I'm not in a group that is vulnerable, I'm happy to take my chances but if I do that I massively increase the risk for everyone else.

Loads of people are refusing to take even the most tentative steps out of lockdown anyway, so I think the governments bigger issue will be getting us out of lockdown.
A close family member is a GP. Her surgery has been absolutely dead for weeks, barely even any phone calls (which is worrying in itself). However in the past 2 weeks she has been absolutely inundated with people phoning to request sick notes as they’ve been asked to go back to work.

Ultrasoft - what doesn't make sense? If you are not vulnerable, just wear a mask, wash hands, distance as much as possible, but keep the economy going. Anyone who is vulnerable should go further, maybe staying home if they are very vulnerable. Balance the risks of that against the risks of closing the economy - widespread poverty resulting in greater deaths. Makes sense to me.

The whole point was it's not about our personal levels of risk acceptance, we were told we needed to do this for the greater good, to protect the NHS etc.

I said all along we should shield the vulnerable and the rest of us should continue to support the economy etc but we were told that was absolutely the wrong thing to do and we all needed to stay at home, regardless of our personal circumstances.

The government have made it very clear they don't want to pay for people to stay at home again after the current furlough scheme has ended, and in order to have a lockdown with a high rate of compliance you need to be able to pay for people to cover their costs whilst not working. So I don't think there will be another lockdown.

I think it's more likely we'll see restrictions short of lockdown, so for example no mass gatherings. Suspect it'll be a while before large events can take place again.

The rules were blunt instruments to flatten the sombrero. Some people behave sensibly irrespective of the rules and others will always be idiots. Now that R

The Government was clear yesterday that lockdown only applies unless you feel you have something else you need to do so nobody will ever lock down again.

I can’t see the compliance will be anywhere near as high as it was this time, if they tried to lockdown again.

I personally feel there would protests etc up and down the country, because people are losing their jobs.

When the job loses are impacting ‘someone else’ it’s different to when it starts affecting ‘you and your family’. It becomes real and the negative impacts wi be brutal to live with financially.

I don’t think you can expect those people that are at risk of losing their jobs etc to think ‘it doesn’t matter about my job’ and be happy to be placed under lockdown.

Everyone has done their for about 8/9 weeks and we’re starting to see the affects financially now. I suspect it will be September/October before we see the full impact of job loses and I think when it’s happens to you (not you OP just in general) then you’d view things differently

The vulnerable should still be protected and shield and keep safe at home- and that should be paid for by the government but let everyone else go back to work.

Even the people that have occasionally broken the rules over the last couple of weekends have complied with lockdown for most of the time. It is unreasonable to keep healthy people who are at very little risk locked down for any longer. I don’t think we have talked anywhere near enough about the negative effects of lockdown on people’s health and financial security.

I’d agree that those who need to be kept safest need to be the ones to stay in isolation while the rest of us get on with keeping the country running and doing what we can to support them.

I agree with PP.

We WILL need a further lockdown by late autumn/winter if R is above 1. Otherwise NHS will struggle to cope.

This second spate may well have to be a "proper" lockdown more like the restrictions in Spain in order to be effective.

I don't think the Government is at all keen on different regional timing, however sensible it might be, because their big thing is the UK all together, as opposed to the SNP.
As a neighbour who works in the NHS told me, nothing is really certain until a successful vaccine is developed. As that could be years away, the lockdown must end soon.

There's a distinction between thinking we will need something and thinking the government will implement it.

The thing is though, it's all very well to say the vulnerable should stay home & every body else should just go back to their lives. However, the vast majority do not live alone AND despite people wanting to believe it's the 'ver old' & 'very sick' becoming ill, it's not. Many people who are shielding are of working age and have families to support.

Workplaces might be able to support a few of the shielded, but for the 'merely' vulnerable - we're going to be screwed, unless it's acknowledged & unless there's help available.

My job isn't going to exist again until the international boarding schools are back properly and until 1:1 close contact is permitted/safe and I'm 52 with diabetes & high blood pressure.

It's all very well to say 'stay home then' - which I'm prepared to do, but I cannot WFH, so how am I - and millions like me, supposed to support ourselves?

I don't expect the world to stay locked down, not at all, but I do expect people to have some understanding of the issues that others face.

Plus- the even bigger issue of the R Rate exploding & the virus running rampant and the NHS being overwhelmed - many many more dying and the economy being totally fucked.

I can't see even the UK's Lockdown Lite - happening again. Nor even regions or sectors, so they need to put the brakes on with the lifting it.

But firstly they need to sack DC - the twatbadger, & BJ AND the others need to apologise for trying to weasel out of doing that and publicly supporting him.

Yup or fact shielding affects children and teens my two are 14 and 17 so exam age but way it's going can't see them back for 1uite while.It then affects me as I can't go out as impossible to distance myself from them

It's being reported that bj is going to hold cabinet talks on how to further release some sectors, aviation is looking like starting mid June (tui, easyjet) and Alton Towers etc look like they're opening early July. I'm guessing they will say this is providing the five tests are met (which I think they will regardless of the stats) I don't see any further sanctions being implemented on the public regardless of r rate. Also it sounds like they are putting less importance now on the r rate, it doesn't seem to be as front and centre as it was.

I don't know what the answers are, just wondering what others takes are. I think we are going down the route of if you're vulnerable stay away, if not it's at you're own discretion.

I think the "only if it is safe to do so" messages are being watered down, definitely.

You can't stop the virus but the point was always supposed to be to stop hospitals being completely overwhelmed and therefore people denied ICU beds etc.

The blanket ban on mass gatherings and having widespread social distancing should be enough to ensure the hospitals can cope.

Also, in order for hospitals to cope we needed to know we had enough beds. At the start of lockdown we had no idea how bad things would be. Nightingales are now in place too, organised during lockdown.

I imagine it'll be a dialling up and down if various measures at a local and occasionally national level. Hopefully timed well enough to avoid a huge peak; if not, that's when lockdown would have to happen.

*I’d also agree huge numbers could have visited folks and got on with their lives safely, anyone under 65 and without health conditions.

But that wasn’t known at the time, and people screamed for lock down. The who publicly attacked our government for not locking down. In fact the media are still attacking saying we should have done it earlier, others saying we shouldn’t have done it at all*

I think we made a mistake not locking down quicker. If not a full scale lockdown then certainly a ban on the mass gatherings like Cheltenham which must have helped it spread like wildfire.

I think in hindsight a 3 week lockdown a week earlier with the three weeks used to put in social distancing measures for beyond that.

An earlier lockdown would have stopped it at source and saved thousands of lives and also meant we could open things up quicker due to low infection rates, while also having social distancing measures in place for a while to ensure no huge spread immediately after.

Yes they should be firmly looking at the economic situation so no I don’t expect another lock down.

If you need to shield then you self isolate. If your act risk then you self isolate. Everybody else should be able to carry on with their life.

If we were forced back in to lock down every time there was a slight rise then we would be trapped in a hideous cycle and lives totally ruined.

I’m not in to that

I think there are enough people who have found lockdown extremely hard that no, the whole country can't be put under lockdown again. People wouldn't comply. I think we've collectively made a sacrifice to protect the most vulnerable and it can't be underestimated just how much that has cost many. There comes a point where people won't make a further sacrifice to save nameless strangers. It's not that people don't care but the personal cost becomes too high.

I feel very much for those shielding who are worried about negotiating the next few months. It's a shit situation if you are at higher risk of dying if you catch the virus. We should be throwing resourses at the issue to protect who we can. But that doesn't mean locking the whole of society down.