Should we have a full lockdown briefly now to slow down rises

[Worriedmum999]

Just musing really. Would it be better to have a few weeks of full lockdown now while furlough is still ongoing rather than needing to do one in a month or so as an emergency when 1000 people are dying every day, having to extend furlough etc.

If it’s planned then people can prep for it. Make it a really strict one. Have minimum shops open for emergencies with strict distancing. School well prepared to teach online for 2 weeks.

Might this give us the time to sort the testing backlog and increase them as promised? Give everyone the short sharp shock they need to take distancing/masks seriously again then reopen with clearer rules

No. The vulnerable should self isolate. The rest of us have got fucking lives to live and money to earn.

I’ve got no intention of locking down again. Fuck that shit.

Why are they giving the rule of 6 only two weeks, when apparently they absolutely couldn't give lockdown measures any less than 3 if they wanted to see if they'd worked? How strange.

It's almost like they don't want it to have worked isn't it?

And no op I don't want another lockdown. I didn't want the first one.

@PicsInRed
There definitely needs to be more help.
I know someone who was in an abusive situation (now out of it). She said she found it almost impossible to get through to helplines. She called when her husband was out exercising or in the middle of the night. Never got through. I think I read calls increased dramatically. The support services need the funding to increase staff and capacity.

There's also always been a need for alternative methods of contact. Many women, my friend included, have always found it difficult to speak on the phone. Online chat and email contact opportunities should be expanded.

Many refuges were unable to take new referrals because of the need to socially distance, to protect the women and children already living there and the staff. We need more safe spaces for survivors (as we already did pre Covid).

No.

@YouJustDoYou really?! And the vulnerable don't? If you shield all the vulnerable again, a lot of places will be very short of staff. Like the NHS, and schools
Who's going to pay their mortgage and bills? And all the children in that category with stuff like leukaemia, they don't have lives to live?

Seems as if my idea wasn’t so stupid after all Chris Whitty seems to agree.
twitter.com/globalhlthtwit/status/1306351773356118022?s=21

Photo attached. You heard it here first!!

And that's why Johnson has gone all guns blazing about how hes going to do everything he can to stop one (to mentally prepare the public for one), possibly because its all but inevitable now...

If he'd wanted to stop another lockdown, he'd have done the first one properly, including border restrictions and real quarantine. A job worth doing and all that...

@Desperado24

Will just leave this here.

Look at deaths last week - nearly 1500 down on the five year average.

mobile.twitter.com/i/web/status/1305787268200902656?fbclid=IwAR2meeAY6Uqho7k1SHU-LuRg43i5ZBU0v46CcqX72lcVZ-15dfK6F5hyx4I

Shit needs to get back to normal soon.

This.

Look at the overall death rate....dementors are gagging for a lock down but it isn't needed...perspective is

I'd be surprised if there'd be another lockdown until actual deaths get well into the 100s again
The damage to the economy and the political damage to the government would be very high

The first lockdown was to flatten the curve while the NHS, testing, track & trace were built up
Giving contracts to incompetent buddies was always going to reduce efficiency there

Also for doctors to develop better treatments for the disease
for scientists learn more about COPID to be able to target SD measures, instead of the blunderbus of lockdown

We should have the tools to keep deaths within acceptable levels over winter, with some tightening in winter and local lockdowns
So imo things would have to go badly wrong for a 2nd lockdown to be necessary / acceptable

Exactly. Nearly 16 percent below the five year average.

Let’s get stuff back to normal and stop spinning money away on a virus that isn’t going anywhere for decades

Seeing Whitty's message does make me suspicious of the email the school sent today. They had to have a remote learning system up and running by the end of September. I thought it was for isolating bubbles, now I'm not so sure.

Well the first lockdown was supposed to be for 3 weeks. Ended up being 4 months. So they will say 2 weeks and the general public will hear 3 months. Fool me once shame on you , fool me twice shame on me!

And be in exactly the same situation when this 2nd lockdown ends and inevitably cases start rising again a few weeks later? no thanks. Pointless.

This useless government needs to get on top of testing/track and trace, protect people in care homes better and stop trying to force people back into offices and trains.

@Requinblanc You"ve nailed it!

The whole point of Whitty talking about a short 2nd lockdown is because we are too far gone to ever get on top of track and trace or testing now. Surely you don’t believe we only have 4000 infections a day! Thousands can’t even get tested now and then there are all the asymptomatic cases and the ones that slip through. We are nearer Whitty’s estimate of 38k than 4k believe me. They have said testing won’t improve for another few weeks when more labs open by which time we will have at least 100k a day. And a lot of deaths.

There will be no alternative to a lockdown at some point in the near future no matter how much people say they aren’t going to do it again as, without it, society and the economy will collapse anyway. Therefore, surely a short one now so that track and trace can be restarted and hopefully done better while furlough is still in place is a better solution than another 3 month one further down the line

Costello is talking about it. Whitty may be or not.

It’ll have to be swift to be effective so I guess we’ll know soon

@Worriedmum999 do you believe it’ll be a short lockdown based on the government’s track record?
Anyone remember the three week initial lockdown? Turning the tide in 3 weeks? Back to normal by Christmas?

Turning the tide in 12 weeks I mean.

I think it's a good idea.

We will have lockdown lite I think restrictions put in place

Another national lockdown and it looks like they don’t know what they are doing (I mean they don’t but they won’t admit it!)

And why 2 weeks? We were told at the beginning that every measure had to be introduced for at least 3 weeks for us to see an effect.

Yes, nip it in the bud.