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

I would much rather have a 2 week lockdown now than a 3-4 month lockdown from October.

The problem is, in order for it to work people would have to comply. So it won’t work, because people won’t comply. They just won’t. You can see that from replies on here.

Some people just genuinely don’t understand the implications of exponential growth.

Some people have either forgotten or didn’t believe the number of deaths in April. There were Dr’s and nurses dying on their own wards, and people have already forgotten.

The more testing hence more increase on cases. Only 1 person died yesterday and was 80. We have Brexit approaching, an economy that is shattered by this over the top precaution and another lockdown would mean families breaking into people's homes for food. Do you want that over a virus where nearly 99.8% of the population will survive?

“I would much rather have a 2 week lockdown now than a 3-4 month lockdown from October”

Is it either/or? What happens after the 2-week lockdown? Everything goes back to “normal” as sheepandcow promises? If that’s the case, I’m in - toddler groups here we come!

No. I don't think people would comply with it. Many of us on this thread will have children and perhaps other family members that we would run in front of a bus for. Maybe we'd be willing to lose our jobs or homes or not get medical treatment for a serious problem on behalf of some close friends. But, inevitably, there are limits. I don't think it's cold-hearted to say that I don't want to lose my job or my house to save the life of an 80 year old that I've never even met.

The Don't Kill Granny slogan works on the basis that we all know people who are vulnerable to covid. I don't know any. My parents are both dead (DM died of cancer during lockdown, DF years earlier) and all of the people that I see at work and in my daily life are early 40s or younger. Some of my close friends have very serious problems as a result of the last lockdown. One (less close) friend has recently killed himself. My children have been struggling these last two weeks to settle back into school. These are the people I care about and they've sacrificed enough.

@MrBucket yes and you get a pet unicorn too . No of course not - the amount of the virus in circulation goes down, the R number goes down, and we buy a bit more time.

And the R rate will go back up again after the lockdown ends, the same concern about rising cases, calls for a short sharp lockdown etc

“Buying more time” isn’t what some people are suggesting - they seem to think it’s a way to go back to “normal” as other countries are apparently doing. I don’t believe for a moment that that is what would happen and I don’t know that the negative consequences of a short sharp lockdown are worth it

I can't work out the comprehension skills of those who still want to push the line that Covid kills only the elderly (the millions of young clinically vulnerable people don't exist in their world presumably).

Even if you hold the deeply unpleasant view that the elderly are worthless, you must have surely read about Long Covid. This is a danger to everyone. It's not just something that happens to Other People aka The Vulnerable.

Here's a much younger than 80 UK nurse speaking about his hospitalisation from Covid. Thankfully the hospital had bed capacity when he needed it.
news.sky.com/video/it-tried-to-strangle-me-the-nurse-who-battled-covid-19-12060825

Where is the evidence that a) that long covid is a real diagnostic entity, b) that it is common?

As someone who had had covid and now has two completely separate other medical problems, I am aware that correlation or association isn't causation. If I hadn't had gallstones picked up on a scan last summer, I might assume that covid had caused them. If I hadn't just been diagnosed with a chlorhexidine allergy (from all the Clinell wipes I was using at work, in far greater quantities than ever before) I might assume that the erythema like rash on my torso was some sort of long-covid dermatological manifestation. I know lots of people with diagnosed covid and not one has long covid. This isn't to say that some people aren't having a rough time with post-viral fatigue, but that isn't itself a covid-specific problem. Lots of viruses cause it, and it almost always resolves in time. The only person I know who is still bed-bound from long covid had never had a positive antigen or antibody test, despite repeated testing. You don't have to be the Sherlock Holmes of medicine to suspect that he probably has (shock horror) something else. But it's going to take a long time to find out because the NHS isn't able to offer its usual level of care or testing for non-covid conditions.

I don’t think it’s necessarily a bad idea. It’s always going to be a balancing act.

Knocking it back now would certainly be easier than knocking it back in one month.

Currently we’re on av. 3000 new cases per day.

The doubling time is 7 days. If we continue as we are....

next week av. 6000 New cases per day
In two weeks 12000 per day
In three weeks 24000 per day
In four weeks 48000 Per day

That’s recorded, not actual.

Assuming we could actually measure that ( we know the system is failing now, as people can’t get tests).

Well I'm not in the UK, but to me another lock down of some sort looks inevitable. I'm not sure how much good two weeks would do though. I reckon they will probably do localised lock downs, at least to start with anyway. I know my mum (who is in the UK) has replenished her supplies of toilet roll, tinned toms, flour etc., as she is expecting another bout.

No way

@endtimes

do people not understand what exponential growth means?

There is a lag between getting the virus and dying. I was just listening to a doctor on BBC, hospitalisations are rising, in a few weeks the death rate will be a lot higher and I believe that in another couple of months we will be right back to where we were in March. There will be no choice but another lockdown, whether we can afford it or not.

No. People don't seem to understand exponential growth, even though they've just had a lesson in it.

It seems to escape their notice just how quickly we went from no deaths to thousands.

Hospital numbers are rising, it takes time to die of Covid, death numbers will rise.

It would be much better to lockdown now & reduce the numbers back down & keep more restrictions in place over the winter. By spring hopefully there will be more treatment, a vaccine & better weather to socialise outside again.

@Waxonwaxoff0. Obviously your priority is your son, not me. But there are a LOT of people vulnerable to this, my point was we are not all 'old' or 'on deaths door' their definition of 'underlying health conditions' makes people think we are. To meet me you'd never know how vulnerable I am, nor many others including children. I'm just fed up if people saying 'yes but only people with underlying conditions or really old are dying' like it makes it ok (plus it's not true).

I understand that there are many people vulnerable to Covid, not just the elderly.

But during the first lockdown people suffered with their mental health. They lost their jobs. They lost their homes. Their children suffered.

In the world of Mumsnet, everyone has the capacity to educate their children from home, a secure WFH job and a buffer of savings to fall back on. In the REAL world, most people don't have that. And at least we had the furlough scheme then which we won't have for any future lockdown.

Asking people to potentially sacrifice their jobs, their mental health, possibly even their homes - for people they don't even know - isn't going to go down well for the majority.

The glee with which OP is predicting 1000s of deaths is as unpleasant as it is unwarranted. Just because numbers are rising does not mean deaths will rise commensurately. We will never be in the same position re covid that we were in in March this year. Months of the virus circulating over winter with people having no idea about social distancing, many crowded indoor gatherings daily, no test and trace, no protection for care homes and no idea how to treat the disease is what led to that number of deaths. All of those conditions are now different. All of them. Our defences aren't as good as they should be but they are in place. 1000s of deaths per day from Covid will never happen again.

@CodenameVillanelle

The glee with which OP is predicting 1000s of deaths is as unpleasant as it is unwarranted. Just because numbers are rising does not mean deaths will rise commensurately. We will never be in the same position re covid that we were in in March this year. Months of the virus circulating over winter with people having no idea about social distancing, many crowded indoor gatherings daily, no test and trace, no protection for care homes and no idea how to treat the disease is what led to that number of deaths. All of those conditions are now different. All of them. Our defences aren't as good as they should be but they are in place. 1000s of deaths per day from Covid will never happen again.

Absolutely this. Everything has changed, we know so much more now. It isn't going to play out the same way twice.

My fear is that jobs will end up being lost anyway, even without lock down. If cases continue to rise exponentially (and we are doing little to reverse that) then people are going to stop going out and spending money. Online shopping will become the norm, it will be the death knell for the struggling high street and recreation sector. Furlough is coming to an end. Predictions of job losses over the Autumn are horrendous. Universal Credit does not kick in immediately, and there is no way that food banks can cope with up to half a million new applicants. Add to this a new deal Brexit and we have a perfect storm of poverty over the winter, without any kind of lock down at all.

I personally think it is time to start costing out radical options like a basic universal income. By preventing the need for low paid workers to continue working with symptoms, we may avoid the worst case scenario. Instead of everyone testing, everyone should isolate with any symptoms at all and workplaces should pay for the tests of people that they absolutely need to return, including the children of their employees. Track and trace should still have a supply along with essential work places. Mortgages should be frozen along with rents. A green workfare program of planting trees, etc, should be introduced for the unemployed at such a point as weather permits.

I'm absolutely just brainstorming here - I'm not inviting having these ideas picked to pieces, as I'm just throwing them out, willy nilly. I'm just trying to get across the idea that what we need is something radical, not just "the rule of six". If we have a depression coming of historical scale, as many are warning, then we want Roosevelt (or Attlee), not Hoover, making the policies.

I can't work out the comprehension skills of those who still want to push the line that Covid kills only the elderly (the millions of young clinically vulnerable people don't exist in their world presumably).

In Scotland (where I am) the average age of someone dying from covid is 84yrs old which is actually a couple of years higher than the average age to die. No one under the age of 19 has died.

It overwhelmingly kills the elderly. Are you actually aiming to eradicate death?

What draw man? That it overwhelmingly kills the elderly?

But you want a full lockdown and to destroy the economy, ruin education, wreck people’s mental health? People won’t comply this time and there will be civil unrest.

No. I wouldn't support that and I wouldn't support any lockdowns in future

@TheDragQueen your straw men from just the last two posts:
That we want to eradicate death
That we want a full lock down
That we want to destroy the economy
That we want to ruin education
That we want to wreck people’s health
That the fact that COVID mostly kills the elderly means it has negligible effects on any other groups

If you require my assistance with reading comprehension over the next few hours, you will have to wait until I am done educating my actual students whilst I still can.

No. Please stop scaremongering.

No we are very wobbly with businesses open as it is.

Many staff are back from furlough so they would either need more or not be covered.

And it’s never fast. Lockdown lasted for ages to get cases back down.

We need to the economy function as much as it can with SD etc and use other methods.

[quote Nellodee]@TheDragQueen your straw men from just the last two posts:
That we want to eradicate death
That we want a full lock down
That we want to destroy the economy
That we want to ruin education
That we want to wreck people’s health
That the fact that COVID mostly kills the elderly means it has negligible effects on any other groups

If you require my assistance with reading comprehension over the next few hours, you will have to wait until I am done educating my actual students whilst I still can.[/quote]
Ah, so we’ve worked you’ll still get paid no matter what happens. 🤔