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

@Guylan there are never any guarantees. Various diseases and conditions will impact me for my entire lifetime too, but we do know the impact of lockdown now. We know it kills due to lack of access to various types of care, but delayed care also leads to lifetime consequences in some cases. Heart attacks is an example I know about - sadly many people chose not to present with heart attack symptoms due to fears about catching the disease or feeling discouraged from bothering the health service. They started to present a significant time after (about May/June time they started to really filter through). The delays have meant that the operations they need are more complicated, take longer and are higher risk. Their hearts are more damaged and so recovery is slower and they are more likely to suffer long term impacts.

Our children have now had the best part of 6 months out of education. Again, we can take a very good guess at the long term impact of this, not only on long term potential but on social development. The longer it goes on the worse it will be. Wales has had no SD for children since 11 August, but the rise in cases is focussed on young adults. I'd suggest they were the least likely group to be in contact with children. The majority of parents to school age children are older these days.

The recession of the 80s and treatment of the coal miners had a huge impact on my life as a child. The environment a child is brought up in has a long term impact even if they are not directly affected themselves.

These are just a few examples. There are many more, but importantly, the long term impact of a recession is certainly known and the biggest indicator of healthy life expectancy is wealth. If we want a healthy population we need a healthy economy that supports a good safety net. I can't see how this can be achieved if we keep locking down.

I doubt a short lockdown will work, just look how long we were in lockdown earlier this year and yet haven't really got anywhere.

Then again, we can't really afford to go into another long lockdown either.

@WalesAppearsToBeSlightlySaner, I hear you. I don’t think a full lockdown will happen again and for the reasons you have given creates its own huge problems.

As I said earlier in this thread I don’t see a full lockdown happening again but think for this winter and spring there is an argument to use local lockdowns as and when needed especially as the test, trace and isolate system is still inadequate.

My own feeling at the moment, it might change, is that as there is still a chance - and I again I know by no means certain - that a vaccine or effective therapeutics may be developed by next spring, it is worth continuing with local lockdowns and other measures until then. However, if by next spring we are no nearer to a vaccine or therapeutics then because of all the other competing huge costs to society by various restrictions to keep community spread down then sadly we may have to accept CoVid19 is endemic and live with it.

@Guylan - I think that there will be a level of restrictions until then and I wish I believe that any end date wouldn't be an ever moving one.

I think my main worry about this continuing is the impact on people who are already at risk's immunity if we keep them out an entire cycle of immunity building (not just of Covid, but even the common cold kills some people). Last year's unusually low death rate could mean that Covid hit an unusually vulnerable population and if we are increasing people's risk factors via delayed treatments etc we could find we've saved someone from Covid but exposed them to greater risk from say flu. There's no perfect answer, but I certainly think we need a fully operational public sector and to make compromises elsewhere. Maybe also introducing some safe germs into care homes e.g. bringing animals in may help sustain people's resistance. I hope I'm wrong, but our immune system is a remarkable thing but it does need a bit of challenge.

I guess we'll all have to live with compromises for the foreseeable future and hope it's all worth it in the end.

@WalesAppearsToBeSlightlySaner, my energy is waning so I am sorry I don’t think I have fully understand your comments on risk to vulnerable groups immunity against other conditions if they are by and large doing a measure of shielding currently. As someone sick and disabled with an illness where the immune system is dysfunctional I think I would rather take my chance with flu than CV as think CV has a higher chance of causing me long term to permanent even deterioration in my already low level of functioning. However, that is just me and my illness. You may well be right about other groups and as said I am not sure I have fully understood.

I think your comment that you guess we'll all have to live with compromises for the foreseeable future and hope it's all worth it in the end sums up the situation for me.

I mean it's an experiment shielding even the vulnerable population for the summer months and not treating them for other things. It's a key opportunity to safely build our immunity/vitamin reserves and see us through winter. If you have a lung condition it could well be the right approach, but if you have delayed treatment for a heart attack you may be at more risk from flu. There's a lot of unknowns and I'm not sure how anyone making decisions at the moment gets much sleep but personally I'd have thought shortening the school summer holidays and lengthening the winter ones would have made sense from a prevalence point of view.

It really does come across as a fair few on here actually wishing for high death rate numbers..

No, I wouldn't agree with lockdown now. Not with..one death a day for sure. Official infection rate is rising, but this is likely contributed to by the extra testing we have in place now. Seems younger people are getting it, hence high numbers but low death/serious illness.

Cannot imagine the kind of person who would want lockdown and high numbers? Dementors is the correct word tbh.

Also a short lockdown would quickly turn into a longer lockdown with the public pressure from the terrified. Like last time, it was to flatten the curve, which we did, but then it quickly turned into 'but people are still getting it!' and seemingly many thinking we locked down to eradicate it or something, claiming we should never come out of it til numbers are 0..which was just..wrong.

No

We are supposed to be adults, give us the facts and let us make our own choices.

No. Enough. High risk take their own precautions. Everyone else get on with life.

@BatShite

Also a short lockdown would quickly turn into a longer lockdown with the public pressure from the terrified. Like last time, it was to flatten the curve, which we did, but then it quickly turned into 'but people are still getting it!' and seemingly many thinking we locked down to eradicate it or something, claiming we should never come out of it til numbers are 0..which was just..wrong.

This

No one is going to agree to a second lockdown. We need to learn to live with this.

@BatShite

Also a short lockdown would quickly turn into a longer lockdown with the public pressure from the terrified. Like last time, it was to flatten the curve, which we did, but then it quickly turned into 'but people are still getting it!' and seemingly many thinking we locked down to eradicate it or something, claiming we should never come out of it til numbers are 0..which was just..wrong.

This. 100%

How many more lockdown murders of abused women and children are worth the "sacrifice"? 2? 10? 30? How terrible were their deaths?

@PicsInRed

How many more lockdown murders of abused women and children are worth the "sacrifice"? 2? 10? 30? How terrible were their deaths?

Absolutely this.

@WalesAppearsToBeSlightlySaner, thanks for explaining further, I understand now. Yes, I would not want to be responsible for making these various risk assessments.

Yes, I think another lockdown is imminent.

Just admitted on itv news that we have a fortnight for the 6 rule to work. Then further restrictions if it hasn’t worked. From a sage member to Robert peston.

@PicsInRed

How many more lockdown murders of abused women and children are worth the "sacrifice"? 2? 10? 30? How terrible were their deaths?

What happens to clinically vulnerable abuse victims?

Domestic abuse should not be used as a justification to end or not start a lockdown.
Two women a week were murdered by abusers before Covid came along. It's clear better funding and support is required. That's separate from Covid.

Women's Aid published the results of their lockdown survivor survey recently. Many victims are as afraid of Covid as they are their abuser. One fear was catching Covid in a refuge. Another was being ill whilst living with an abuser. If people are concerned for survivors, call for safe ways for them to leave. Transport arrangements, more self contained refuge spaces, access to safe long-term housing.

SheepandCow

Reportedly, abuse reporting and support lines went eerily quiet in the first couple of weeks after lockdown. It emerged that this wasn't because abuse had declined following lockdown, but because women no longer had any time away from the abuser to make a call. They were absolutely alone.

They can only lock us down if we all comply which from just reading this thread isn’t going to happen.

Sounds very sensible OP.

@teta

Just admitted on itv news that we have a fortnight for the 6 rule to work. Then further restrictions if it hasn’t worked. From a sage member to Robert peston.

The so called 6 person rule will "work" because no fucker can get a test to be confirmed positive rather people actually sticking to seeing just 6 people

www.itv.com/news/2020-09-15/two-weeks-for-rule-of-six-to-stop-coronavirus-spread-or-tougher-social-distancing-measures-loom?fbclid=IwAR3KQTGhsTF8AhLc1TVHanaMB4Tuvaaujhgcx9C1HuBCCRaA5fG82fqPl4A
Two weeks for ‘rule of six’ to stop coronavirus spread or tougher social distancing measures loom

Two weeks is short