Why not a short VERY strict lockdown now to nip in bid so to speak??

[shesellsseashells99]

Would it not make sense to act now with a very strict national lockdown for maybe 2 weeks? Instead of waiting until everything is out of control again....

No it wouldn't. COVID deaths are not rising, the virus has already ripped through the vulnerable.

We can't ask young people and families to impact their livelihoods and education again just because we're all unable to grasp to the science of this virus.

No it wouldn’t. Because we’re off for a mini break in a fortnight, after having had two holidays so far cancelled because of covid. After that you can have a lockdown. 😂😂

It won't work.

No public appetite.
Not enough police or army to enforce it.

@Grobagsforever

No it wouldn't. COVID deaths are not rising, the virus has already ripped through the vulnerable.

We can't ask young people and families to impact their livelihoods and education again just because we're all unable to grasp to the science of this virus.

This.

Also, how would it work when the last lockdown that was allowed to go on for months didn’t eradicate it?

It might make sense on paper, but it will not totally eradicate the virus, so it will surge again and again every time any restrictions are lifted.

We have to learn to live with this. People have given up too much already.

It can't be nipped in the bud. This disease will spread until it's done spreading. When deaths have remained low for the last 6 weeks and not grown exponentially as people have feared there is no need for further lockdown.

Lockdowns don't eradicate viruses, they're a pause button. Doesn't matter whether you lockdown for two weeks or two months, as soon as you open everything up again it'll spread again. That's how viruses work.

I don't think we'll ever eradicate it - far more likely that it will just become another virus, like flu viruses, which we'll understand more about as time goes on. And we'll develop antiviral drugs to to help those worst affected, and possibly a vaccine. It's here to stay and no lockdown will get rid of it.

We just need to live with it. There are lots of viruses we are at risk of getting and potentially dying from we don't lock down whenever they start spreading.

Even in the strictest of lockdowns some people will still need to go to work to provide essential services, so you will never stop the chain.

No we can't afford to lockdown, and really, we shouldn't need to. We haven't even opened up fully yet.

Learning to live with it will happen when we have a vaccine, combined with mask wearing and social distancing. Not until we get to that point, will we be able to live without circuit breaks.

Surely it's actually a good thing - from an overall population view - that our cases are going up but the death rate isn't? Doesn't that mean that either the virus is weaker now, or that more people will end up having immunity (even if only for a short time) so the spread will actually decrease naturally over time?

Absolutely not. This virus is not serious for most people, in most cases it’s not even like a flu. The economy is ranked, mental health, domestic abuse, education is on the floor. The last thing we need is another lockdown

There are lots of reasons for saying no, but some people here seem unaware that several hospitals are near capacity again. Something does need to be done to prevent them becoming overwhelmed. I'm in the "we have to live with the virus" camp overall, but we can't live with it if it overwhelms the hospitals. We will be in the situation of people dying who could easily have been saved (dying of covid and of other things).

The NHS may have to increase capacity in the medium term, but this takes time to train doctors and nurses.

No, we would just enter a cycle of a raise in cases - lockdown to slow down the spread - open up again & a raise in cases! Rinse and repeat.

That would just delay the current situation, pointless. I think we'll all shortly be told no household mixing (except work and school), and that will last quite a while...

@MrsSpenserGregson

Surely it's actually a good thing - from an overall population view - that our cases are going up but the death rate isn't? Doesn't that mean that either the virus is weaker now, or that more people will end up having immunity (even if only for a short time) so the spread will actually decrease naturally over time?

Exactly. The virus has largely ripped through those who were vulnerable to it. That's sad, but it is a fact.

Cases take the times as long to fall as they do to rise. If we don’t have a lock down now, we’ll probably end up with a much, much longer one later.
However, the point of a lock down should be to get test and trace in order. The government have screwed the pooch on that one all summer and we’ve got no reason to believe they’ll sort it this time around.
We also have a country with very little faith in the actions of our government who won’t believe the need for a lockdown until we have bodies stacked in corridors in hospitals (which could well happen over winter, if we don’t lock down, though I in no way am salivating over that prospect, believe me).
I think we will probably be approaching that point before we have a lock down and will end up having a much longer one because we wait. Then, if we manage to do it just before we hit the bodies in corridors point (which we all have to hope we do), we’ll have another fifty thousand threads saying how the nhs was never overrun and we fucked the economy for nothing.

Three times

@solidaritea

There are lots of reasons for saying no, but some people here seem unaware that several hospitals are near capacity again. Something does need to be done to prevent them becoming overwhelmed. I'm in the "we have to live with the virus" camp overall, but we can't live with it if it overwhelms the hospitals. We will be in the situation of people dying who could easily have been saved (dying of covid and of other things).

The NHS may have to increase capacity in the medium term, but this takes time to train doctors and nurses.

Which hospitals are these please?

I dont think a short 2 week lockdown would achieve anything tbh, and I dont think we should go into full lockdown again unless the NHS really is being overwhelmed (as it was last time). Inatead I think we should have a better system of test, track and trace and continue with local lockdown (only better, clearer ones) as necessary.

Which hospitals are these please

These will the ones where someone's best friend's cousin's sister works, or where the neighbour's brother's taxi driver's friend works.

All the way through this there have been posters with friends/relatives spouting nonsense.

Because short lockdowns do not work giving the long incubation period of the virus (it two weeks before you can even assess if it’s “working”).

@NaughtipussMaximus

No it wouldn’t. Because we’re off for a mini break in a fortnight, after having had two holidays so far cancelled because of covid. After that you can have a lockdown. 😂😂

have a great time (you'll be slaughtered for your selfishness) but hey ho!

@Grobagsforever

No it wouldn't. COVID deaths are not rising, the virus has already ripped through the vulnerable.

This is plain wrong. Despite the death toll in care homes about 70% didn’t have outbreaks. And the 2.2 million people shielding are largely still with us, precisely because the vast majority (95% according to a survey) been shielding since March!

However, I do agree that the lockdown that the OP is proposing would cause more harm than good, and that the virus would simply emerge again at current levels month or so after the lockdown ended.