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....

Yes I agree with your other scenarios. Heffalooomia it's just a waiting game now.

One study I read suggests 2022- 23 may be quieter with an upsurge in cases in 2014 but who knows!

the spreader from Bolton should be jailed

Away from reacting to lock downs and curfews by trying to pack it all in quickly
Yes, because this creates times of boom and bust FOR THE VIRUS
People need to realise this behaviour has to stop
Yes, I think a big problem is that people don't want to accept that we cannot go back to the old ways of doing things, we cannot starve for a week and then binge on socialising again
We have to modify our behaviour so that virus transmission levels are manageable, pile em high and sell em cheap ways of doing business where everyone is packed in are no longer viable

@bullshitandbluster

the spreader from Bolton should be jailed

If we did that we would then have to find and jail other super-spreaders

I think that if the government are looking at "circuit breaking" measures, then they need to go really big on the message as to why they are taking that particular action rather than "just letting it rip through the population".
As seen on this thread alone there is clearly now a large number of people who do not believe that a second lockdown is the answer. To get compliance, they need to explain in very clear terms, exactly why it is the answer and equally importantly, why just letting it run is not.
Is it that the number of people that would be hospitalised with Covid at any given time mean that there would be insufficient capacity in the NHS for other medical services?
Does it mean that their projections show that too many people contracting it within a short period of time would affect the supply chain for important things like food and medicine?
Or would it affect education because schools would have insufficient staffing levels?
Watching Hancock on the news this morning talking about the aim being to hold up the virus until the "cavalry arrives": faster testing, better treatments, vaccine. This is the message that needs to be got across. Not just what they are doing but why, so people really understand any sacrifices they have to make. They have to answer the "why can my child go to school but I can't see my parents" question properly.
Also a problem is that the govt have lost the trust of many, and didn't have it from many others to begin with. I wonder if now is the time for a cross party delivery on this.

Until the cavalry arrives
The cavalry of faster testing better treatment vaccines...
we already know that the government who are promising us this cavalry cannot organise a piss up in a brewery😡

I think what a lot of people don't understand that even with a vaccine we are still not out of the woods.

Life will be different now for the foreseeable until further research into treatments etc are carried out. As Heffa said we all need to slow down and not see coming in and out of lockdown as a free for all. This is not going away!

I think this is where the Tories fall down. Long term mediocrity is how to play it with a Universal Income but that ain't gonna happen. We are in for a bumpy ride.

Matt Hancock talking about a cavalry is a stupid way of framing the situation, it gives the impression that someone heroic is going to ride in and save us
The government is headed up by a lazy posh bullshiter who has surrounded himself with people even less competent than he is so that he can feel important

nip it in the bud
The only way to nip this thing in the bug is go back in time and stop it getting out of Wuhan
There is no bud to be nipped🥀
Lets go to the fungal kingdom for a better metaphor....
when you have a few mushrooms growing above the ground there is a vast underground network of fungal mycelium unseen but ready to emerge at any opportunity

One if the reasons for lockdown the first time around was to stop the spread of the virus so services would no be overwhelmed. It went on for months and the virus is still here! Unfortunately we are all likely to get it, especially without a T&T system that works. We just have to minimise the risk as much as possible without destroying the economy, people's livelihoods, education and mental health in the process. By all means lock yourself down if you want to though. I think people have sacrificed a lot the last time, so I think they would be angry and not necessarily that compliant if another lockdown happened.

Maybe have a contract that people cannot use health care in a surge if the don't want to follow the rules then? Also would people be happier if there was a UI?

It seems unfair to expect other people to stop the spread whilst you have access to full health care!

Right...... two weeks is only enough time for people who are infected today to be showing real symptoms, so at the end of lockdown they’d still be spreading Covid.

Very strict lockdown still means NHS, bus, train, taxi drivers, supermarket staff, bank and finance, some teachers, some nursery, police, soldiers, utility workers etc are still working.

The lockdown would have to stop anyone from entering or leaving the country, Nobody leaving their house at all, not even to walk the dog or take the flat dwellers kids to the park.

Total lockdown would mean telling Ireland not to cross the border into Northern Ireland, would you suggest enforcing that with troops and breaking the Good Friday agreement?

Nice idea, but 100% impractical to have a “very strict” lockdown.

It certainly doesn’t appear to make much sense to do the same as they did in March when that clearly doesn’t solve anything. All it does is delay things.

It wouldn’t work as other posters have said Covid takes up to 2weeks to show up so would need to be longer than that. Also when we’re unlocked how will anything be different cases would just rise and it’ll be a case of rinse and repeat. No economy,education or mental well being can survive that.

@felineflutter

I am not making assumptions just putting across possibilities. Worse case scenario we continue like this forever and train up people to just work in Nightingale facilities to care for the vulnerable and elderly and keep society going so hospitals are not overwhelmed and resign ourselves to the fact that we may die early.

Given the WHO have predicted the pandemic will be over in under 2 years they clearly don’t share your doom and gloom. People will not SD or wear masks indefinitely. Society cannot function long term with SD. It’s that simple.

I agree that it’s here to stay and think even once the pandemic is passed it will likely pop up and pluck off lots of the elderly and weak every winter the way the flu does now even with a vaccination.

We do not know that the lockdown in March didn’t solve anything because it is so hard to envisage the kind of problems we may have had without it.

@amusedtodeath1

I'm always surprised that Mumsnet has such a high ratio of epidemiologists and economists compared to the public at large.

I simply can't believe they keep bringing out the same highly qualified scientists at the government briefings every time, and not "random bored Mumsnet keyboard-warrior who claims to be an expert"

"COVID deaths are not rising,"

" the virus has already ripped through the vulnerable."

Neither of these statements are true. If they were the actual experts making decisions wouldn't be considering a fire break, would they?

Another full lockdown will absolutely decimate the economy. More lives will be lost, along with businesses, peoples homes, it will out massive strain on financial services as people start defaulting on mortgages, credit cards, loans.

Sadly I think the only way to do anything is limit social contact, the very vulnerable to shield and provide support to those shielding and an actual test and trace system that works. I saw a report on the BBC that suggested one of the reasons T and T was struggling with testing was that the uni students who had worked in labs had gone back to university. If this is the case then as a country we should be fucking furious that the government has allowed themselves to be caught out by something as predicted as the start of term.

I can see secondary schools having an additional 2 weeks tagged onto Easter, but am praying primary schools remain open. I can see a national curfew of 10pm, no contact with anyone outside of your household or support bubble and gyms and swimming pools closing again, or council ones at least. I also think they are waiting for all uni students to be at halls or uni accommodation so they can control a good % of the 18 to 21 age group. I start uni tomorrow and we have all had to sign a new code of conduct with specific reference to covid restrictions, with the prospect of being expelled if we breach them.

(I feel I should point out that decimate means reduce by 10%)

@Heffalooomia

A short lockdown is like a crash diet and then going back to your normal way of eating afterwards We need to find a sustainable way of living with the virus just like if you want to be slim you need to find a sustainable way of eating healthily

Locking down to get the numbers down, so they are manageable for track and trace, within capacity for the NHS and then opening up to keep the economy ticking over is the way we're living with this!

Letting it just spread isn't an option, too many people sick or isolating to keep the Country running, locking down indefinitely not an option.

It will be a mixture of both until enough people have natural immunity, could take years, a vaccine or people start limiting their own lifestyles to stop it spreading .

The lockdown was never about curtailing it, it was to "protect the NHS"- remember?

"The lockdown was never about curtailing it, it was to "protect the NHS"- remember?"

I also remember the " saving lives" bit.

opening up
The problem is that any kind of opening up means increased transmission
We need to find new ways of conducting our human activities and businesses so that transmission does not occur

All these people saying 'lock down didn't work' .. I disagree. Maybe my expectations were different but I never expected 'work' to mean eradication , it meant slow the spread and stop the hospitals from becoming overwhelmed.. we have more than 45k dead.. this is not an innocent sniffle to many. I assume all those who are 'fed up' haven't lost someone from it , many years before their time. ?

The other line ... deaths aren't increasing ! Yes they are. Go on the ZOE app.. get the facts. Yes they are currently low numbers because you don't die inside a week from Covid.. but come back and tell me the numbers are low in a months time .. when the hospitals are full of FLU patients AND Covid patience with hospitals unable to cope...

A second Mini lockdown of 2 weeks will slow the spread.. EXACTLY as it did last time (should have been earlier though) AND enforced much stricter.

.. and ANOTHER ... as the numbers rise again after it's finished .. and another ... continually until there is a vaccine OR a decent track and trace..

Schools should have been set up for part remote/part face to face in order to allow more distancing. Especially to protect teachers.

Without some very drastic decisions by those in charge we are in for a very very hard winter where the hospitals won't be able to help those with ANY illness .. simply because of overwhelming numbers.

It's basic maths. If R=1.4 now.. the only possible outcome is exponential increase. It cannot be any other way.