Here's an interesting view. Lockdown is actually extremely individualistic and throws the working class under the bus.

[Treesofwood]

twitter.com/Telegraph/status/1309030154837135362?s=09

People all ready to gout how selfish people are for questioning or refusing lockdown, it's all about saving lives, we have to do. It for the good of the vulnerable...

Well here is an opposite view. And I think it is very very true. All the questioning about who is impacted most and why. Those cocooned in their house, incomes protected "its not stuck at home its safe at home" rubbish. Who are lockdowns (local or national) really protecting? Who are actually vulnerable? And vulnerable to covid or destitution?

@Pixxie7

If you had a choice between your life and finances what would you choose?

That's just a simplistic answer, and rarely is it one or the other. For most, the two are intertwined. Poverty kills.

It is not less money or 100% certainty you will die. It is more very very unlikely you will die and almost certain (in some jobs) less money. As less money causes deaths the balance in my view even back in March was to keep things going. The greater good would have been served by no mandatory covid 19 laws at all in my view.

It is not less money or 100% certainty you will die. It is more very very unlikely you will die and almost certain (in some jobs) less money.

Exactly. I don’t know why people struggle to understand this.

Personally I think that our hapless government will be delighted that people are endlessly arguing about lockdown versus no lockdown rather than focusing on the fact that countries with effective test, track and trace systems are able to enjoy both fewer restrictions and fewer cases.

I supported the first lockdown because we needed to get on top of an exponentially growing outbreak quickly. It was a blunt instrument but it bought us some time to get more effective pandemic management systems in place. Time the government completely and utterly squandered. Our test and trace is woeful. People being asked to isolate, instead of being given financial support to do so, are being threatened with £1000 fines. Schools were sent back with no preventative measures, and without regular testing available. Workplaces are supposed to be "covid secure" but there's no one to check if they are. All we get are "eat out to help out" - help out what, the frigging virus? - and pubs closing at 10pm, presumably because covid-19 is a bit of a night owl that can't be bothered to spread earlier in the evening. I mean seriously, it's a joke.

Instead of attacking each other for wanting to get on with our lives (perfectly natural) or not wanting to see vulnerable people become ill and die (also perfectly natural) we should instead be asking some hard questions of our government - the one that said testing was paramount and promised a "world-beating test, track and trace system" back in early summer but still haven't delivered it.

Its not only the medically vulnerable that need protecting, lockdowns restrictions and job losses increase the numbers of those who are or will become socially vulnerable, so who's protecting them?

Poverty was already a massive problem before covid and now its getting even worse with no end in sight.

No one in Europe has really developed a track/trace system that works as well as required to be able to simultaneously suppress the virus and open up the economy.

Given that 2 out of 3 are asymptomatic, this is hardly surprising when the virus was at very low levels, but well spread during the summer. It's an almost impossible task with the current spread. Had extreme measures and track/trace been introduced in January it may have been possible, but not now.

The large numbers of asymptomatic cases is why it's so hard to trace.

Given track/trace doesn't work, the only options are lockdown and pray a vaccine turns up very soon, or let the young and healthy build up immunity. Both strategies come with different, but significant risks.

If we knew that a vaccine would be widely available in a few months then more lockdown might be better, but if the vaccine is just a punt it's a crazy strategy.

No one in Europe has really developed a track/trace system that works as well as required to be able to simultaneously suppress the virus and open up the economy.

Yes, this is an important point. I’m in Ireland and our system was much vaunted, worked really well at the start. But it quickly became totally overwhelmed.

The likes of South Korea and so on, not only started at a point of very low levels, but also have totally different attitudes to data collection and privacy. The government has the right to collect information on individuals that’s pretty well unthinkable in Europe.

This is worth a read

blogs.thomsonreuters.com/answerson/south-korea-covid-19-data-privacy/

It is very hard to develop vaccines as most scientists admit so I would not wait for that. One way to trace the asymptomatic would be to test lots of healthy people regularly in some areas at random so we got a feel for % infected even in areas with supposedly low incidence so we could help prove high incidence one way or the other.

Given track/trace doesn't work, the only options are lockdown and pray a vaccine turns up very soon, or let the young and healthy build up immunity. Both strategies come with different, but significant risks.

Totally agree. It seems quite problematic to assume that we'll have a vaccine in a few months. A lot of people on here seem to be betting the farm on that. We need to think harder about the optimal way to manage this situation if it goes on for 9 months, a year, more.

Fast, cheap, readily available tests might be more of a game changer in the short term. We'll still have the issue of ensuring compliance with regulations if they're positive though.

I think this crisis has really amplified inequalities- as pretty much any national crisis does. But I don't think it's a case of lockdown v no lockdown. If we lockdown, many of these people are expected to work in roles where they come in to contact with many people others lose their jobs because theirs isn't a job that can realistically be done from home. If we don't lock down, they will come in to contact with even more people at work (who will also have come into contact with more people), they probably live in more densely populated housing etc- they are more likely to become ill, which means more likely to have to self isolate and therefore lose income. Even if sick pay applies, it's more likely that they have jobs where this will not be the full amount of pay they usually receive and on a low income even a few pounds less can be the difference between managing and not being able pay bills.

So essentially working people on low incomes are screwed either way whilst Boris and his mates will be just fine whatever happens.

@boriselbow I agree. We went into this pandemic after 10 years of austerity. Many individuals were already living precarious lives, there wasn't any leeway or resilience in their finances to absorb this kind of shock. Likewise councils, which have been defunded to the point they were unable to provide very basic services. A decade ago local public health teams and primary care trusts would have been in place ready to deal with a pandemic but much of that local infrastructure has been starved of money or dismantled. Every country is struggling to cope with this virus but even so we can't ignore our high death rate and much greater drop in GDP compared to our European neighbours and it's hard not to conclude that we could and should have coped at least a little bit better than we have. At the very least the new spate of highly unaffordable fines for failure to follow a series of rules so myriad and confusing even the PM doesn't understand them seems to be adding to the strain society is under from this virus without really doing much to tackle the problem effectively.

@TheKeatingFive

Given track/trace doesn't work, the only options are lockdown and pray a vaccine turns up very soon, or let the young and healthy build up immunity. Both strategies come with different, but significant risks.

Totally agree. It seems quite problematic to assume that we'll have a vaccine in a few months. A lot of people on here seem to be betting the farm on that. We need to think harder about the optimal way to manage this situation if it goes on for 9 months, a year, more.

Mmm, I've seen people on here say there will be a vaccine shortly. I very much hope so, but how can they be sure?

I very much hope so, but how can they be sure?

They can’t be.

I’d be very surprised if nothing gets approved in a 6/9 month timeframe, but nothing is guaranteed.

Also the first vaccines out of the block may be limited in terms of their effectiveness, so initially we’d be better to think of them as additional tools in our armoury rather than the silver bullet.

I've heard from senior people in the NHS they're hoping for a limited supply available for front line staff in 3-4 months, then for the general public toward next summer, starting with the vulnerable.

This is contingent on trials going well. Previously the fastest vaccine development took 4-5 years. It

Will people really lockdown for 6-9 months? Last time it was about 2 months before you could go back to meeting people outside, then gatherings a little later. The weather was also very good and BBQs etc were possible, but in winter that won't be an option.

Will people really lockdown for 6-9 months?

In a word, no.

People would have to be phenomenally scared to be willing to acquiesce to that. While a lot of the population evidently are, there are whole swathes who are aware their own risk is pretty low and who can therefore only be scared into compliance up to a point. Plus some others whose risk is higher but have still said or at some point will say fuck it. And we do not have the police or military apparatus needed to make millions of people cooperate if they don't want to.

@TheKeatingFive

It is not less money or 100% certainty you will die. It is more very very unlikely you will die and almost certain (in some jobs) less money.

Exactly. I don’t know why people struggle to understand this.

Because business (and society) could not keep going in an apocalyptic nightmare of dozens of thousands of people all dying at once? So we needed to have a lockdown and couldn't keep going by late March?

In a word, no.

Exactly. Which is why I think we need to be realistic about the timeframes and plan accordingly.

One of the things Sweden got right, I think, was to concentrate on measures that could be maintained for a significant period of time. They're way ahead of everyone else in figuring out how to 'live with'.

The problem with harsh 'lockdown' measures is that they're only sustainable for so long. As soon as we open up, everyone wants to do all the stuff they've missed, so they indulge and then we're right back where we started. Constant opening up/locking down cycles strike me as a terrible approach - both in terms of economic certainty and people's mental health.

Better to focus on something more sustainable.

Because business (and society) could not keep going in an apocalyptic nightmare of dozens of thousands of people all dying at once? So we needed to have a lockdown and couldn't keep going by late March?

Has anyone said we shouldn't have had a lockdown in March? I know I didn't.

Personally I would reintroduce shielding from Monday(fully funded by the government). I would also put all NHS staff on emergency contracts allowing them to be moved around the country to hotspots when needed

Other than that, we simply cannot afford to destroy the economy and our DC’s futures any more than we already have.

We need to focus on protecting those who are actually vulnerable, while keeping the measures we have. Otherwise, the rest of us need to keep the economy going.

We should be running NHS capacity hot and re-opening Nightingales. Nurses and doctors should be deployed wherever they’re needed temporarily across the U.K.- of course with childcare and accommodation provided.

We should be running NHS capacity hot

You mean cancelling all non-Covid treatments like in March? Rather than trying to keep at least some 'clean' services running?

I expect return to shielding may have to happen, but putting over 2million people into full isolation indefinitely should not be taken lightly - look how difficult people find it for 2weeks, and they've already done it for about 4 months.

One of the things Sweden got right, I think, was to concentrate on measures that could be maintained for a significant period of time. They're way ahead of everyone else in figuring out how to 'live with'.

Except that their rates are worse than their neighbours, are rising, and are now worse than a number of other European countries

Except that their rates are worse than their neighbours, are rising, and are now worse than a number of other European countries

Did I say they got everything right? Or even most things? No. Their deaths are primarily because they didn't stop it getting into the nursing homes. They weren't alone in that. Their numbers compare favorably to many western European countries without the immense costs of lockdown.

Basically everyone's rates are rising. My understanding is that theirs are rising slower than the majority.

They said right from the start they were thinking long term and they weren't working off the assumption that a vaccine was round the corner. I suspect that might look like a sensible strategy when we have the benefit of hindsight.

I would also put all NHS staff on emergency contracts allowing them to be moved around the country to hotspots when needed

This idea doesn't get any less daft with repetition.

It might be doable with some of the ones who don't have ties, if appropriately renumerated/accommodation and travel provided of course. I'm not saying there would be no volunteers at all. But the ones who have caring responsibilities are not simply going to roll over and acquiesce to this vast change in their terms and conditions of employment. There are about a million NHS clinical staff. How many of them do we reckon have kids under 18- couple of hundred thousand maybe? Even in the extraordinarily unlikely event that we managed to implement this, there's not a chance in hell a load of them wouldn't just say fuck the job, I'll be back when all this is over and they're still desperate. Then all you've achieved is a shortage. Driving existing staff out is fucking moronic.