Page 2 | Why can't we just have a full lockdown for 2/4 weeks and get it over and done with?

Rushjob · 12/10/2020 10:33

We locked down “for 3 weeks” at end of March. After 13 weeks or so it hadn’t done that so why would it work this time. Especially as people will be less compliant now because it doesn’t work. Also there seems to be growing suggestions from scientists and the WHO that lockdowns don’t work.

tempnamechange98765 · 12/10/2020 10:36

This will never be "over and done with". Research other pandemics, the plague, "Spanish" flu, other influenzas. Cholera???!!!!

This is here to stay, a vaccine will obviously help in the same way the flu vaccine helps, but it still won't eradicate it completely. Complete lockdowns are not the answer.

PlentyOfPeas · 12/10/2020 10:40

I understand the cost of that wouldn't be brilliant but people can still work from home and they can keep essential shops open like supermarkets so they wouldn't be paying as much as they did in March-June

Firstly there are lots of people who can't work from home. Not everyone works in an office environment that can easily be switched to home working. What do you propose those people do? Lose a wage for 4 weeks?

The only reason it didn't sink the economy and put thousands out of work in the initial lockdown was because of the furlough scheme, we can't keep doing that.

And thirdly, what would be the point? So we'll have another full lockdown for 4 weeks and then what? Open things up again and surprise surprise cases rise again.

There needs to be another way of managing cases. Lockdown only puts the problem on hold for a while. It's inevitable that cases will just reappear as soon as we unlock. Especially in a mere 4 weeks.

Blurp · 12/10/2020 10:43

A full lockdown isn't possible. There will always be a certain percentage of people who have to go out, in order to keep things running - health service workers, carers, lorry drivers etc. The virus will spread around them and then re-appear when lockdown ends.

The key is managing the spread. Basically, for every interaction between 2 people, there is a risk of transmission. If we minimise interactions (by preventing people from seeing each other) or the risk (by social distancing, mask wearing etc) we minimise spread. This allows the number of cases to remain at a manageable level.

So, the question then becomes, which interactions are most beneficial and least risky? A doctor seeing a patient is beneficial, and relatively low risk if it can be planned for and appropriate measures put in place. A friend visiting someone who's been bereaved is also beneficial, though probably slightly higher risk. A big family get-together just for the sake of it every week is high risk and not especially beneficial ( a get-together once in a while for a birthday or something is probably more beneficial, with the same risk). Meeting friends at a pub is beneficial (to the pub owners) and also low risk if the appropriate measures are in place.

So ideally everyone would use common sense and the government could say "look, don't generally go to friends' houses, but if your friends husband has died and you need to see her, do it" and that would be fine, but in practice people would just go "Aw, my mum's a bit sad because she couldn't get the right crisps at Tesco, I'll go and cheer her up" and it would be chaos. People will do what benefits them at a particular moment, and not look at the wider picture.

PlentyOfPeas · 12/10/2020 10:43

And yes as per PP. We will have to reach a point imo, where we stop all this. A vaccine will likely be that point I believe, but we can't get rid of this completely and trying or hoping for that is just idiotic in my opinion. It's a virus, it's here to stay like the flu each year. We'll likely never be free of it. We can find ways to control numbers somewhat (i.e. vaccine) but we can't keep up with these extreme measures for long.

MadameBlobby · 12/10/2020 10:44

@Betty94

Hello,

First I'd like to say I have been incredibly lucky and fortunate enough not to have had covid or have had any of my friends or family affected by it (apart from DH being made redundant) but I know how serious it is and the illness itself is devastating but I also feel the impact it's having on the economy and mental health is equally as devastating and it really does feel like we're living half a life -

I know the priminister is making an announcement tonight about going into "tier 3" which means pubs and gyms will be closed for 4 weeks (to six months) but I don't understand the point of it - what's the point of closing pubs and gyms but letting people mix at schools and work etc like you can't even meet with your own family (or you'll get accused of killing grandma) but mixing with people when you don't know where they've been and children mixing, you can't really expect kids to know to social distance or for teenagers to even care, they don't think about consequences ( I don't think I would have cared as a teenager as they tend to live in there here and now)

I just don't understand why we can't go in a full lockdown for 2-4 weeks, I understand the cost of that wouldn't be brilliant but people can still work from home and they can keep essential shops open like supermarkets so they wouldn't be paying as much as they did in March-June etc because surely if it carries on as it is then it's going to cost more in the long run (apparently tier 3 could last for six months but the virus won't be gone then)

Maybe I'm just being naive and stupid but I really don't see any other option - not going to the pub or the gym will not slow the virus down - I don't know what do people think would need doing so we can have some normality ? I know our opinions don't really matter and the government will do whatever they want really but I just wondered what other people thought

Because we did it for 3 months and it didn’t work. A “full lockdown” isn’t possible as people still need to go to work in key services, care for the vulnerable etc

Jaxhog · 12/10/2020 10:46

Actually the "quickest" way to get it sorted is no restrictions at all and it will burn out in few months once we've either caught it and recovered or died

I'm guessing that you're not a vulnerable person. Not only wouldn't this work, but the death toll and impact on the NHS would also be devastating.

borntohula · 12/10/2020 10:47

I'm more interested to know how you know what Boris will be announcing tonight.

romeolovedjulliet · 12/10/2020 10:47

it won't work because there are so many tossers who refuse to wear a mask when they are able to, those who are exempt then that's fine obviously, those who don't observe social distancing / wash hands.
those who are too thick to isolate properly when required to do so, breaking rules about bubbles etc. as for the 10pm curfew what was that supposed to achieve ?
the rules are there to help protect everyone but as long as there are arse holes out there this isn't going to get easier for anyone, especially given the time of year as well.

dottiedodah · 12/10/2020 10:48

We are "lucky" here in the south ATM .We have very low levels of infection .If the whole country locked down again ,how would that work to any more advantage ? Unis and large populated urban areas will always be at a slightly higher risk .Parts of the country will be locked down again for no real reason!

CarlaH · 12/10/2020 10:51

I have seen over the past few months a few people confidently saying that no pandemic lasts for ever and eventually this one will burn out.

I do wonder if the measures we are taking to try and reduce the numbers is going to mean that won't happen and it will just go on and on and on.

Haven't past pandemics just ripped through the population killing the weak and unlucky with strong ones shaking it off and becoming immune or lucky ones who don't get it at all or who have minimal symptoms?

milveycrohn · 12/10/2020 10:52

It is not really possible to do a FULL or COMPLETE lockdown, because life continues, ie;
Babies get born, people have heart attacks, or accidents at home, that require medical attention - eg fall down the stairs and break a leg, etc;
People need to shop for food, which require shop workers, deliveries, etc
So, if medical attention continues, and shopping continues, this requires contact with other people, thus transmitting the virus.
(Note I have omitted the continual medical attention, some of which was postponed, such as cancer diagnoses, mammograms, physiotherapy treatment, etc)

Secondly, some people live in larger households, where people become infected one after the other, so a household with 10 people could remain infected for maybe 10 weeks. (Obviously I doubt this would happen, as some people would be infected together, but it shows how a 4 week lockdown does not really work)

We had a 3 month lockdown in March, which did not work. There's no reason to think it would work this time.

The economic cost of the lockdown will be felt for many years. If you think it has not affected you, then you are fortunate, but this is because the cost will be born in the future, and yes, it will affect everyone.
Meanwhile, children's education suffered, people's mental health suffered, due to the isolation, etc

romeolovedjulliet · 12/10/2020 10:52

a vaccine wouldn't be the silver bullet either, anti vaxxers, those who can't have it for medical reasons, those who won't haveit full stop. the virus will always be with us in some shape or form, eventually we will have to learn to live along side it as we do so many other diseases in the world.

bibbitybobbitycats · 12/10/2020 10:53

@movingonup20

Because it's not possible to lock down in full and the transmission to symptoms (or no symptoms) is long so 4 weeks isn't sufficient unless everyone was alone, even kids thus not possible. Hospitals need to function, people need care, the kids of those workers need childcare, we need shops for groceries (not all of us have sufficient space for even a weeks worth of food, it's a nightmare being in a rental in a pandemic!) then there's all the other essential jobs ... lock down slows it doesn't stop.

Actually the "quickest" way to get it sorted is no restrictions at all and it will burn out in few months once we've either caught it and recovered or died - the collateral damage is not politically palatable but it's the speedy option (India seems to be following this option)

And in those few months the death toll will be massive and the NHS and economy would collapse.

sunflowers246 · 12/10/2020 10:54

Immunity, through both infection and/or vaccination is the only way this ends.

This

bibbitybobbitycats · 12/10/2020 10:56

I wonder if people would be saying let the virus "burn itself out" if those most at risk were under 30 with no underlying health conditions.

BrazenlyDefying · 12/10/2020 10:56

Because it won't work. And because not everyone can just work from home. And because we cant't afford it. And because we just need to accept this as a risk among many risks, and get on with it.

sunflowers246 · 12/10/2020 10:56

And in those few months the death toll will be massive and the NHS and economy would collapse.

Yes, the nhs would struggle and there'd be deaths, but the economy would bounce back very quickly.

bibbitybobbitycats · 12/10/2020 10:58

@sunflowers246

And in those few months the death toll will be massive and the NHS and economy would collapse.

Yes, the nhs would struggle and there'd be deaths, but the economy would bounce back very quickly.

Would it? Please explain how?

Port1aCastis · 12/10/2020 11:00

No because I will go bust, my business has tanked and I don't need another bout of useless lockdown to finish it off!

JacobReesMogadishu · 12/10/2020 11:00

Isn't that what we did in March? It didn't work. People don't stick to it. My neighbours were having relatives in the house when they shouldn't have been. So numbers might fall but then afetr 2-4 weeks when people come out of lock down they increase and after a few months you're back to square one.

romeolovedjulliet · 12/10/2020 11:00

@sunflowers246

And in those few months the death toll will be massive and the NHS and economy would collapse.

Yes, the nhs would struggle and there'd be deaths, but the economy would bounce back very quickly.

if you can tell us how this would work, i'd nominate you for the nobel peace prize !

sunflowers246 · 12/10/2020 11:02

Would it? Please explain how?

Because if there aren't any lockdowns or restrictions, businesses wouldn't have to let employees go or shut down. Consumers can continue to go shopping and companies can invest!

toffeekiwi · 12/10/2020 11:02

what's the point of closing pubs and gyms but letting people mix at schools and work etc

Because schools and work are essential for the economy. Schools mean people can go to work, lets not pretend that the government care about state education or the state schools wouldn't be in the mess that they are in financially. People mixing at work is a side effect of keeping the economy going, if they were bothered at all about people then they'd be concerned.

As it stands:

The government don't care about individuals, about schools, about the NHS, about public services. What they do care about is keeping the economy going. Why? Because they and their peers have a financial interest in many companies and they want to make as much profit as they can. That keeps them happy and keeps the donations to the political party coming in.

TheKeatingFive · 12/10/2020 11:02

A ‘short’ lockdown will achieve nothing.

Except significant job losses in those sectors hanging on by a thread as it is.

So that’s a no from me.