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

[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

But it wouldn’t work would it? You’re assuming that everyone who has already got or who subsequently contracts it will be better and no longer shedding the virus and that’s simply not true. There are a huge number of people for whom the active infection and therefore the shedding phase of the virus lasts a for far longer than the fortnight incubation period. To realistically totally eliminate it you would likely need to lock the entire country down for over 6 months. And I mean total lockdown- no one in, no one out, no travelling nor exercise for any reason whatsoever. That wouldn’t be mildly inconvenient it would be incredibly difficult to live with not to mention catastrophic for the economy. It wouldn’t just evaporate into a cloud of dead virus dust in 4 weeks unless we start culling those who test positive.

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.

I think you’ll find keeping the economy going is pretty crucial for the funding of the NHS, public services, schools and all those nice public sector salaries,

Or where do you think the money for all that comes from?

What do you think will happen afterwards op? That the virus will cease to exist?

At the risk of being flamed....I'm getting to the point now where I think that we need to close pubs/restaurants just so we can see what most of us know already and that is that there's a lot of transmission in schools and universities.

Because some business’s already o the edge will have to claw permanently. For what? To delay the inevitable?

Closing the economy down for 2/3/4 weeks doesn’t eradicate it, it just delays the spread for the number of weeks.

@TrustTheGeneGenie

What do you think will happen afterwards op? That the virus will cease to exist?

Like I said I was being naive but I can't really see an option where the virus just doesn't exist anymore and unless we're willing to sacrifice people (heard immunity or whatever) then I really don't know what the answer is but surely we can't continue to live half a life forever? I think it's the not knowing which is driving people to mental breakdowns and such, I just don't know what we can do, that's what I thought but it's obviously not viable.

@TheKeatingFive

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.

I think you’ll find keeping the economy going is pretty crucial for the funding of the NHS, public services, schools and all those nice public sector salaries,

Or where do you think the money for all that comes from?

Obviously it comes from the economy, however the fact is that the amount of funding the government puts into schools is woefully inadequate.

As for nice public sector salaries - the government pay me £900 a month for working 9 hour days. Nice public sector salary? Hardly.

I don't think we should be thinking in terms of "getting back to normality" for quite a while. I think it's much more about doing things in a different way for the time being. So I don't think a short term full lockdown would help very much.

Like I said I was being naive but I can't really see an option where the virus just doesn't exist anymore and unless we're willing to sacrifice people (heard immunity or whatever) then I really don't know what the answer is but surely we can't continue to live half a life forever? I think it's the not knowing which is driving people to mental breakdowns and such, I just don't know what we can do, that's what I thought but it's obviously not viable

You're right it won't ever go away!

Herd immunity is what we will do with a vaccine I guess but people will still die. People die every day. We can't live forever. It's very sad when people die and I don't think labelling it a "sacrifice" is helpful. It's nature, isn't it? As we get older we become more vulnerable and something that's a mild illness in someone younger can be what kills you as you get older. This is no new thing.

I agree 100% we can't carry on like this. For everyone we "save" from Corona we'll kill through poverty, suicide, missed or late diagnoses, no access to healthcare etc.

We aren't saving anyone were swapping the older generation for the younger and that I do not agree with unfortunately.

There are plenty of nice public sector salaries, all funded by revenue coming from the ‘economy’ that you think is only for rich people.

If people had the faintest clue of the public spending cuts that are coming their way as a result of all this, they’d be singing from a very different hymn sheet.

Lockdown for 2-4 weeks, so pushing the virus back to, let's see now, peak flu season? Yes, that would be sensible.

Op you keep saying that you can’t understand why shutting some locations won’t work if others are still open. The reason is surely that the more interactions that take place between people, the greater the number of places that people can go to then the higher the risk that the virus will spread? So shutting down places that are more discretionary (albeit the livelihood of many many people depends on them so it isn’t discretionary for them) simply reduces the risk. Of course we can still come into contact with people in other places. But the cross infection rate will surely be lower, the fewer the interactions there are. So it is all about lowering it not ever eliminating it.

What needs to happen is
Masks in the workplace.
Shield the vulnerable
Track and trace where the outbreaks are occurring and address those, so if its pubs, workplaces, gyms or universities, then take tougher measures there, or close them.
If its homes, then restrict to 2 families, no more than 6.

A full lockdown is too damaging to people and the economy

FFS lockdowns don't work. The virus will not go away. We have to find a way to make sure the NHS isn't overwhelmed while still ensuring people go to work, pay taxes, our children receive an education, people receive necessary healthcare.
The politicians have not been honest with us - there was no way the virus could be 'eradicated or 'beaten''. There will always be cases, even if and when a vaccine is found - we have to find the way of least harm. And it isn't lockdown

Because the virus doesn’t go away. It is always here. So you are prolonging
The problem

Arguably with no lockdown in March and just restrictions we could have ensured more
young people had it by now. Instead we keep pushing it into flu season

@TrustTheGeneGenie

Do you have parents or grandparents you're prepared to see die so that the younger population can carry on as normal?

There is a middle way you know

The problem, as others have pointed out, with a 'full lockdown' is that it isn't full. It can't be. Supermarkets, hospitals, carers for the elderly or disabled plus other health care people like district nurses, transport, water/gas/electric all have to run - imagine winter if the gas or electricity workers are shut down? Supermarkets have to be supplied, so farmers, abattoirs, warehouses, factories all have to keep running. Those workers have to get to work - so buses and trains have to keep going. And you have to keep the garages open so those who use cars can get petrol or parts for the car. Manufacturers of bus/train parts have to stay open or you quickly get buses off the road for the want of a fan belt for example.

There are a huge number of people who are 'essential' that we don't actually see - but they supply those we do see. And they will come back to their families, potentially with Covid. Plus, of course, those workers won't be able to work if their kids aren't at school. If you have a primary school age child who do you leave them with if you work in a factory and your DP drives a bus or is a doctor? Because in lockdown that child care will not exist - it didn't last time.

Gyms closing down make some sense as they are confined spaces where people mix. Those people are usually breathing hard and sweating so the viral output - if they have it - would probably be more wide spread. Some have put in excellent measures for containing viral spread but this virus is so new we really don't know if all this cleaning etc works.

And on that note, when was the last time your place of work did a swab test on surfaces to see if the chemicals you use actually kill Covid. That's assuming such a test exists?

Pubs and hospitality is a slightly different thing. Most pubs and restaurants are pretty Covid clued up. But it's the loosening of common sense that goes with having a few beers/glasses of wine that's the problem. It's when people leave that the mixing starts. Quite how a 10pm curfew helps I don't really know but the issue is getting people from the pub to their home without them jumping on each other, fighting, giving 'you're my best mate' hugs or inviting half the pub back to their flat to continue the party. Solve that and the pubs could stay open.

As for shielding the vulnerable. We have a DS who has a heart condition. He is allowed to go to school according to his consultant. If he weren't, DH and I would have to shield as he's 13 years old - he can't look after himself so can't shield alone. And what about those elderly people with dementia living at home? Those with disabilities or illnesses that cause mobility problems etc? If they can't have carers (some of whom may live with them - family or a live in carer) then they have to be found a hospital or care home bed because they can't take care of themselves. Shutting everyone in their homes is much harder than it sounds. Humans mix, they are communities of very diverse groups of people. And because they're not all young, fit, able to work from home etc you can't stick them into silos and hope for the best.

and if this virus affected mainly the young, like polio did in the 1950s, would you still be saying we need to sacrifice the young, so that life could carry on as normal, because its nature?

And with regard to the fact it will never go away. Neither has bubonic plague - we've lived with that for hundreds of years but do you know anyone who has had it?

However, we still get outbreaks of plague (even America has had cases) and there is no vaccine. But there is treatment for the plague. Probably the best we can hope for with Covid is a vaccination (possibly yearly like flu) and treatment if we become ill.

Obviously too late for this now but do you think anything could have been done prior to March to stop the spread? Maybe nov/dec when China was like oh by the way there's this virus, it's not great and we've had to build covid specific hospitals ... could more have been done then or do you think it was hard to manage? I know I wasn't taking it seriously back then (if only I knew)

Spain had a much stricter initial lockdown than we did, and to a lesser extent France - that hasn’t stopped major 2nd waves.

@sunflowers246

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!

So you don't think businesses would be affected by the virus if we let it spread freely (couple of examples - a business can't open because too many staff are off sick at the same time.A business has no customers because the virus in that area is making people too ill (and others too worried) to go out and spend money?). If that was the case,why would governments across the world not be taking this approach?

There is no one easy answer. Whatever we do, people are going to die and the economy is going to suffer. Another national lockdown may not be the answer, but neither is doing nothing other than SD, masks and handwashing.

Given the amount that claimed to be key workers the last time, unless the government were really strict a full lockdown wouldn’t work.

Better to stop travel, enforce quarantine at the borders for returning citizens like NZ, go fully remote with education to stop the huge gatherings with no masks or SD and far more spot checks on businesses with forced closure for non compliance for good.

Because different regions have different levels of infection and you would be jeopardising the livelihoods and incomes of people and businesses in low-infection rate areas with no likelihood that the UK wouldn't end up in the same position after the circuit-breaking lockdown? It might be helpful to understand why rates have risen in some regions and age groups before proposing a solution that might not impact on the issues.

@redvest

and if this virus affected mainly the young, like polio did in the 1950s, would you still be saying we need to sacrifice the young, so that life could carry on as normal, because its nature?

Did I miss the total lockdowns they had then to save children or?

I'd just consider my own child's risk as surely that's what parents did then?