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

I don't think people actually understand what's meant by circuit breaker. When it was used in NZ it was to give the tracking/testing team a chance to catch up. A two week lockdown will do virtually nothing to stop the virus spread.

Arguably the 3 month lockdown we did have wasn't long enough to get numbers down sufficiently to open up.

Arguably the 3 month lockdown we did have wasn't long enough to get numbers down sufficiently to open up

It absolutely was. Numbers were incredibly low.

It's pointless.

Lockdown gave the government time to put track & trace and testing systems in place.

They failed in every measure.

There's no point having another lockdown until they can guarantee they'll have the control systems in place to make it worthwhile.

It absolutely was. Numbers were incredibly low.

Not low enough not to rise fairly quickly afterwards unfortunately.

@toptreeroots1

The damage done by closing schools again would be unbelievable imo

This.

Lockdown just makes people go mad when it's lifted.

Sensible ongoing measures are much more likely to be abided by long term.

@TheKeatingFive

It absolutely was. Numbers were incredibly low.

Not low enough not to rise fairly quickly afterwards unfortunately.

They could be as low as one and it's still possible to rise. It's a virus. That's what is does.

Lockdown just makes people go mad when it's lifted.

Sensible ongoing measures are much more likely to be abided by long term.

Yes. I think this is what Sweden understood from very early on. Better to figure out what can be maintained for a much longer time frame.

A two week lockdown will do virtually nothing to stop the virus spread.

Exactly and the economic damage is huge

They could be as low as one and it's still possible to rise. It's a virus. That's what is does.

Sure. However countries that got numbers down lower than most European countries and were relentless in pursuing flare ups are probably looking 'better' than much of Europe right now.

It's a moot point though. It would take another 4 month lockdown to get us back to that point. I'm not advocating that, it would finish most of us off.

But lets stop talking about 2 week 'circuit breakers' because that's just silly.

@TheKeatingFive

They could be as low as one and it's still possible to rise. It's a virus. That's what is does.

Sure. However countries that got numbers down lower than most European countries and were relentless in pursuing flare ups are probably looking 'better' than much of Europe right now.

It's a moot point though. It would take another 4 month lockdown to get us back to that point. I'm not advocating that, it would finish most of us off.

But lets stop talking about 2 week 'circuit breakers' because that's just silly.

At least we can agree on that

Whatever control measure happens, the ideal is to have a firm grip what the objective is by doing it.

As things stand, we are lurching along waiting for the miracle cure that could stop the cycles of damaging and unsustainable control measures, without properly understanding what harms and benefits are being traded off each time. The only thing that comforts me is that if everyone is unhappy about the situation, then probably no one group is missing out from being harmed. That's as good as it gets for equity ideals right now.

It's a moot point though. It would take another 4 month lockdown to get us back to that point. I'm not advocating that, it would finish most of us off.

It sure would. Including hitting taxes to pay for health care we need.

As another poster mentioned there are basically three options:

1. seal every one in a box for a month then close the borders forever- not very realistic!

2. Develop a vaccine and distribute it to the vulnerable - this will take quite some time.

3. no restrictions and achieve herd immunity that way.

Exactly. What lockdowns do is simply extend the overall time period as it just temporarily slows the spread of the virus for a few weeks.

Or 4) an effective track, trace and isolate system

Or 5) actually social distance, wear masks, wash hands and minimise group contact in non socially distanced or adequately ventilated indoor settings

3. I thought the jury was out on whether having Covid provided meaningful immunity (unless you’re Donald Trump and immune and bathed in a glow or whatever)

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

There's your problem straight away. It will continue to spread in "essential" services, like shops. There will also be lots of other "essential" services like delivery drivers, emergency services, fuel stations, council workers, emergency plumbers & locksmiths, etc etc. Add in to that all those "essential" trips to see Granny to take her a pint of milk because she doesn't "do" the internet, etc etc. For it to work it would have to be an absolute lockdown, i.e. nothing at all open, no movement at all. Basically, everyone would need to get their provisions in beforehand and stay indoors, no exceptions, no excuses. That is impossible.

@Wherehavetheteletubbiesgone

Even during the first lockdown people were going to the shops multiple times a week. People were not taking it seriously minimising contact. It was stupid that i click and collected my food shopping once every 3 weeks, and couldn't go to the garden centre once, but down the road went into the corner shop every day for a paper and daily food. It's obvious which is the greater risk of transmission.

A short hard full lockdown with no shopping no exceptions may work or otherwise we just need to learn to live with covid and adjust to proper mask wearing.

A short hard full lockdown is utterly pointless unless we close our borders at the same time. Otherwise it'll just come back in from other countries and will have achieved nothing.

That's basically what they did in China. But it's not going to work without mass testing, contact tracing and isolation.

Probably the best we can hope for with Covid is a vaccination (possibly yearly like flu)

I thought COVID didn’t mutate like the flu so wouldn’t need annual flu shots or anything. Assuming they come up with vaccine (HIV doesn’t have one after all)

Used I think it’s more to do with antibodies waning

I think it’s more to do with antibodies waning

Hard to imagine that would be needed annually though.

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)

Maybe things like London Fashion Week should have been stopped. As a household we think it was here Oct/Nov due to illness in the family that required hospitalisation and included all the symptoms. People in the same ward were dying when we were there. At any rate it shouldn't have been kept quiet for so long.

@SlopesOff

My twin sons were hospitalized in feb with 'a really nasty viral infection' that im now fairly sure could have been coronavirus going by the symptoms they had.

Another lockdown is pointless.
Delaying the inevitable. This isn't going away anytime soon so we need to learn to live with it. Shutting everything down isnt the answer.

Interested in what is meant by the phrase learn to live with it

To me that means sorting out testing and supported isolation, virus suppression

To others it seems to mean " I'll live with it and other will die, so be it"

I'd appreciate it if people could indicate which form of learning to live with it they mean