Two week circuit breaker - who's in favour?

[zafferana]

Keir Starmer is in favour - so are you?

If they did it over the next two weeks I actually wouldn't mind that much, as it's half term.

@JamSarnie

In your opinion I would be a fool but then I think MN seem to have quite a high proportion of people screaming for lockdown (as well as bleaching food, wanting masks outside, wanting to lock people up).

Most people I know in RL from a variety of backgrounds, jobs and incomes do not favour lockdown at all.

The voting age population is 2:1 in favour according to polling.

The anti-lockdown voices are loud and strident but most people can understand that lots of hospitalisations = not good.

@toptreeroots1

My question would be and then what ?

Then you keep tier 1 restrictions over winter presumably with another two weeks maybe in three months' time?

The lower the numbers the better.

The mistake a lot of people made, led by our stupid politicians, was thinking this would all be over quickly.

• The voting age population is 2:1 in favour according to polling.

The anti-lockdown voices are loud and strident but most people can understand that lots of hospitalisations = not good.*

And polls have never been wrong 😆.

Be good to put it to the test wouldn't it given that it has such a big impact on everyone.

@rainytreeleaves

I'm in.

My hospital is overwhelmed and patients and staff are already suffering. Patients electives are already needing to be cancelled due to lack of beds and appointments stepping down.

I don't get the 'kick the can down the road' thing. This is with us isn't it? Until it's not? I thought we were always going to have to cycle in and out of restrictions when the pendulum swings too far toward health effects (like March and now) and the economy effects (over the summer and likely xmas)

This.

I think as we fucked up on getting an effective testing system in place alongside restrictions that would help keep things open, then a series of lockdown is our only option.

And polls have never been wrong

Polls are not often wrong on straight questions like that, as they just report the numbers.

The election polls that were astray, once, were to do with complex modelling/projections.

This poll seems pretty intuitive tbh. There's a consistent quarter of people who are contrary/anti-science in the UK. However the majority of people will look at rising hospitalisations/deaths and think 'I would like that to be stopped'.

This poll seems pretty intuitive tbh. There's a consistent quarter of people who are contrary/anti-science in the UK. However the majority of people will look at rising hospitalisations/deaths and think 'I would like that to be stopped'.

Ah yes the sly comment there about being anti science. Waiting for the 'anti lockdown means you are anti vaccine conspiracy theorists' .

I'm not in favour.

Polls said that the Brexiteers would lose!
But it doesn’t really matter what people say in answer to a poll, it matters what they do.
So if everyone who had misgivings about the lockdown fails to comply then it’s pointless.

No.

Businesses are in crisis. As two posters above have said, suicides and domestic violence are on the rise. People are dying because they're not getting the treatments they need for cancer, heart disease etc. Unemployment is going up at an extraordinary rate. Food banks are struggling to keep up with increased demand.

There are a lot of paid anti lockdown ‘Pro business’ voices online and people amplifying them. People who say things like ‘polls have never been wrong’ when there is such a big preference in one direction and no modelling needed are probably not able to understand exponential growth and why ‘kicking the can down the road’ is a good thing in this situation.

Ah yes the sly comment there about being anti science. Waiting for the 'anti lockdown means you are anti vaccine conspiracy theorists'

It wasnt intended to be sly it was intended to be blatant because those who don't listen to SAGE are anti-science, the mainstream science community is on pretty much the same page that we need to act.

Is the same as climate science, sure you can find scientists who disagree but science is almost totally on the one side.

@HelloMissus

Polls said that the Brexiteers would lose! But it doesn’t really matter what people say in answer to a poll, it matters what they do. So if everyone who had misgivings about the lockdown fails to comply then it’s pointless.

No, polls said it was very close, and it was very close.

Lockdown isn’t what’s preventing normal levels of treatment for other illnesses. It’s the pandemic.

Also it’s made up that suicides are on the rise. It may seem like a reasonable guess, but we don’t know because suicide data has a massive lag because it isn’t recorded until coroners inquests are completed.

Yes do it, it’s going to happen in a few weeks when cases are rising exponentially and public opinion changes. But if we do it then it’ll make a lot less difference.

Will people comply though? I know quite a few who won’t. That’s what makes it a difficult choice.

However, a paper by members of the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (Sage), obtained by The Times and due to be published today, challenges his position. It shows that a two-week full lockdown, with stay-at-home orders and school closures, from October 24 could reduce deaths for the rest of the year from about 19,900 to 12,100. Hospital admissions could be reduced from 132,400 to 66,500.

Hospital admissions halved would-be a good result.

@PracticingPerson

Ah yes the sly comment there about being anti science. Waiting for the 'anti lockdown means you are anti vaccine conspiracy theorists'

It wasnt intended to be sly it was intended to be blatant because those who don't listen to SAGE are anti-science, the mainstream science community is on pretty much the same page that we need to act.

Is the same as climate science, sure you can find scientists who disagree but science is almost totally on the one side.

But society isnt JUST about following science is it? Its about a whole load of other things, like the economy and education. You cant have hospitals and train doctors and nurses without either of those things can you? They all have to be balanced.

Personally, I could cope with a short sharp lockdown. I wouldnt say I'm in any way in favour but I could do it for two weeks. Any longer than that and I would probably give up. People are sick and tired of being told what they cant do, especially when all of the restrictions we've had put on us lately seem to have made little difference. The government have lost the tiny threads of trust that they did have; and everyone is just tired of it. Does anyone really think for one second it'd just be two weeks? I could see two easily turning into four and then four turning into "just until xmas" and then "just until we reach the spring" - would people really comply with that?!

How would 2 weeks work differently this time, than in March....?

A lot of people seemed to think the March lockdown "was meant to be 3 weeks" I dont think they originally put a timescale on it but said they would review in 3 weeks (not that it would be over in3 weeks) .....and then subsequently every 3 weeks.
How is this going to be different?
Outside MN lots of people will still need to go to work to keep services running (food production, warehouses, supermarkets, telecoms, utilities, public transport, power stations, banking etc as well as public sector workers)
Why would 2 weeks in October/November , at potentially a similar stage in the virus growth curve, make a bigger difference than 2 weeks in March/April?
Or are we aiming for reduction on a smaller scale than before?

I was not in favour because I worry it would be extended if numbers do not significantly reduce in that period. However reading some people's posts on MN regarding their interpretations of guidelines and the rule of six, I think it might be necessary. The sense of personal and collective responsibility is just not there, people generally do not give a sh** anymore.

Unless the powers that be actually enforce it is a bit pointless. It needs covid officers or some such.

It's only worth it if they put test and trace totally in the hands of local public health teams. I'd like to see the period of self isolation reduced to 7 days to ensure better compliance. Asking people to stay in doors for 2 weeks when they are well is a huge ask. Close contacts of + cases should self isolate for 7 days and be tested on day 5 of their isolation. Those self isolating should not lose money if they have to stay off work. They're should definitely be penalties enforced for those who treat positive and do not self isolate for 10 days.

SI compliance is currently very low. 20%? There's no point having a circuit Bradley only to go back to more of the same.

Selfishly, I do not want an Oct half term lockdown as we've planned some university campus visits and my DD desperately needs some glimmer of her possible future next year. And I feel for the self catering industry who are no doubt fully booked for half term, plus hospitality businesses. October is often still nice enough that you can enjoy an outdoor coffee in your coat or fish and chips along the coast, so people can still holiday and be sensible. I can see why half term fits in better with those school pupils not to lose too much face to face learning.

But no, not without a more competent, empathetic government response.

Why would 2 weeks in October/November , at potentially a similar stage in the virus growth curve, make a bigger difference than 2 weeks in March/April?
How does doing nothing make a difference? (For the better)

I'd like to see the period of self isolation reduced to 7 days to ensure better compliance
Sadly Covid will not agree to reducing its incubation period to suit..

Close contacts of + cases should self isolate for 7 days and be tested on day 5 of their isolation
No, no, no