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.

Not as many as there are young and middle aged people who are healthy and who are now kept hostage.

Yes, I know, I read it.

SAGE can call for a circuit breaker at Christmas all they want- it doesn’t mean people will comply. I think the chances of people not seeing their families at Christmas are pretty much zero.

@Ecosse I agree that it is likely people will be able to see families on Christmas day. However my worry is that it might just be a relaxation of rules for a couple of days which would ruin other things people might have planned leading up to Christmas or during the school holidays.

See fig 2 in this article about Karl friston's views, for a model of how strategically planned 2 week breaks could keep the death toll really quite low over the next year or 2.

The only metric we should be worrying about is hospital capacity. People die from all sorts of things on a regular basis and we take no action whatsoever.

15 people die every day from domestic accidents and I don’t think I’ve ever seen a media report on this in my life.

I'm in favour completely.

Utterly pointless.

No, because. Once we are let out again. It will start spreading again, because it’s a virus.

@KentMum81

It won’t work IMHO

I understand the idea and agree it could work, in theory. However, in practice it won’t work as, for it to work, absolutely every single person would have to lockdown for 21 days, without exception.
This obviously isn’t possible, as we need essential services and for those to run, we need the workers who support them.
Every single person is a possible incubator and conductor of this virus and it simply isn’t possible for life to continue and function without people being in contact with other people.
It would reduce numbers, temporarily, but as soon as it’s relaxed, we’ll be in exactly the same position we’re in now.

Quite. Went into a bit more details one here, hope you don't mind, but my reply would include a lot f the same things so..

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/coronavirus/4051277-Urgent-can-two-households-still-mix-in-restaurants?msgid=100898071

Some clearly do believe it would just disappear with a strict enough lockdown, but you are indeed correct that the only way that could happen, is shutting EVERYTHING. Including the borders indefinitely, for any reason.

I think support for a lockdwn would be in the single digits tbh, if it was going to be power plants, ISPs, hospitals, carehomes, all shops, no police, no fire brigade, etc. Luckily most realise thats just smply not possible.

There are of course, other reasons people want lockdown. It would be possible to make numbers low again (though it would need to be more than 2 weeks I think in reality), though not gone of course. But after this, there would have to be a system that identifies cases, quickly, and traces quickly and effectively. Which we do not have. And likely never will with what the government is doing, with the bunging money to mates who have no clue how to do what they are being paid millios/billions for! We were promised quick testing (at a large capacity too) and a working T&T after the last '3 week' lockdown. Months later, we still do not have one that works, or testing thats quick. Depressing as fuck.

Its a pause button, effectively. It would halt deaths, that seems a fact. But opening up would lead us back to square one. I don't know the answer, but I disagree with both a lockdown, and 'the herd immunity plan'(which is, not possible really if you think about it a bit, protecting he vulnerable is not a possibiity for many 'vulnerable', and thats before getting into how many scietists say it simple would not work)

Both endless lockdown/s and 'herd immunity' would fuck the economy. And lives. Which would do less damage..I really do think its 50/50 at this bloody stage. Which is annoying as if the government did what they were meat to do last time around, we likely wouldn't be in this mess now!

@NRatched
I don’t mind at all. I see we are of the same mind on this!

Late to the thread, but no. It's pointless, just long enough to infect others in your household before everyone goes back to school.

Plus side is that it would free up some hospital beds, as those who are sick with it would hopefully recover and leave hospital.

If we have a lockdown like March many people will struggle to cope including elderly people living alone, people losing jobs etc this will create different health issues

The government has repeatedly mentioned no further lockdowns. Why are people still believing there will be one??

@PollyPelargonium52

The government has repeatedly mentioned no further lockdowns. Why are people still believing there will be one??

Because the government lie Because the government have made repeated U-turns. Because the government are ‘following the science’ which changes. Sometimes they don’t follow the science.

The papers are all talking about it happening which suggests that it has been leaked to them, which suggests it probably will happen.

They also wouldn’t call it a lockdown, they’d call it a circuit break which would be different. Except it wouldn’t be. But nobody will challenge them on it.