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.

I am but for selfish reasons, I m fit to drop and my mental health is very fragile at the minute. The first lockdown brought me back from the edge and I am really struggling again. Two weeks at home sounds lovely and I m on leave anyway as I don’t work school holidays. However I don’t think just two weeks would achieve much and I don’t want schools to close, I also know even just two weeks would be very damaging for some people emotionally and financially.

I’d rather mine had to repeat the school year if need be and do what it takes to stop cases and hospitals being overwhelmed. I don’t want other treatments etc put on hold for people as health is more important than education. The latter can be caught up on or done remotely.

essex county council has requested to go into tier 2 before the numbers get too high

people are already up in arms about that saying they wont comply

We had a 12 week lockdown and we back at where we were before. You cant control a virus. You cant eliminate a virus. All you can do is stall it, but things eventually have to open again and it will go back to infecting people.

A 2 week one is a complete waste of time and simply an exercise in keeping those who dont want to face the idea that this is what living with covid looks like with covid happy.

simply an exercise in keeping those who dont want to face the idea that this is what living with covid looks like with covid happy

No, it is an exercise in reducing the numbers of people dying with covid.

*I don't understand why people don't understand that the whole point is to pause things!

If we pause-release-pause-release far fewer people will die, both from covid and non-covid causes.

Do you want hospitals to be so full of covid patients everything else gets cancelled?

I don't understand, genuinely, why this concept doesn't make sense to some.*

Why was this in answer to someone saying businesses cant afford it? Nowhere in your answer have you explained how this works without money...

I sort of get the kicking the can down the road thing because if we keep delaying the inevitable eventually (hopefully) new treatments or vaccines might actually stop the inevitable......BUT it needs to be paid for.

For all the MN people who can bunk down for the winter and have 48 days worth of food in preparation, there are other people who need to go out to work to keep a roof over their head and food on the table, and businesses who have struggled to stay afloat after being closed for months

Why is that so hard to understand ....?

Out of interest and off topic probably how does this end. Even with a vaccine how will things get back to normality? Presumably won't just happen overnight?

here we go with the lockdown hokey cokey. Cant take credit for this phrase , it was another Mner.

No. If two weeks was enough, the last lockdown would only have lasted two weeks instead of months.

Aside from that, I attended more domestics during the last lockdown than at any other time in career (police) and saw the absolutely awful consequences of people already in violent relationships cooped up with their partners. I attended more suicides, dealt with even more mental health crises than normal.

I would not support this in any way and am growing increasingly tired of this ever more embedded brainwashing that only Covid matters.

No. Just delaying the inevitable. Plus people won;t comply now.

@GabsAlot Im in Essex It might help if homeless people didnt have to pick up discarded face masks to use.

@PracticingPerson, no it's an exercise in locking everyone away so people dont die now, but they die in december or january when things inevitably open up, and we are still in flu season. We cant do this every 2 months.

I'd support it with a different government, but this one can't be trusted.

Yes I would support this but think schools would need to be included in the shutdown as too many households would still be mixing. Also think it would have to be more like 3weeks to drive the infection rate down. However, when it’s time to reopen this would have to be done more slowly with social contact up to 6 first, monitored for a few weeks for an impact on infection levels followed by schools, a monitoring period, followed by another sector etc

Why was this in answer to someone saying businesses cant afford it? Nowhere in your answer have you explained how this works without money..

Not tackling the virus will cost more long term.

Absolutely not.

Not if they closed schools. I can't work from home in my industry and I can hardly leave my 7 year old home alone so that would mean no income for us.

They have had eight months to sort this and do T and T properly.

Instead they gave contracts to their mates EIGHT FUCKING MONTHS

So now people may have to have another lockdown because they put giving millions to their mates at Serco first They can fuck off.

I’m no fan of this government, or any government, but people need to take some fucking responsibility. People taking masks off as soon as they get on the bus, not wearing masks around shops, making excuses as to why they need to break the rules, regarding numbers indoors, etc. Maybe if less people hadn’t taken unnecessarily risks, things wouldn’t be as bad as they are now. These are the same ones that are going to be crying the loudest, when it all turns to shit again, while taking no bloody personal responsibility.

[quote SqidgeBum]@PracticingPerson, no it's an exercise in locking everyone away so people dont die now, but they die in december or january when things inevitably open up, and we are still in flu season. We cant do this every 2 months. [/quote]
I don't think you understand that once hospitals are full, thirty year olds in RTAs will die, operations cancelled, strokes untreated etc etc.

This isn't just about over-80s.

No! SAGE advice is the medical advice, Govt also have to take into account broader advice in terms of the economy and general social wellbeing.

I'm leaning towards a 2 or 3 week lockdown now (well, from next week anyway) and if needed, a lockdown after Christmas for January.

@IfIHadAHeart, not 2 weeks just for the sake of it, but 2 weeks when the best brains gather together and come up with some coherent policies?

Won't be happening though, because we would rather play goodies and baddies with the 2 parties ( fueled by the media)

However I'd be happy to not have deliveries of anything other than food or medicine, not have any repairs to my home unless my life was in danger etc etc.

You might be happy with no repairs but if my boiler packs up I don't want to wait 3 weeks for heating and a shower!

Unless they backed it up some how it wouldn’t work. I’m in a lockdown area and we have raising cases.