I know it’s not possible, but....

[PuzzledObserver]

A 3-week hard lockdown would kill the virus stone dead, wouldn’t it?

Everyone stock up for 3 weeks..... vulnerable would need carers to move in.... and then literally everyone stays put for 3 weeks, except in medical or life-threatening emergencies.

The virus would have nowhere to go.

I’m not saying it’s practical, or will ever happen, but in theory it should work.

No, it wouldn't work.

There will always need to be some places open where people will mix. Those medical or life threatening emergencies you mention, for example, will need people to care for them.

Added to that the mad panic shopping that would ensue if such a thing was imposed would mean more people mixing in shops, and three weeks would give it just enough time to filter through households ready to explode once restrictions eased.

Nothing is going to get rid of it now, it's endemic.

Well it would possibly kill the virus stone dead, but it would also kill lots of people stone dead.

How about people already in hospital? How about people who have a medical emergency? Do you want running water and electricity?

So it will probably kill the virus along with large numbers of the population.

A 3-week hard lockdown would kill the virus stone dead, wouldn’t it?

No it wouldn’t.

It could still be moving through household groups at that point.

Unless you think we should all be self isolating for that period, including small children?

His would it work in three weeks? If you have a household of 4 people it can take longer than that to spread from one to the other and work its way through the house.

Health care workers that go into people's houses to help them with essential personal hygiene tasks would still be visiting 10+ visits a day.

Same with district nursing.

They can't move in but are still needed.

I think a form of what you have suggested might work but only when the key workers that provide this care are all vaccinated.

Not sure how it worked out in Spain when they had only one person allowed out of the house for food and to collect medicine once a week. I know their restrictions were much tighter than ours in the first lockdown.

No, it wouldn’t. I think people need to get past the idea that we’re going to be able to get rid of the virus. We’re not. The vaccine will be rolled out to the more vulnerable groups, this will take pressure off the hospitals, the restrictions will be lifted and we’ll just get on with it.

So what about people in hospital, care homes, hospices, sick people at home with external carers - who would look after them? What about prisons, the police, the border force, the water abd energy suppliers? Are you happt to live without water, power and gas for 4 weeks, OP? What about vulnerable and homeless people? What about GP's and pharmacies - should they also just close, so if your child gets an eye infection or you need antibiotics because you have mastitis, you don't get them?

The vaccine will be rolled out to the more vulnerable groups, this will take pressure off the hospitals, the restrictions will be lifted and we’ll just get on with it.

What concerns me is that this won’t be good enough for some people.

The low risk types (who are actually at more risk from flu) will be clamouring to be ‘kept safe’ and won’t countenance going back to work/normal life until they’re vaccinated (which will be years at this stage).

To late for that I think

That wouldn't work. Last lock down my mothers ventilator, main plug socket and stair lift all broke down (on different dates). Repair guys had to come in. Not all carers can move in with those they care for. I have children to look after while my husband works shifts. I cannot move in with my father and leave my children behind, nor can they move in because there is no room.

Who is going to staff the hospitals if the staff with children and no other option can’t put them in school/nursery or are schools not going to shut in your lockdown

Man-in-the-pub who is pissed and loud-mouthed solution. Silly.

Lots of people aren't paying any attention to the rules. There's no way they'd lockdown fully for 3 weeks and then it would be waste of time for those that do.

@TheKeatingFive

The vaccine will be rolled out to the more vulnerable groups, this will take pressure off the hospitals, the restrictions will be lifted and we’ll just get on with it.

What concerns me is that this won’t be good enough for some people.

The low risk types (who are actually at more risk from flu) will be clamouring to be ‘kept safe’ and won’t countenance going back to work/normal life until they’re vaccinated (which will be years at this stage).

Society won't tolerate this though, everyone wants back to normal now and these people will simply lose their jobs if they refused to go back to work

Society won't tolerate this though, everyone wants back to normal now and these people will simply lose their jobs if they refused to go back to work

Well I hope you are right, but I’m thinking heavily unionised, public sector workers in the first instance. I’m sure you know who I mean.

Three weeks wouldn’t be long enough. It would need to be a minimum of two weeks per person in the house, family of three, six weeks.

This crisis is frighteningly revealing.
Astounding how many people have such limited thought processes.

It would need to be longer than 3 weeks but the principle is right. It would need to be combined with a properly functioning test & trace system and proper financial support for people who need to SI or care for people who are self isolating.

You couldn’t lock everyone down but the harder the lockdown the quicker the numbers will fall and the quicker you’ll get down to a level where Test trace and isolate can manage to stop outbreaks and you can use it to mass test an entire town or city if you find a cluster of cases there.

No it wouldn't work and the panic buying would be off the scale!!

I think that's unrealistic in any case, but even if the virus was eradicated in this country, what about the rest of the world which won't all have the same policy? The virus would soon be back in the country and we'd be back to square one.

Not possible in theory or in practice.

Almost as ridiculous as the 'shield the vulnerable and everyone else go on their way' suggestion.

OP, I don’t think you realise how many millions of people work in the kind of essential jobs that you can’t do from home. Such as the vast majority of hospital staff, including cleaners, porters, and caterers. The utility workers running power stations, water treatment plants, sewage works. The entire food supply chain from farmers and growers to lorry drivers, cargo ship crews, food processing factories, supermarket staff. Even niche ones you may not have considered, like undertakers.
A lockdown only removes office workers from the infection pool. The rest of us will still be out there, fully exposed to infection. So, no, sorry, your idea would not work.

@Babdoc. Agreed.

Plus OP, New Zealand makes people quarantine for two weeks when flying in to NZ. We dont. Far from it.

Plus, dont forget the virus allegedly started with just one person or a handful. Even if you asked for the whole world to shut down for 3 weeks, far too many key workers are essential.

No, it wouldn’t. I think people need to get past the idea that we’re going to be able to get rid of the virus. We’re not.

This.

OK, not a good idea.

To answer a few points: I envisaged essential workers staying at their place of work.... and I thought 3 weeks would be enough for everyone in a closed environment to catch it if they were going to.

There’s no need to be rude. It was only an idea.