If you are against the lockdown policy, what is your alternative?

[cheeseismydownfall]

I'm sure we all agree that lockdown is truly shit for so many reasons - the long term economic impact on the country and individuals, the knock on impact on other critical aspects of health care, the damage to children's education, the mental health crisis. I know many people feel very uncomfortable about the civil liberty aspect of lockdown. And I completely understand that many people are deeply angry with how the situation was handled, and feel that we would be in a better place now if the government had taken different decisions.

But for those of you who are 'anti lockdown' - what is the alternative, now we are in the position we are in? We saw after Christmas what will happen to the NHS if there is no effort made to check transmission. It will be overwhelmed. And the impact to society if the NHS fails seems pretty scary to me.

Shielding the elderly and vulnerable isn't practical in reality because of intergenerational dependence, so I think that is off the cards.

The only other option would seem to be utterly ruthless about triage, which would see covid patients left to die in their homes - forcibly restrained there if need be. That to me is the stuff of nightmares.

So what are the other options? This is not a goady post - I am genuinely interested in how other people would approach this.

Following with interest

Flip this will get interesting !

The answer you will get will invariably be a version of "lock up the elderly and vulnerable and let everyone else get on with it" despite the fact this is impossible, facts don't mean much to many of the vocal anti lockdown/covid sceptics

I'm not anti lockdown.

If I were in charge I would ensure that children were the number one priority when making any decisions.

Probably not what you want to hear though.

"
If I were in charge I would ensure that children were the number one priority when making any decisions."

Why?

Why?

Because, imo, they are the most vulnerable in n society and have no voice. Also because they are just starting out in life and deserve every chance.

I realise that will fill many on here with rage.

Children are not the most vulnerable in society from Covid. Also I don't think there is a ranking regarding vulnerability. Your child may be in a less vulnerable position than another posters disabled adult son with complex medical needs.
But I do see where you are coming from. There are a lot of children at home in not ideal situations with very little support

But if you make the children number one priority who do you expect to teach them ? Because they will be adults, who can get v sick and die. And I can assure you that trying to explain to children why their teacher has died is more damaging to their mental health than lockdown. Especially for the child who was the first case in he class and knows full well they probably passed it to the teacher. Everyone is finding this tough. But they are staying alive and well. 1,400+ people died today, and yesterday and the day before. That's a decent size secondary school dying daily.

@Januaryissodull

Why?

Because, imo, they are the most vulnerable in n society and have no voice. Also because they are just starting out in life and deserve every chance.

I realise that will fill many on here with rage.

Not filled with rage at all, but definitely curious as to what your proposed alternative child-centric solution is?

The problem with prioritising children (if you mean school opening) is that they are not isolated from their families. I teach in a really crowded inner London borough where multigenerational living is the norm. We know that the virus transmits easily in households.

But if you make the children number one priority who do you expect to teach them ? Because they will be adults, who can get v sick and die. And I can assure you that trying to explain to children why their teacher has died is more damaging to their mental health than lockdown. Especially for the child who was the first case in he class and knows full well they probably passed it to the teacher. Everyone is finding this tough. But they are staying alive and well. 1,400+ people died today, and yesterday and the day before. That's a decent size secondary school dying daily.

It isn't solely about schools or having schools open/closed.

There is a lot more that could have been done from the start to mitigate the impact on children.

Continue to vaccinate the elderly and vulnerable, then open up, as surely the hospitalisation rates should be much lower then?

I agree. It's so much more than just schools. I think the 16-25 age group have been hit the hardest and need support. But they seem to be forgotten. Kids need different support, to socialise and learn new skills. There are ways we could do this, but they cost money.

It would indeed be shielding the elderly (as per Great Barrington Declaration - look it up if you haven't already) and removing most other restrictions but still being common sense about avoiding major crowded situations, e.g. tables still more spread out in restaurants, sports events on reduced capacity.
Give families, just until the end of this term and maybe beyond if needed, the choice though, of whether their kids go back to school in person or whether they continue through remote learning, now that the technology is set up - so that multi-generation households or people with someone high risk in their house can still choose to keep the kids at home (but being mindful too of what is best for the children, i.e. they have to make sure that the children, if not in school, do still get out for plenty of outdoor play and are not effectively locked at home). Let schools manage the logistics themselves e.g. like whether the same teacher teaches the remote group on zoom/teams at the same time or whether other staff take the remote learners when it's a live lesson.
Absolutely no mandatory masks anywhere apart from maybe some medical jobs - I'm exempt myself but there is plenty of science that can be found showing that cloth ones are ineffective and have enough bad side effects to more than cancel out any very minor benefit in very close-contact situations.
I also wouldn't have an issue with making teachers higher priority for vaccine, although a lot of them wouldn't actually need to be.

no mandatory masks anywhere apart from maybe some medical jobs - I'm exempt myself but there is plenty of science that can be found showing that cloth ones are ineffective and have enough bad side effects to more than cancel out any very minor benefit in very close-contact situations.

@yellowgirl1 this is complete nonsense. There is no robust evidence (show me well designed, low risk of bias, replicated research) to suggest cloth masks have harmful side effects. And there's plenty of evidence to show they reduce transmission.

It’s going to be very difficult for the government to justify lockdown measures once the vulnerable are vaccinated. We will have to accept that some people will still die, just like people die of cancer, pneumonia, heart attacks, in accidents, etc. Those who are vulnerable can choose to continue to shield themselves if they wish, and be supported in doing so (provided they meet some criteria or other) but nothing compulsory.

@yellowgirl1

It would indeed be shielding the elderly (as per Great Barrington Declaration - look it up if you haven't already) and removing most other restrictions but still being common sense about avoiding major crowded situations, e.g. tables still more spread out in restaurants, sports events on reduced capacity. Give families, just until the end of this term and maybe beyond if needed, the choice though, of whether their kids go back to school in person or whether they continue through remote learning, now that the technology is set up - so that multi-generation households or people with someone high risk in their house can still choose to keep the kids at home (but being mindful too of what is best for the children, i.e. they have to make sure that the children, if not in school, do still get out for plenty of outdoor play and are not effectively locked at home). Let schools manage the logistics themselves e.g. like whether the same teacher teaches the remote group on zoom/teams at the same time or whether other staff take the remote learners when it's a live lesson. Absolutely no mandatory masks anywhere apart from maybe some medical jobs - I'm exempt myself but there is plenty of science that can be found showing that cloth ones are ineffective and have enough bad side effects to more than cancel out any very minor benefit in very close-contact situations. I also wouldn't have an issue with making teachers higher priority for vaccine, although a lot of them wouldn't actually need to be.

"Absolutely no mandatory masks anywhere apart from maybe some medical jobs - I'm exempt myself but there is plenty of science that can be found showing that cloth ones are ineffective and have enough bad side effects to more than cancel out any very minor benefit in very close-contact situations." This has been proven to be bollocks, please take no notice of this statement

And the "Great Barrington declaration" is unworkable nonsense pushed by struck-off medics and other batshit attention seekers

The impact to society if the NHS fails seems pretty scary to me

I agree with the principle but not the tense; except for emergency medicine (and good luck even with that) the NHS has already failed, and much of what's left amounts to clinging to the wreckage

I'm ready to reconsider this view if anyone can justify the closed sign staying up even over the summer ... or the current situation where private care's available but NHS not ... but though it's been mentioned countless times that's another issue which is never addressed

As for "the alternative", and with the usual caveat about whether the vaccines work, I believe the only realistic one may be to get on with it and accept there'll be more deaths

To be honest, I thought what we had in tier 3 was going fine. Bars and cafes still allowed to open, only mixing outdoors with people not in your household etc. No large gatherings. Would have allowed businesses to stay open without much of a detrimental effect on numbers. Our local bar had a lovely outdoor area with patio heaters and I miss it 🥲

Im so glad i do not have to decide, im not anti lockdown, absolutely hate it but feel safer this way.

Im my opinion keeping schools shut is only way to keep numbers down, when kids went back in September the numbers soared.

Dont get me wrong i want my children to go back to school, i hate that they are missing so much (i have 4 at school)

On other hand my mum is 64 terminal lung cancer being treated so not death sentence and im petrified she will get it.

I miss my sister who lives 5 minutes away.

Again i don't have a clue what the awnswer is either way someone or somethings will suffer.

God this is depressing. I was very pro lockdowb at first but this clearly not working. Rates have gone up and up, vaccines not working with new varients. At some point (which I think is now) the lockdown effects outweigh the covid impact)

Mental health, other health issues, kids education, the economy, our jobs and homes are all getting worse because the priority is on covid. Some of us are on the brink of losing everything (and universal credit is a complete joke for 'support'). I hate to be that guy but I don't think risk ruining 3 whole generations future to save a people towards the latter end of their lives.

My opinion, continue to tell elderly people to shield and give them support. Open everything back up with protection measures in place, cleanliness and covid regs in place. Give people options to go to school or remote learn... Same with jobs. But everything open and back to what is fairly normal.

Oh idiotic people will state "Shield the vulnerable and the rest of us crack on!" and never quantify beyond this rubbish or engage when people call them out on it

tbh, It's not up to me as an individual to come up with the whole strategy. The whole present strategy was thought thru by very many dozens of people who think full time about it. One big difference between me & loud MNers or Tony Blair : I don't delude self into thinking I or any one person has best answers.

Avoiding lockdown is a lot harder than making a perfect little bullet list.

Would I personally be willing to refuse all treatment for covid if it could have meant avoiding lockdown for everyone -- Hell Yes. Irrelevant since that choice wasn't on the table & I assume unacceptable to most people. The govt took ages to start prioritising education and is pretending that the enormous debt or plastic mountains of waste are fine. Those were the types of things that worried me. And that The quality of life years for elderly are being valued hugely higher than QoL for young people. That has been unofficial policy for ages, but is more obvious now.

The emotional burden on NHS staff now happening is the most powerful argument in favour of lockdown. There was no real discussion of alternative strategies. I can live with being wrong in having anti lockdown instincts... maybe there never could be an alternative if emotions are to dominate what happens in modern policy making. I assume that's what most people like and want to prioritise: feelings matter most.

Maybe Long Covid or new variants changes the calculus.
Then again, maybe those things were always going to happen and the Strong suppression strategy will be scuppered exactly by the huge price required to suppress new variants.

I guess we'll see.

There isn't an alternative. The alternative is worse for mental health, for education, for children, for the economy. People don't want to hear or accept that. They want to hear there's an alternative course of action in which the vulnerable are either collateral damage and /or shielded and the rest of us get on with it. That alternative doesn't exist. Even if you literally decide it is fine for vulnerable/elderly to die without treatment - it doesn't work, from an epidemiological perspective or from a societal one.

I mean there WAS an alternative, which was zero covid, but that would've meant hard-core lockdown for a good few months followed by total closure of all borders, which was never going to happen.