Boris Johnson: “I don’t want a second lockdown”

[Huntergreed]

From the BBC this morning:

Boris Johnson has said he does not want to impose a second national lockdown in the event of another Covid-19 outbreak.
Speaking to The Sunday Telegraph, the PM compared the option of a nationwide shutdown to a "nuclear deterrent", adding he does not think the country "will be in that position again".
But the UK's chief scientific adviser said there is "a risk" such measures could be needed as winter approaches.
Mr Johnson said authorities were getting better at identifying and isolating local outbreaks, adding that the power to order national action will remain an option.
"I can't abandon that tool any more than I would abandon a nuclear deterrent. But it is like a nuclear deterrent, I certainly don't want to use it. And nor do I think we will be in that position again," he said.

(Source: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-53460714)

Good to see that the Prime Minister isn’t keen on a second lockdown and realises the damage that the first one has caused to the economy, education, livelihoods and mental wellbeing.

Slightly less reassuring is that Patrick Vallance seems to think we will need a second lockdown in winter if the virus comes back, I really don’t think we can afford to do this. How many more businesses do we need to close, how much more school do our children need to miss if this happens? I really hope that this isn’t the case.

I think avoiding a second lockdown is absolutely the right thing to do, but what is likely to happen if there is a resurgence as Vallance predicts and is it possible that there will be a U-turn on this?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Vallance, Whitty etc are medical professionals and that is the ONLY thing they are required to take into account. Clearly a full lockdown is the best way to stop the disease. This is not worrying, it's them doing their job correctly. I don't get why this bothers people - it is clearly the case that strict measures are the best medical way to control any disease, and so they would be negligent if they didn't advise that.

The decisions are made by politicians who need to take into account other effects and advice (e.g. from the Chancellor of the Exchequer) as well as the advice from Vallance, Whitty etc - the economy, mental health etc. So I'm with Bozza, it's neither likely nor desirable overall.

 

[DB]

Vallance, Whitty etc are medical professionals and that is the ONLY thing they are required to take into account. Clearly a full lockdown is the best way to stop the disease.

But it doesn't generally stop it - it merely slows it down, making the situation last longer and increases in cases more likely in the future once restrictions are lifted.

 

[Richard Scott]

Vallance, Whitty etc are medical professionals and that is the ONLY thing they are required to take into account. Clearly a full lockdown is the best way to stop the disease. This is not worrying, it's them doing their job correctly. I don't get why this bothers people - it is clearly the case that strict measures are the best medical way to control any disease, and so they would be negligent if they didn't advise that.

The decisions are made by politicians who need to take into account other effects and advice (e.g. from the Chancellor of the Exchequer) as well as the advice from Vallance, Whitty etc - the economy, mental health etc. So I'm with Bozza, it's neither likely nor desirable overall.

The issue is with the medical professionals is what they're trotting out is not rocket science, even I can work out a lockdown is the most effective method and you've eluded to that in your post. I bet both is us would be cheaper than either of those two so just nonsense in the end. May as well just record them and trot it out every so often?

 

[Bletchleyite]

But it doesn't generally stop it - it merely slows it down, making the situation last longer and increases in cases more likely in the future once restrictions are lifted.

If a full lockdown was applied (no leaving your house at all, not even for food or medical care - that would come to you with full PPE) for long enough the disease would be wiped out.

It's clearly not practical, but in that regard it would work.

 

[DB]

If a full lockdown was applied (no leaving your house at all, not even for food or medical care - that would come to you with full PPE) for long enough the disease would be wiped out.

It's clearly not practical, but in that regard it would work.

It would require a level of compliance and enforcement that even China never managed! And it would need to be worldwide.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It would require a level of compliance and enforcement that even China never managed! And it would need to be worldwide.

Or you close your borders.

 

[philosopher]

I just can’t see a second lockdown being obeyed very well. Imagine being told you can’t see your relatives over Christmas, I think that would just be too much for many people. If it is not obeyed it is not going to help control the spread of the virus that much.

 

[DB]

Or you close your borders.

But that's also not really feasible long-term, which it would need to be as the virus is likely to remain out there somewhere.

 

[Bletchleyite]

But that's also not really feasible long-term, which it would need to be as the virus is likely to remain out there somewhere.

I don't agree. Closure of borders to people (not goods) is feasible for as long as needed.

 

[DB]

I don't agree. Closure of borders to people (not goods) is feasible for as long as needed.

You think it's fine and proportional to wipe out a large part of the leisure and tourism business sector worldwide, then? Because that's the likely impact of closing borders long-term.

It's would also have a pretty significant impact on international business.

 

[Huntergreed]

I don't agree. Closure of borders to people (not goods) is feasible for as long as needed.

So what about those who have family abroad, are they simply going to be told they can't see them?

What about foreign areas which rely heavily on international tourism to support their economy, do we simply let these go 'for the greater good'? (arguably, it isn't!)

What about international lorry drivers, eurostar/eurotunnel drivers, pilots, ship captains and so on, how do you get around them, who could easily go home and spread to their families, friends and so on.

I don't think this is a long term solution.

 

[Bletchleyite]

So what about those who have family abroad, are they simply going to be told they can't see them?

Unfortunately, yes. Quarantining for 14 days with testing may be a reasonable workaround, though.

What about foreign areas which rely heavily on international tourism to support their economy, do we simply let these go 'for the greater good'? (arguably, it isn't!)

They'll need to repurpose to domestic tourism.

What about international lorry drivers, eurostar/eurotunnel drivers, pilots, ship captains and so on, how do you get around them, who could easily go home and spread to their families, friends and so on.

Lorries would be transported the old way - trailer-only. Ferry staff wouldn't leave the ferry. The Tunnel would be mothballed other than for freight shuttles without tractor units.

I don't think this is a long term solution.

The only long-term solutions are a vaccine, an effective treatment or it mutating to be less dangerous.

You think it's fine and proportional to wipe out a large part of the leisure and tourism business sector worldwide, then? Because that's the likely impact of closing borders long-term.

It would have to repurpose to domestic tourism.

It's would also have a pretty significant impact on international business.

No, it wouldn't. Goods need to move, people don't.

 

[DB]

Well, it's certainly good to know that we have an expert on the forum on international business and tourism! I'm sure the governments in countries such as Greece, which rely heavily on tourism from outside, will be keen to hear your well-informed and thorough plans as to how they 'repurpose domestic tourism' in a country which is far from wealthy.

Likewise international businesses that rely on people travelling between different countries.

The only long-term solutions are a vaccine, an effective treatment or it mutating to be less dangerous.

Or herd immunity - as has been the accepted outcome for all similar outbreaks forever. This idea that draconian restrictions are needed 'until there's a vaccine' (which may never be developed) is entriely new.

 

[Starmill]

Look at it this way. So-called local lockdowns are probably impossible more than once, it would cause enormous civil unrest, and they are being managed so appallingly the government is rapidly failing to do it even once in Leicester.

A national set of restrictions is an effective last resort but economically catastrophic.

The real solution is to inhibit community transmission so that it has almost stopped, and have very strict international travel restrictions and quarentine rules to prevent the virus from being reimported. Then social distancing can go. It means the end of the free movement of international travelling for a long time, but we can deal with that. We can't deal with the other measures.

 

[philosopher]

The real solution is to inhibit community transmission so that it has almost stopped, and have very strict international travel restrictions and quarentine rules to prevent the virus from being reimported. Then social distancing can go. It means the end of the free movement of international travelling for a long time, but we can deal with that. We can't deal with the other measures.

But how do you completely inhibit community transmission without another very strict and heavily enforced second lockdown?

 

[MontyMinerWA]

I would support a full second lockdown this winter if the medical experts thought it was necessary.

 

[Richard Scott]

I would support a full second lockdown this winter if the medical experts thought it was necessary.

Why? At what point are people going to realise we are going to have to do this forever if we carry on like this. We may save a few lives from virus and lose some due to mental health and other issues. Threat of lockdowns is not a sensible way forward. Learning to live with virus in everyday life is.

 

[Crossover]

Look at it this way. So-called local lockdowns are probably impossible more than once, it would cause enormous civil unrest, and they are being managed so appallingly the government is rapidly failing to do it even once in Leicester.

Moreover, from what I’ve been hearing, whilst various businesses are shut in Leicester, it seems such residents have just been travelling to a neighbouring place where they are...

 

[Yew]

Hopefully this is a signal that he's started paying less attention to Ferguson's predictions... For too long we've ignored the harms that are directly caused by the lockdown, despite the clear cost on peoples lives, and questionable effectiveness.

 

[Starmill]

But how do you completely inhibit community transmission without another very strict and heavily enforced second lockdown?

With track and trace and mass testing of huge portions of society. And full pay for anyone in isolation, and government short term funded accommodation for people who feel they cannot isolate at home or do not have a home. Government issued cloth face coverings. The list goes on. This is all being done in the rest of the developed world. It's not controversial. Scotland didn't benefit from all of these measures but it has achieved almost a complete ending of community transmission.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Moreover, from what I’ve been hearing, whilst various businesses are shut in Leicester, it seems such residents have just been travelling to a neighbouring place where they are...

The new laws do allow roadblocks and active prevention of travel - that is necessary to make something like a local lockdown work.

 

[Richard Scott]

With track and trace and mass testing of huge portions of society. And full pay for anyone in isolation, and government short term funded accommodation for people who feel they cannot isolate at home or do not have a home. Government issued cloth face coverings. The list goes on. This is all being done in the rest of the developed world. It's not controversial.

May be not but, in my opinion, totally unnecessary.

 

[DB]

With track and trace and mass testing of huge portions of society. And full pay for anyone in isolation, and government short term funded accommodation for people who feel they cannot isolate at home or do not have a home. Government issued cloth face coverings. The list goes on. This is all being done in the rest of the developed world. It's not controversial.

Those are your views, and that's fair enough - but you can't claim that "it's not controversial", because it certainly is.

 

[Starmill]

May be not but, in my opinion, totally unnecessary.

Those are your views, and that's fair enough - but you can't claim that "it's not controversial", because it certainly is.

That's fine but those are the measures by expert consensus.

 

[SteveM70]

The elephant in the room is “what is the value of a life” isn’t it?

Because that’s what it comes down to - extended lockdowns will reduce the number of deaths, partly because of reduced transmission and partly because of limiting the burden on the NHS and increasing the level of care that can be lavished on victims.

Whilst I’m sure they’d never admit it, let alone reveal it, that’s what the government will be weighing up

 

[DB]

That's fine but those are the measures by expert consensus.

Except they aren't - there is no 'expert consensus' and plenty of people who can justifiably be regarded as experts don't agree.

 

[Richard Scott]

That's fine but those are the measures by expert consensus.

The expert consensus judged by what parameters? To ensure we don't have too many deaths in over 80s. This whole thing is just ridiculous with experts (to be honest getting fed up with experts as most of those can't agree) seemingly being driven by media and social media hysteria.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The elephant in the room is “what is the value of a life” isn’t it?

Because that’s what it comes down to - extended lockdowns will reduce the number of deaths, partly because of reduced transmission and partly because of limiting the burden on the NHS and increasing the level of care that can be lavished on victims.

Whilst I’m sure they’d never admit it, let alone reveal it, that’s what the government will be weighing up

That a life has a financial value seems to bother people, but it's used in many different contexts (often with different values by context), for example whether a road junction modification can be justified or whether a particularly expensive medical treatment should be funded if it'll perhaps only give one year of quality life compared with none.

 

[Crossover]

The new laws do allow roadblocks and active prevention of travel - that is necessary to make something like a local lockdown work.

Indeed, but from anecdotal evidence it may not be (effectively) happening