How would the world have reacted to "Covid-89" or "Covid-99"?

[317 forever]

Had we had Covid-89 Margaret Thatcher would have been quicker and more steadfast in her approach. As devolution had not happened we would have had one UK-wide approach. (With their numbers of MPs in single figures, any different approach advocated by the SNP would barely have been noticed yet alone reported by the media outside Scotland).

Then when the 2nd wave came in winter she would have either ignored Christmas, or allowed a limited festive "amnesty". We would not have had the u-turn of Christmas cancelled the evening of the Saturday before Christmas, just after people had done their Christmas shopping. (Admittedly the Saturday before Christmas 1989 was December 23rd, and the shops might not even have been able to open on Christmas Eve being a Sunday but I digress).

Lockdowns could have been more soul-destroying because we would not have had the internet or social forums to occupy ourselves. Oh, and without forums people could not have discussed with "strangers" what could or could not be allowed under specific restrictions.

 

[nw1]

Had we had Covid-89 Margaret Thatcher would have been quicker and more steadfast in her approach. As devolution had not happened we would have had one UK-wide approach. (With their numbers of MPs in single figures, any different approach advocated by the SNP would barely have been noticed yet alone reported by the media outside Scotland).

Then when the 2nd wave came in winter she would have either ignored Christmas, or allowed a limited festive "amnesty". We would not have had the u-turn of Christmas cancelled the evening of the Saturday before Christmas, just after people had done their Christmas shopping. (Admittedly the Saturday before Christmas 1989 was December 23rd, and the shops might not even have been able to open on Christmas Eve being a Sunday but I digress).

Lockdowns could have been more soul-destroying because we would not have had the internet or social forums to occupy ourselves. Oh, and without forums people could not have discussed with "strangers" what could or could not be allowed under specific restrictions.

That, perhaps, though is precisely why a harsh lockdown might not have happened in 1989 IMO, or at least not as severe as what happened in 2020. Granted pubs and restaurants might have closed, but with a lack of internet, they would probably have allowed more physical social contact (though in the UK, perhaps Thatcher would not be so empathetic towards loneliness and isolation, so you never know).

I do think the internet "enabled" the harsh lockdowns we got, as in 1989 or even 1999 they would have not been a realistic option without devastating economic and social effects much worse than what happened in 2020.

 

[kristiang85]

Lockdowns would not have happened in 1989 or even 1999.
- The economy would have ground to a halt without people going into offices, as internet connectivity was not up to current standards.
- The morale without Zoom, only 4 TV channels for most, no online entertainment, no online deliveries, etc. would have meant people would have rebelled very quickly.
- Genome sequencing was not there so we wouldn't have had all the variant fears.
- Mass testing tech would not have been available or prohibitively expensive, so figures wouldn't have looked as bad.
- No 24hr news or social media, so there wouldn't have been pressure on the government to 'do something' to avoid being #grannykillers.

 

[Enthusiast]

Lockdowns would not have happened in 1989 or even 1999.
- The economy would have ground to a halt without people going into offices, as internet connectivity was not up to current standards.
- The morale without Zoom, only 4 TV channels for most, no online entertainment, no online deliveries, etc. would have meant people would have rebelled very quickly.
- Genome sequencing was not there so we wouldn't have had all the variant fears.
- Mass testing tech would not have been available or prohibitively expensive, so figures wouldn't have looked as bad.
- No 24hr news or social media, so there wouldn't have been pressure on the government to 'do something' to avoid being #grannykillers.

So somewhat reminiscent of a "bad winter" for 'flu then?

 

[kristiang85]

So somewhat reminiscent of a "bad winter" for 'flu then?

Precisely.

 

[trebor79]

I think it's more than likely that we would "have had a very bad year for flu" and that would have been that. Even 20 years ago, there simply wasn't the technology to rapidly isolate a new virus, sequence it's genome, devise a PCR and a rapid flow test and produce vaccines.
I suspect that about now or in perhaps another year some scientists would have put out a paper saying they had found evidence that the "2019 flu" was in fact a novel coronavirus.

I think we'd have avoided all of the self-inflicted harms of lockdown and there would be a few less old people around.