If there was a second wave, what would you do if you were in power?

What would you do if there was a second wave?

  • Another full national lockdown, with same restrictions as those imposed in March

    Votes: 8 7.4%
  • Series of strict local lockdowns targeting the worst affected areas

    Votes: 22 20.4%
  • A less strict version of a national lockdown with schools and more businesses remaining open

    Votes: 7 6.5%
  • An alternative version of a lockdown focused on restricting travel rather than closing businesses

    Votes: 1 0.9%
  • Close only a handful of businesses which are likely to generate crowds

    Votes: 5 4.6%
  • Require citizens at risk to shield again for some time, while everything else goes on as normal

    Votes: 48 44.4%
  • Do nothing, and just tell everyone to get on with it!

    Votes: 16 14.8%
  • Other (please specify)

    Votes: 1 0.9%

  • Total voters
    108

DavidB

Established Member
Joined
18 Nov 2009
Messages
2,099
If they manage to find an effective treatment or vaccine, then my life is 100% back to normal and I wouldn't worry about the virus at all.

I mean, I am going out like before coronavirus, but with extra precautions such as avoiding public transport and wearing N95 face masks indoors (that are, btw, WAY more effective than useless cloth homemade masks in my opinion)
But even with a vaccine, it will take years or decades to wipe it out, and it may not be that successful anyway - take flu as an example: vaccine available for quite a while now, but it nevertheless kills a lot every year. In the 2014/15 season it was over 28,000 in the UK. This is just accepted as one of those things and barely even commented on, whereas with Covid it's being presented as something completely unprecedented - which it really isn't: it's worse than flu, but not by that much, and as herd immunity grows its impact will lessen.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Yew

Established Member
Joined
12 Mar 2011
Messages
4,033
Location
Nottingham
If they manage to find an effective treatment or vaccine, then my life is 100% back to normal and I wouldn't worry about the virus at all.
And how long is that going to take? We've known about HIV/AIDS for 60 years, and only just have found an experimental treatment, and prophylaxis. The fastest vaccine we've ever made took for years. How much human depression, destitution and suffering are you willing to cause?
 

SouthEastBuses

On Moderation
Joined
15 Nov 2019
Messages
541
Location
UK & Italy
But even with a vaccine, it will take years or decades to wipe it out, and it may not be that successful anyway - take flu as an example: vaccine available for quite a while now, but it nevertheless kills a lot every year. In the 2014/15 season it was over 28,000 in the UK. This is just accepted as one of those things and barely even commented on, whereas with Covid it's being presented as something completely unprecedented - which it really isn't: it's worse than flu, but not by that much, and as herd immunity grows its impact will lessen.
Whilst it might take quite long for coronvirus to be completely wiped out, the vaccine would at least, at the start, reduce this to a typical bad winter flu.
 

adc82140

Established Member
Joined
10 May 2008
Messages
1,240
If they manage to find an effective treatment or vaccine, then my life is 100% back to normal and I wouldn't worry about the virus at all.

I mean, I am going out like before coronavirus, but with extra precautions such as avoiding public transport and wearing N95 face masks indoors (that are, btw, WAY more effective than useless cloth homemade masks in my opinion)
You're very fortunate to have a professional available on hand to fit test your N95 mask every time you put it on. At least I presume that's what you have, otherwise you're being rather dangerous to other members of the public and yourself.
 

SouthEastBuses

On Moderation
Joined
15 Nov 2019
Messages
541
Location
UK & Italy
And how long is that going to take? We've known about HIV/AIDS for 60 years, and only just have found an experimental treatment, and prophylaxis. The fastest vaccine we've ever made took for years. How much human depression, destitution and suffering are you willing to cause?
But HIV/AIDS is different though, that's the point. Because it's really hard to catch the virus (in fact it only spreads to you if you have sex with somebody infected with the virus) and because it's only really affected Africa, a vaccine/treatment for this virus isn't much as a priority unlike Coronavirus.

Coronvirus on the other hand is extremely easy to catch and has affected everybody around the world, which means that scientists are willing to develop vaccines / treatments as quick as possible so that the world can go back to the 2019 normal.
 

adc82140

Established Member
Joined
10 May 2008
Messages
1,240
But HIV/AIDS is different though, that's the point. Because it's really hard to catch the virus (in fact it only spreads to you if you have sex with somebody infected with the virus) and because it's only really affected Africa, a vaccine/treatment for this virus isn't much as a priority unlike Coronavirus.
Please just stop now. You are embarrassing yourself.
 

DavidB

Established Member
Joined
18 Nov 2009
Messages
2,099
But HIV/AIDS is different though, that's the point. Because it's really hard to catch the virus (in fact it only spreads to you if you have sex with somebody infected with the virus) and because it's only really affected Africa, a vaccine/treatment for this virus isn't much as a priority unlike Coronavirus.

Coronvirus on the other hand is extremely easy to catch and has affected everybody around the world, which means that scientists are willing to develop vaccines / treatments as quick as possible so that the world can go back to the 2019 normal.
Vast amounts of money has been spent on HIV vaccine research over the decades. That there still isn't one just highlights how difficult it can be to produce vaccines.

Smallpox is the only human virus to have been successfully eliminated by a vaccine, and that took close to 200 years. Vaccines are not a magic bullet, and the "we must lock down until there's a vaccine" proponents seem to have a very unlrealistic view of how quicky vaccines can be developed and deployed, and their likely success.
 

Darandio

Established Member
Joined
24 Feb 2007
Messages
8,259
Location
Redcar
But HIV/AIDS is different though, that's the point. Because it's really hard to catch the virus (in fact it only spreads to you if you have sex with somebody infected with the virus) and because it's only really affected Africa, a vaccine/treatment for this virus isn't much as a priority unlike Coronavirus.
It's only really affected Africa? Wow.
 

LAX54

Established Member
Joined
15 Jan 2008
Messages
2,739
I’d bite the bullet, ask the vulnerable to shield, and tell everyone else to get on with things.

I’d also build hospitals (and mortuaries) and manage expectations. Sadly there will be many deaths from Covid, but we cannot continue to allow our response to this virus to bankrupt our country and destroy the fabric of our society.
Sadly there will be many deaths from other yearly virus infections, even bog standard flu can have an immense toll, just look at 2018 which had more deaths than the current SARS epidemic / pandemic. I agree however that those that are more at a high risk to be protected, and the same to a certain extent the elderly too. If there was no Facebook or Twitter, I am sure we would not be in the same dire straights we are now !

I see there has been a couple of deaths in the USA by people that did not have the virus itself, but a side effect I assume from stress, seems it is called TAKOTSUBO, which is a sever heart condition cuased by stress and worry, so those that have been really stressed out by all the media news etc, are at risk it says
 

DavidB

Established Member
Joined
18 Nov 2009
Messages
2,099
If there was no Facebook or Twitter, I am sure we would not be in the same dire straights we are now !
That's true - the internet has served to bot spread the hysteria (social media, with considerable help from most of the major news websites), and created a situation where many people can work and do their shopping from home.

If this had happened 20 years ago it would have been handled very differently, and with much less disruption to normal life, as there wouldn't have been the option of handing it as has been done.
 

adc82140

Established Member
Joined
10 May 2008
Messages
1,240
20 years ago, those in power, whatever the political persuasion, would have had a modicum of intelligence.
 

MikeWM

Established Member
Joined
26 Mar 2010
Messages
1,368
Location
Ely
I don't really fit into any of the options. I'd *ask* (not require) the vulnerable to shield - and put proper support mechanisms in place for those who chose to do so - while everyone else proceeded as normal.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
57,209
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
I don't really fit into any of the options. I'd *ask* (not require) the vulnerable to shield - and put proper support mechanisms in place for those who chose to do so - while everyone else proceeded as normal.
I certainly believe it's key that those shielding and those self-isolating are as close to fully paid as possible - at least the 80% furlough pay without a cap - as otherwise they will be effectively priced into ignoring it.
 

43066

Established Member
Joined
24 Nov 2019
Messages
1,603
Location
London
I certainly believe it's key that those shielding and those self-isolating are as close to fully paid as possible - at least the 80% furlough pay without a cap - as otherwise they will be effectively priced into ignoring it.
I don’t disagree with that. But for that to be workable the category of people being asked to shield really does need to be reduced to those who are genuinely medically vulnerable: cancer patients; transplant patients; the very elderly etc. Not people who are overweight, have mild asthma etc.
 

py_megapixel

Established Member
Joined
5 Nov 2018
Messages
2,098
The option which I certainly don't want is lots of local lockdowns. We've seen how much of a hash has been made of Leicester, and how confusing the rules now are... no more of that please.

If people are to continue with their everyday lives then in my opinion Test and Trace needs to be improved fast, should have been deployed earlier, and - most importantly - must be mandatory for all businesses that keep the same customers in close proximity for a few minutes, with the advice it gives also being mandatory to follow.
 

Jayden99

Member
Joined
24 Feb 2020
Messages
89
Location
Bucks
Vast amounts of money has been spent on HIV vaccine research over the decades. That there still isn't one just highlights how difficult it can be to produce vaccines.
HIV is a very different and tricky animal and I don't think the comparison is the most helpful, I'd argue we do have a vaccine in a sense in the form of PrEP and PEP (Not the BR stock :P) and a very effective treatment in the form of antiretrovirals but I digress.
To get back on topic, I'd go for targeted local lockdowns, that focus on the reasons for an outbreak in any given area, be that pubs with poor distancing measures or young people spreading it to their older relatives by being lax when they're socialising. I've said it on here a few times but for all the talk of "The public won't stand for another lockdown" I also don't think people will stand for wide scale infection like we saw back in March, and "Just accepting that some people are going to die boo hoo" comes with it's own cost, just my two cents.
 

Bantamzen

Established Member
Joined
4 Dec 2013
Messages
5,551
Location
Baildon, West Yorkshire
I know many people will disagree with me, but...

I would put a second national lockdown. And as much as I wouldn't want that to happen, if the second wave becomes as bad as the first one or even worse, then I believe lockdown is the only way to save people's lives from being infected.

What I would do is put a lockdown nearly exactly like the one in Italy. That means no going out unless strictly necessary, and here are the following reasons to go out:

Shopping for food and drinks
Visiting your GP
Shopping at medical stores like Boots
Daily exercise, but MUST be done within 10 km of your house.
Going to work if it can't be done from home

Social distancing of 2m must be observed at all times.

People MUST wear face masks at all times whenever outside the house EXCEPT when going out for exercise.

Oh and a complete closure of borders to non essential travel.

Economy is important and I agree, but what comes first? Your life or your money?
Let me put this bluntly to you, we live in a capitalist society & as such we need money to live. Additionally we have a free at the point of service health care system, which is paid for via taxation, which comes from the money we earn. If people stop earning money, they stop paying taxes, which puts our health services at risk. And to only compound the problem, people not getting paid need assistance from the government, which is also largely funded by taxation. Hopefully by now you will start to see the problem we have.
 

py_megapixel

Established Member
Joined
5 Nov 2018
Messages
2,098
Safe from what? We're not SAFE from anything, life is full of risks. The sooner we accept that the better.
It is. But that doesn't mean that a national lockdown (which I am NOT in favour of by the way) doesn't significantly reduce that risk. Clearly the risk can't be entirely eliminated but it can be significantly decreased or even made negligible.
 

Richard Scott

Member
Joined
13 Dec 2018
Messages
1,117
It is. But that doesn't mean that a national lockdown (which I am NOT in favour of by the way) doesn't significantly reduce that risk. Clearly the risk can't be entirely eliminated but it can be significantly decreased or even made negligible.
Yes but at the expense of other things, this isn't a one horse race.
 

birchesgreen

Member
Joined
16 Jun 2020
Messages
441
Location
Birmingham
It is. But that doesn't mean that a national lockdown (which I am NOT in favour of by the way) doesn't significantly reduce that risk. Clearly the risk can't be entirely eliminated but it can be significantly decreased or even made negligible.
I'm just annoyed by the overuse of the word "SAFE", as in "wear a mask and you'll keep people SAFE" thus implying there is no longer any risk, "safer" might have been a better word to use.
 

trebor79

Established Member
Joined
8 Mar 2018
Messages
2,235
Do nothing*, let it rip and get it over and done with. Allow people to be responsible for their own decisions and safety.
My mother is in the "shielding" group. She has no intention whatsoever of spending whatever time she has left cooped up at home. She will live her life as she sees fit, taking the precautions she deems sensible and appropriate.

*A very honest briefing and public awareness campaign to ensure the public understand it's the only way back to normality.
 

trebor79

Established Member
Joined
8 Mar 2018
Messages
2,235
That's the problem though - whilst young, 18-25 year olds people like myself would 100% survive from it, we are often asymptomatic and we are spreading the virus to the vulnerable elderly without even knowing it.
Are you though? Is there any evidence that asymptomatic people are actually spreaders?
Even if asymptomatic people do spread it, so what? You could also be spreading flu, cold and other pathogens asymptomatically - all of which will kill somebody who is vulnerable for whatever reason to that particular pathogen.
 

Mag_seven

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Global Moderator
Joined
1 Sep 2014
Messages
6,793
Location
here to eternity
I'm just annoyed by the overuse of the word "SAFE", as in "wear a mask and you'll keep people SAFE" thus implying there is no longer any risk, "safer" might have been a better word to use.
Agreed - the term "safe" isn't an absolute. Nowhere / nothing is completely "safe".
 

DavidB

Established Member
Joined
18 Nov 2009
Messages
2,099
It is. But that doesn't mean that a national lockdown (which I am NOT in favour of by the way) doesn't significantly reduce that risk. Clearly the risk can't be entirely eliminated but it can be significantly decreased or even made negligible.
It's not even clear that the lockdowns have any significant effect, other than dragging it out longer - several countries, including the UK, which imposed lockdowns have higher fatalities per capita than Sweden with its more light-touch measures.
 

DavidB

Established Member
Joined
18 Nov 2009
Messages
2,099
Agreed - the term "safe" isn't an absolute. Nowhere / nothing is completely "safe".
It's one of those terms which hve come to be thoroughly annoying in all this. Also:
Social Distancing (which actually means physical distancing)
Bubbles
COVID-secure (it's not 'secure', is it?)
 

yorkie

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
6 Jun 2005
Messages
50,047
Location
Yorkshire
....I personally feel genuine law abiding people are fed up of being subject to measures with no end in sight and more people will simply ignore advice and get on with their lives. ....
This is very true.

At this point, some may argue "but the views expressed on the forum are not representative of the wider population"; that can be true, but the vast majority of us do talk to people in settings that are well beyond this forum, and we know what the general mood is among most 'ordinary' people (which are not those shouting the loudest on social media).

For example I've had a lot of conversations at my workplace about the virus, lockdowns, masks etc; mostly I've been speaking to our (lovely and hardworking) cleaners, who are probably about as far removed from the general demographic of forum members as you can get, and yet they have very similar views to what appears to be the majority view expressed here, and in most settings where I've had such conversations.

The people who tend to be in favour of extreme measures tend to be better off people with large houses and gardens, doing work from home jobs, who are saving money on their commute, and who don't have the interests of the younger generation and people on low incomes at heart. Some of them don't appear to get on particularly well with people at work and don't miss the atmosphere at their workplace. They are very keen to boast about how productive they are working in their gardens and how proud they are at putting others out of work by not going into the office.

Their priorities are to save time and money for themselves, get out of an office environment they dislike, and prioritise keeping as many elderly people alive for as long as possible over the aspirations of young and poorer people.

But what would you rather have?

Lockdown with a collapsed economy but at least being safe?

Or no lockdown but risk of being infected just to save the economy?
How do you define "safe"?

What do you mean by "just" save the economy?

How would you have kept these kids "safe"...?

https://www.kentonline.co.uk/kent/news/lockdown-contributed-to-suicides-of-three-teenagers-228000/
The mental strain of coronavirus restrictions was thought to be a contributory factor in the suicides of the three youngsters.
A report to the Kent and Medway CCG revealed there had been seven attempts by children aged between 13 and 17 to take their own lives between March and May this year. Sadly, three of them resulted in deaths.
 

Top