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

[DB]

Why would that be a bad thing? Both UK residents and those who are not resident in the UK are subject to a two week quarantine from a list of countries at present (along with the inverse) - why not make it universal as opposed to the current system of sticking one's finger in the air and see what happens? See further, the hilarity that happened a couple of weeks ago when Spain was removed from the exemption list.

Gives the hotel industry a boost too as they'll be used for quarantine purposes.

Because it'll do massive damage to the tourism industry and to international trade generally...

 

[typefish]

Because it'll do massive damage to the tourism industry and to international trade generally...

As opposed to what's happening now?

 

[DB]

A lockdown is a "reset button" if you have screwed up. It effectively gives you another go, but can only be pressed so many times.

Doesn't seem to have worked though, does it? All those countries which have deployed it have no exit strategy other than hoping that a workable virus is developed quickly - and that's a big gamble to take.

 

[yorkie]

We (as in the UK, don't forget I'm half British half Italian) are a very rich and wealthy country, we can survive. That's why I believe the lockdown isn't a bad idea provided that cares are REALLY high. Btw, I wouldn't want lockdown either - I love enjoying my liberties and freedom.

Lockdown is a luxury, and it’s a luxury that the middle classes are very much enjoying, at the expense of poorer people who carry out jobs that cannot easily be done at home.

But if it's the only way to reduce the rate of infections and save many people's lives, I am prepared to accept that and I fully agree with @Bletchleyite 's idea of a full lockdown should the second wave be REALLY BAD (hopefully it won't be though).

It isn't; see: https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/so-sweden-may-well-have-been-right.206968/

I think you would benefit from reading existing threads on this subject, as this has all been discussed before.

 

[DB]

As opposed to what's happening now?

What is happening now is largely self-inflicted. Closing borders for anything other than a short period would make things even worse in many ways - and has no exit strategy other than hoping for a vaccine.

 

[SouthEastBuses]

Socialist? You'd better let Johnson & Co know!



I'm pretty sure we do need money. The last time I went to the supermarket they seemed very insistent on some form of currency exchange. We could of course grow our own, but we need the land to do so in the first place.



Being from Italian descent you should then know just how bad its been for many Italians, especially in the south of the country. A lockdown is not a get out of viral jail free card, it destroys people's lives and can cause hardship, poverty and yes even death. And we haven't even begun to pay for all of this financially, that's yet yo come. I've said it before on these forums, there are some people seemingly very happy to push other people's livelihoods under the bus.

My family (well part of it) lives in Southern Italy so I know what I'm talking about here, thank you very much.

One reason why we ended up going back to the UK was because of the very high unemployment levels in Southern Italy. And it's always been like that, way before Covid-19.

Whilst the lockdown would have completely destroyed the Italian economy, at least it managed to reduce the infection rate and save the lives of many people who lived there.

 

[trebor79]

Whilst the lockdown would have completely destroyed the Italian economy, at least it managed to reduce the infection rate and save the lives of many people who lived there.

It is impossible to save a life, it can merely be extended.
Isn't it funny how the all causes death rate is now below the 5 year average? Just as predicted by some of the more sceptical scientists.

 

[Bantamzen]

A lockdown is a "reset button" if you have screwed up. It effectively gives you another go, but can only be pressed so many times.

I'd say its more like a panic button, try to slam the door shut and hope it goes away. It didn't and it won't, so doing it again will only make the problem much worse.

My family (well part of it) lives in Southern Italy so I know what I'm talking about here, thank you very much.

One reason why we ended up going back to the UK was because of the very high unemployment levels in Southern Italy. And it's always been like that, way before Covid-19.

Whilst the lockdown would have completely destroyed the Italian economy, at least it managed to reduce the infection rate and save the lives of many people who lived there.

Then that makes your views even more baffling quite frankly. Many Italians, and indeed people all around the globe literally relying on charity to eat when all they want to do is work to bring home food. The furloughed workers here, around 9.6 million were luckier, this time. There is much less chance of a Furlough v2.0, so a future lockdown will see many lose their jobs and end up on benefits. Oh and then there's the tax the Treasury lose, you know the taxes that pay for the NHS. Nobody in favour of lockdowns ever seem willing or able to deal with the issue of millions of people not paying taxes, whilst being paid by the government who still have to fund all the essential services.

 

[SouthEastBuses]

I'd say its more like a panic button, try to slam the door shut and hope it goes away. It didn't and it won't, so doing it again will only make the problem much worse.



Then that makes your views even more baffling quite frankly. Many Italians, and indeed people all around the globe literally relying on charity to eat when all they want to do is work to bring home food. The furloughed workers here, around 9.6 million were luckier, this time. There is much less chance of a Furlough v2.0, so a future lockdown will see many lose their jobs and end up on benefits. Oh and then there's the tax the Treasury lose, you know the taxes that pay for the NHS. Nobody in favour of lockdowns ever seem willing or able to deal with the issue of millions of people not paying taxes, whilst being paid by the government who still have to fund all the essential services.

Thing is, if we can avoid lockdown - then I don't see why not. All I'm saying is that if cases return back to March/April levels (or even worse than that), then unfortunately only lockdown can limit the spread of this virus. Yes, protecting the economy is important and I agree with you all that. But frankly our lives come first, then money.

 

[DB]

Thing is, if we can avoid lockdown - then I don't see why not. All I'm saying is that if cases return back to March/April levels (or even worse than that), then unfortunately only lockdown can limit the spread of this virus. Yes, protecting the economy is important and I agree with you all that. But frankly our lives come first, then money.

Nothing can limit the spread of this virus - for some reason a lot of people seem to be working on the basis that everything known about air-borne viruses no longer applies here! The most that can be done is to slow down its spread a bit - to which the immediate question is 'why?'. Back in March, the answer to that was to prevent the NHS from being overwhelmed and get the emergency hospitals set up. In reality, the predicted numbers never materialised, the emergency hospitals were mostly not used, and the NHS cam nowhere near to being overwhelmed. That extra capacity is still there, and given what is know now about the virus, and the increasing immunity levels in the population, the chances of the NHS beig overwhelmed, even if cases go up significantly, is very low.

 

[Domh245]

It is believed they do, yes. That's the whole basis of masks, self-isolation etc. If there was no spread from asymptomatic people, all we would need is "if you have symptoms, get a test, and if it is then stay at home until the symptoms have gone", and it'd be easily under control.

I've seen it suggested that it is in-fact pre-symptomatic people that are the issue, not the asymptomatic. Of course, there's no way of knowing if somebody is asymptomatic or pre-symptomatic until after the event, and indeed measuring asymptomatic spread is tricky without very thorough testing and tracing of entire populations! It does follow though that if you are able to fight off the infection without symptoms (a sign of a long drawn out battle between your body and your body's immune system as a result of the virus - at least that's how I've always understood it) then you probably aren't going to spread it much

I'd say its more like a panic button, try to slam the door shut and hope it goes away. It didn't and it won't, so doing it again will only make the problem much worse.

Bletchleyite does have a point, it should be a reset button used to bring things back under control and put in place the necessary to control the virus/perform 'the dance' afterwards. It has however turned into the panic button due to the bunch of incompetents in charge!

 

[Bletchleyite]

To take issue with @DavidB's overall point, there isn't much or any evidence that it's actually airborne, i.e. you can catch it outside of the presence of an infected individual like you can with, for example, measles. Such airborne diseases usually have a very high R number, because if someone with measles has been in a room, anyone who enters that room even minutes later could pick it up literally from the air - airborne. That isn't believed to be true of COVID, having, as it does, an R value of around 3 which is similar to other non-airborne respiratory viruses like flu.

 

[SouthEastBuses]

Nothing can limit the spread of this virus - for some reason a lot of people seem to be working on the basis that everything known about air-borne viruses no longer applies here! The most that can be done is to slow down its spread a bit - to which the immediate question is 'why?'. Back in March, the answer to that was to prevent the NHS from being overwhelmed and get the emergency hospitals set up. In reality, the predicted numbers never materialised, the emergency hospitals were mostly not used, and the NHS cam nowhere near to being overwhelmed. That extra capacity is still there, and given what is know now about the virus, and the increasing immunity levels in the population, the chances of the NHS beig overwhelmed, even if cases go up significantly, is very low.

The reason why they built the emergency hospitals in my opinion is the following - if the second wave becomes EVEN WORSE than the first one (hopefully not), then the NHS will have enough capacity for all required infected patients. And whilst its true that the NHS for now isn't being overwhelmed, I do believe a lockdown is likely again, provided that the second wave is deadlier than the first wave.

 

[trebor79]

All I'm saying is that if cases return back to March/April levels (or even worse than that), then unfortunately only lockdown can limit the spread of this virus.

This is demonstrably not correct. No lockdown in Sweden. Or South Korea. Or Thailand. That's three examples.
The current measures right here are limiting the spread, in fact at present it looks like we might be headed on a downward tragectory.

Yes, protecting the economy is important and I agree with you all that. But frankly our lives come first, then money.

Mass poverty will cut short far more lives than covid.

 

[Bantamzen]

Thing is, if we can avoid lockdown - then I don't see why not. All I'm saying is that if cases return back to March/April levels (or even worse than that), then unfortunately only lockdown can limit the spread of this virus. Yes, protecting the economy is important and I agree with you all that. But frankly our lives come first, then money.

If lockdown #1 ultimately doesn't stop the spread, then how would a second, or third or even fourth? It would be nothing more than an exercise in kicking the can down the street.

 

[Bletchleyite]

If lockdown #1 ultimately doesn't stop the spread, then how would a second, or third or even fourth? It would be nothing more than an exercise in kicking the can down the street.

...until a vaccine. Which, like it or not, appears to be UK Government policy.

 

[SouthEastBuses]

This is demonstrably not correct. No lockdown in Sweden. Or South Korea. Or Thailand. That's three examples.
The current measures right here are limiting the spread, in fact at present it looks like we might be headed on a downward tragectory.

Mass poverty will cut short far more lives than covid.

No lockdown in South Korea because there was no need to - they had effective trace and tracking systems, and cases were nowhere near as bad as in Europe. Man, I wish Europe (including the UK) would be like South Korea.

No lockdown in Sweden because all the Swedish government cared about was the economy and nothing else.

 

[DB]

More unworkable ideas: https://www.wired.co.uk/article/zer...ination?utm_source=pocket-newtab-global-en-GB

e.g.:

Others would require that the government back on previous policy announcements such as government guidance encouraging employers to welcome their staff back in the workplace, slated to become effective from August 1.

Some people really do seem prepared to completely trash the economy in the unattainable pursuit of eliminating this virus.

(I think we can probably take it as read that a certain contributor on here will agree with the article).

 

[DB]

No lockdown in Sweden because all the Swedish government cared about was the economy and nothing else.

And yet they have fewer deaths per Capita than several countries which did impose lockdowns, including the UK. Care to explain why you think that is?

 

[Bletchleyite]

(I think we can probably take it as read that a certain contributor on here will agree with the article).

Unsurprisingly, yes, I do, pretty much in full.

 

[yorkie]

But frankly our lives come first, then money.

What about these lives?

https://www.kentonline.co.uk/kent/news/lockdown-contributed-to-suicides-of-three-teenagers-228000/

Three teenagers in Kent are said to have taken their own lives while suffering the psychological effects of lockdown, a clinical commissioning group has said.

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.

Lockdown extends the lives of some - mostly elderly - people, yes. It's also enjoyed by middle class people with gardens, jobs that can be done at home, and space for homeworking.

But this is at the huge expense of mental health, particularly among young people, the livelihoods of many people especially those who work in lower income jobs, and the future aspirations and development of young people.

The idea that the choice is between "lives" (actually of predominantly older people) versus merely "money" (actually livelihoods and mental health of younger or poorer people) is utterly absurd and demonstrates a lack of the wider issues at stake.

Have you read previous threads in this forum section? This has all been debated before.

No lockdown in Sweden because all the Swedish government cared about was the economy and nothing else.

Have you read the thread on this subject? Can you explain your reasoning for this surprising claim in the relevant thread, so that we can pick your argument apart there, without going off topic here please.

And yet they have fewer deaths per Capita than several countries which did impose lockdowns, including the UK. Care to explain why you think that is?

I'd also be interested to hear your explanation, but in the relevant thread please.

 

[SouthEastBuses]

Have you read previous threads in this forum section? This has all been debated before.

Have you read the thread on this subject? Can you explain your reasoning for this surprising claim in the relevant thread, so that we can pick your argument apart there, without going off topic here please.

I'd also be interested to hear your explanation, but in the relevant thread please.

That wasn't a fact, but an opinion of mine.

 

[talldave]

I would define being safe as the following: no or very little risk of dying.

Well you've a higher chance of dying crossing the road than dying of Covid.

 

[Richard Scott]

Thing is, if we can avoid lockdown - then I don't see why not. All I'm saying is that if cases return back to March/April levels (or even worse than that), then unfortunately only lockdown can limit the spread of this virus. Yes, protecting the economy is important and I agree with you all that. But frankly our lives come first, then money.

You go on about this virus as if it's the worst ever, it isn't, we've improved our understanding of it over time and it's nowhere near as bad as first thought. Have you considered that currently there are cancer patients dying as they're not receiving treatment due to all this nonsense? Someone I know works in a cancer ward or more to the point did as still not serving its patients. Afraid if you think lives come before money then you're deluded. Without money we have no NHS so all those lives you want to extend (remember we don't save a life just delay death) won't be happening. This is what happens in the real world where the virus is only one thing to consider not the only thing.

 

[RomeoCharlie71]

The reason why they built the emergency hospitals in my opinion is the following - if the second wave becomes EVEN WORSE than the first one (hopefully not), then the NHS will have enough capacity for all required infected patients. And whilst its true that the NHS for now isn't being overwhelmed, I do believe a lockdown is likely again, provided that the second wave is deadlier than the first wave.

It's very good building the emergency hospitals - but how are you going to staff them?

I really doubt we'll have a deadlier second wave - never mind another lockdown, as we've come across treatments which reduce the chance of death from COVID - Dexamethasone being the main one.

 

[SouthEastBuses]

It's very good building the emergency hospitals - but how are you going to staff them?

I really doubt we'll have a deadlier second wave - never mind another lockdown, as we've come across treatments which reduce the chance of death from COVID - Dexamethasone being the main one.

I believe the second wave won't be as bad as the first one. Sure there will be spikes due to winter making it easier to catch viruses, but with treatments in development, and also with the fact we know about this virus, we can do everything to prevent a second wave, and consequently, a second national lockdown.

 

[talldave]

I believe the second wave won't be as bad as the first one. Sure there will be spikes due to winter making it easier to catch viruses, but with treatments in development, and also with the fact we know about this virus, we can do everything to prevent a second wave, and consequently, a second national lockdown.

I've got it! You write government press releases! I claim my prize of a Boris mask.

 

[RomeoCharlie71]

I believe the second wave won't be as bad as the first one. Sure there will be spikes due to winter making it easier to catch viruses, but with treatments in development, and also with the fact we know about this virus, we can do everything to prevent a second wave, and consequently, a second national lockdown.

Do you have a crystal ball that you are so sure that a "second" wave will even happen, never mind be as bad as the "first"?

We're still in the first wave, btw - what we'll experience this Winter, if anything, is a resurgence of the first wave.

 

[bramling]

I've seen it suggested that it is in-fact pre-symptomatic people that are the issue, not the asymptomatic. Of course, there's no way of knowing if somebody is asymptomatic or pre-symptomatic until after the event, and indeed measuring asymptomatic spread is tricky without very thorough testing and tracing of entire populations! It does follow though that if you are able to fight off the infection without symptoms (a sign of a long drawn out battle between your body and your body's immune system as a result of the virus - at least that's how I've always understood it) then you probably aren't going to spread it much



Bletchleyite does have a point, it should be a reset button used to bring things back under control and put in place the necessary to control the virus/perform 'the dance' afterwards. It has however turned into the panic button due to the bunch of incompetents in charge!

Let’s face it had more been done during February and early March then things might not have spiralled out of control. Remember back then we had medical staff with no PPE, and couldn’t get hold of hand gels for love nor money.

Likewise distancing only started to become a thing well after t he lockdown started. With hindsight that’s incredible.

 

[bramling]

I've got it! You write government press releases! I claim my prize of a Boris mask.

I like the term “Boris mask”, it sort of conveys a certain contempt.

I’ve already heard “Boris vaccine” being spoken about, in negative terms I might add.