Should we go back into lockdown at this point?

[Jamiescott1]

Sorry, are you suggesting that we haven't spent millions of years developing our immune systems? We must have been really lucky not to have been wiped out before now.

Not at all. Im suggesting that lock down is just prolonging the time until all this is over.
By introducing another lockdown we are not facing up to the problem of how do we exit from this, we are just pushing the problem further away whilst we cross our fingers and hope for a vaccine.

Edit: when I say we, I mean the government

 

[Domh245]

And the final nail in the economy, millions of people's jobs, and then the virus will still just pop up and start again. Once more, and I don't know why this keeps getting ignored, but in our entire history we have eliminated just 2 viruses. Elimination is not an option, and its about time everyone that needs to gets this in their heads.

BuT we HaVE to KeEP CarE hOmE ResIdEnTS aLiVe !1!!

 

[Huntergreed]

And the final nail in the economy, millions of people's jobs, and then the virus will still just pop up and start again. Once more, and I don't know why this keeps getting ignored, but in our entire history we have eliminated just 2 viruses. Elimination is not an option, and its about time everyone that needs to gets this in their heads.

Could you try telling that to Ms Sturgeon up here? I’ve tried emailing them and I just get “our priority is to keep Scotland safe and by eliminating the virus we will allow Scotland to live in a safer, more sustainable society“

 

[MikeWM]

They're running around like headless chicken. What are they even trying to achieve anymore? Do they know themselves? This is utterly pathetic.

 

[DB]

Why?
The easiest way for the government to win the next election is to squash seasonal flu and coronavirus by any means necessary. Then demographics win them the election by default.

Because the economic impact of carrying on with this will be so severe that they will have no choice. A country with vast numbers of unemployed sitting at home with no prospect of a job isn't a situation which any government will want to be in.

 

[LAX54]

Because the economic impact of carrying on with this will be so severe that they will have no choice. A country with vast numbers of unemployed sitting at home with no prospect of a job isn't a situation which any government will want to be in.

The ONS has reported that since March, a total of 690,000 jobs have gone to the wall, and predict many more to come, the longer this drags on, the more will be jobless, and possibly homeless too, far far more than the daily 'virus; figures, meanwhile Sweden jogs along quite happily !

Do we also not need to get way from the figures on deaths that say 'from any cause in the past 28 days, that proved positive when tested' ?

 

[Howardh]

In the next 30 years, give or take, I'll be relying on pensions and savings to see me through my old age. If they are reduced or gone due to the economic collapse of the country, then I won't be the only one in that boat. Oh, and in mid-60's not much chance of finding a job either with millions of younger unemployed.

So,which would those of us of a certain age prefer, avoiding getting a virus which is horrible but more than likely not kill us, or seeing the virus off but having no financial future whatsoever? Because what will 10 years down the road be like if the economy collapses?

Also, just to add injury to insult, if pensioner's pensions and income is so low, we have now had the opportunity to escape to a cheaper EU country with a better climate stolen away from us, they won't give residential visas to those under a certain income, even if we can live frugally.

 

[DB]

The ONS has reported that since March, a total of 690,000 jobs have gone to the wall, and predict many more to come, the longer this drags on, the more will be jobless, and possibly homeless too,

And this is exactly the sort of situation which leads to trouble - and the government must know this.

So,which would those of us of a certain age prefer, avoiding getting a virus which is horrible but more than likely not kill us, or seeing the virus off but having no financial future whatsoever? Because what will 10 years down the road be like if the economy collapses?

I don't even think that is the choice - the first option but is true, but I don't believe that any number of restrictive, economy-destroying measures will succeed in seeing off the virus, and the damage will all be for nothing.

 

[Yew]

Has it ever been attempted?

I don't think so, nobody would suggest that we try and suppress an

BuT we HaVE to KeEP CarE hOmE ResIdEnTS aLiVe !1!!

Given that the median life expectancy is 14 months, half of them have already died, all delaying at this stage does, is allow them to fill back up again.

 

[duncanp]

Some news organisations are speculating that multiple "circuit break" national lockdowns might be required to see us through the winter.

Yes, this is just speculation, but I cannot see what a two week national lockdown, where hospitality businesses are completely closed, is going to achieve.

It would be far better to have the same level of restrictions throughout England, so that everyone understands what they are. These restrictions should be at a level that is sustainable over the long term (ie about 6 months) and whilst causing some inconvenience, enable most businesses to continue operating.

This could include:-

• A mandatory closing time for pubs of, say, 10:30pm.
• A ban on household visiting outside your support bubble, but meeting would be permitted outdoors and in cafes and pubs.
• People asked to work from home as much as possible
• A ban on travelling more than 100 miles from your home without a good reason. The reasoning behind this is that it would allow people to travel for leisure journeys in the region where they live, but limit the transfer of infections between regions of the country. A similar measure was in force in France during the early stages of lockdown easing.

There should also be much stricter enforcement of the existing rules, as some people and businesses have been taking the mickey, such as the rugby club on Wales that went on a trip to Doncaster races, stopping off at several pubs along the way. Whilst this may not have been against the letter of the law, it was against the spirit of the law.

 

[adc82140]

I don't think so, nobody would suggest that we try and suppress an

Given that the median life expectancy is 14 months, half of them have already died, all delaying at this stage does, is allow them to fill back up again.

That is a very good point. When my grandmother shuffled off about 10 years ago at the ripe old age of 96, the home she was in told us that she was one of their longest term residents ever. She was in there for three years.

 

[Scrotnig]

The problem is, a "two week lockdown" will be nothing of the sort, any more than the orignal three week one was.

All that will happen is that at the end of the two weeks, the government will tell us cases haven't fallen sufficiently and the restrictions will need to stay in place.

If they implement this it will likely last all winter.

 

[najaB]

Because what will 10 years down the road be like if the economy collapses?

Given that it's going to take 20-30 years to recover from the damage that a no-deal Brexit is going cause, what difference does Covid make on top of that?

 

[DB]

• A mandatory closing time for pubs of, say, 10:30pm.

Which will achieve what exactly? Most of the week most pubs will shut at 11 anyway, and at weekends an earlier closing time is likely to lead to more people coming in earlier because of the earlier close - so a probable increase in the number of people at any one time.

Given that it's going to take 20-30 years to recover from the damage that a no-deal Brexit is going cause, what difference does Covid make on top of that?

That rather depends on how long the drag it on for.

It will be mighty handy for the government to have a diversion early next year, on which they can try to blame all the issues caued by Brexit. Could well therefore be in their interests to keep ramping up the paranoia for the next four months!

 

[duncanp]

Which will achieve what exactly? Most of the week most pubs will shut at 11 anyway, and at weekends an earlier closing time is likely to lead to more people coming in earlier because of the earlier close - so a probable increase in the number of people at any one time.

The point about a mandatory closing time of 10:30pm would be to try and restrict the late night bars and pubs in city centres, which tend to be more crowded and where social distancing becomes more difficult to enforce, whilst still allowing local pubs and places such as Wetherspoons to remain open.

Instead of a mandatory closing time across the country, you could ask each local authority to review the licensing hours of all hospitality venues in their areas, and impose restrictions where it is felt that these would have some effect.

 

[DB]

The point about a mandatory closing time of 10:30pm would be to try and restrict the late night bars and pubs in city centres, which tend to be more crowded and where social distancing becomes more difficult to enforce, whilst still allowing local pubs and places such as Wetherspoons to remain open.

Instead of a mandatory closing time across the country, you could ask each local authority to review the licensing hours of all hospitality venues in their areas, and impose restrictions where it is felt that these would have some effect.

Afraid I'm not convinced - those who would be out later will just go out earlier instead.

 

[bramling]

Then as @HSTEd says the rules will not end - ever.

If we want to go for elimination we will need, I reckon, a 2 month full lockdown - i.e. emergency services out only, food parcels delivered.

I’d actually go for that if I thought it would actually work. However I just can’t see it would - our borders are too porous for a start, and secondly I don’t think it’s enforceable enough to work as desired.

Could you try telling that to Ms Sturgeon up here? I’ve tried emailing them and I just get “our priority is to keep Scotland safe and by eliminating the virus we will allow Scotland to live in a safer, more sustainable society“

Does that mean she is *officially* following an elimination strategy?

 

[najaB]

That rather depends on how long the drag it on for.

Seeing as all the likely Boris replacements are of the same mindset, 2024 at earliest based on the Fixed Terms Parliaments Act.

 

[Harpers Tate]

In my view, a lockdown is only necessary when the number of people requiring hospitalisation (so, not simply the number of cases) reaches a critical level. Unless and until that happens, softer measures will, I believe, suffice. Softer measures probably include (most particularly) controlling the activities that either simply occur, or worse, are permitted, condoned, even, in pubs.

As to condemning the Government - I don't support that thought process. Nobody - and I mean nobody has the right answer to the pandemic; only perhaps a different answer which is just as likely to be just as "wrong" but from a different perspective. The recurrent comparisons with, say, Sweden, are not valid unless and until you bring in to the comparison the mentality of (enough of) the population on the subject; whether "people" there are as prone to (for example and please forgive the term) "misbehave" when drinking - say. Or whether there are segments of their society who, perhaps for cultural reasons, are more likely to persist with large family gatherings - and so on. I don't know how Swedes "behave" in society as compared to us. But as a different example that I do know of - well before any such pandemic (including SARS) the people of Hong Kong were likely (no, not all of them) to wear a face mask voluntarily if they had a cold - to attempt to protect others from it. Not here, though.

 

[DB]

2024 at earliest, based on the Fixed Terms Parliaments Act.

I simply don't believe they can - the ecomonic damage will be so catastrophic if it even carries on for another year that they won't be able to maintain their position.

 

[Cheshire Rover]

Then as @HSTEd says the rules will not end - ever.

If we want to go for elimination we will need, I reckon, a 2 month full lockdown - i.e. emergency services out only, food parcels delivered.

But all it takes then is one person coming in off a flight who is infected and we start again.
The only answer at the moment is to protect the vulnerable and let the rest of us get on with it. If we ever get a vaccine, then great. Pretty sure I had this virus in January and yes, I felt ill for a few days but recovered in 2 weeks and stayed at work throughout (no suggestion of Covid at that time of course)

 

[mralexn]

I considered lockdown to be over when Cummings wasn't sacked.

For me it was when Ferguson, the person who created all these "Models" believed in it so much that he went doing things he shouldn't have.. all around London!

One rule it seems.

 

[trebor79]

The only answer at the moment is to protect the vulnerable and let the rest of us get on with it. If we ever get a vaccine, then great.

I agree. I suspect the government knows it's done sweet F A on that since the last lockdown.
Remember, everything they do now is just about damage limitation to Boris' reputation. Another lockdown neatly allows him to be seen to be doing something, whilst avoiding a very public demonstration of the utter failure to put in place all the things have been promised over the past 6 months.
Absolute shower of ****.

 

[najaB]

Pretty sure I had this virus in January and yes, I felt ill for a few days but recovered in 2 weeks and stayed at work throughout (no suggestion of Covid at that time of course)

if it was in January, then it's unlikely unless you have been near someone who had travelled through an infected area recently. The rate of community transmission at that point would have been vanishingly small. Much more likely to have been seasonal flu, unless you had Covid specific symptoms?

 

[Darandio]

if it was in January, then it's unlikely unless you have been near someone who had travelled through an infected area recently. The rate of community transmission at that point would have been vanishingly small. Much more likely to have been seasonal flu, unless you had Covid specific symptoms?

I'm firmly of the belief that it was well established here even in late December last year, possibly even earlier.

 

[Class 33]

The problem is, a "two week lockdown" will be nothing of the sort, any more than the orignal three week one was.

All that will happen is that at the end of the two weeks, the government will tell us cases haven't fallen sufficiently and the restrictions will need to stay in place.

If they implement this it will likely last all winter.

Indeed. Pretty much similar to what I said earlier. This would end up dragging on a lot longer than just 2 or 3 weeks. We'll be pretty much RESETTING back to the lockdown of 23rd March all over again.

 

[DB]

I'm firmly of the belief that it was well established here even in late December last year, possibly even earlier.

There does seem a strong possibility of that, from various sources. I might have had it in January / early Feb (certainly had something which could have been it, and felt crap for a few days).

 

[Jamiescott1]

I never thought I'd utter these words but Dan Wootton talls sence on the sun website about a second lockdown

 

[87electric]

How many on here have actually considered that we are possibly in this predicament for 5 years to implement the Great Reset as indicated by the World Economic Forum. As we currently flounder with seemingly unnecessary restrictions, confusion of the guidance/laws and the varied interpretations of science does anyone believe that this is all by design? Is using a non lethal virus and utilising a vaccination program implementing all this? Because when nothing makes sense and we keep going around in circles then maybe it is time to search for answers no matter how offbeat they are. Clinging on to the hope it will all be over very soon is wishful thinking at best.

 

[thejuggler]

School holidays are either the last week of October or the first week in November (some schools have both) and I'm only talking for English schools. Lockdown would mean all schools have two weeks.