Can we afford another lockdown?

[Starmill]

On the contrary, Sweden managed to achieve 0.1% growth in the last quarter (UK equivalent: -10.4%) and doesn't seem to have suffered nearly the same sort of collapse across all sectors that the UK did. Had we adopted a Sweden style 'light touch' approach I think it's safe to say we'd have also fared a lot better economically.

I don't disagree that we needed to step in and impose a lockdown, and that some businesses were doing poorly, but I think it's a leap too far to try and conclude that a lockdown was necessary to save the entirety of retail

The UK very comfortably missed the opportunity to go for the Swedish approach unfortunately by doing absolutely nothing early on. It would have been possible earlier but it's less effective than elimination, which is still a choice at that stage.

The UK is quite special in that we have achieved neither comprehensive suppression of the virus nor protection of economic activity.

 

[43066]

Down but not heavily down yet.
The fear would not have set in yet, outside the pensioner demographic.

Government messaging would be reminding everyone that the risk to almost everyone under 40 is negligible, and outside people like diabetics is very low for people under 60.

Agreed, as has been the case in Sweden, for example.

 

[Domh245]

The UK is quite special in that we have achieved neither comprehensive suppression of the virus nor protection of economic activity.

I 100% agree with that!

 

[bramling]

Why are so many forgetting why we went into lockdown?

The lockdown didn't cause economic harm, to think it did is so off beam its why our death numbers and infection rates will continue to be far far too many for a long time to come.

Britain seems to have managed to suffer the worst of both worlds, an unimpressive death rate *and* heavy economic harm. Quite likely we may well score a hat-trick with the addition of severe social damage too, due to the ongoing effects of all this.

However, it’s impossible to “forget” why Britain went into lockdown because BJ never actually told us in the first place. I seem to remember there was a thread covering this some while ago.

 

[Enthusiast]

In both cases trade would be so low that the businesses would have closed down.

Why would they?

I am old enough to recall the 1968 "Hong Kong 'Flu" pandemic. As mentioned, it caused more deaths in the UK than this pandemic (so far). Worldwide it caused between two and eight times as many deaths. It also had a higher death rate among younger people than Covid. Nothing closed by diktat (although a few businesses closed for a time when sickness levels became too high for them to operate). Schools and businesses worked normally. Sporting fixtures continued with audiences. It didn't warrant any Parliamentary discussion as far as I can recall. There was nothing like the rabid hysteria that we have seen in the last three months. There was certainly no "furlough" scheme. It had very little effect on the economy.

Many people in the UK seem to believe that if we remain "locked down" long enough the virus will be "defeated." It won't. It will disappear when it's ready (or more likely mutate into a less damaging strain). Although further lockdowns may not be so well observed by individuals, the economic damage will come from a second closure of businesses. Those edicts will be observed and the results will be crippling.

Currently people are living in a fools' paradise. They're being paid, many have had a nice break, their jobs are still there (but they are beginning to disappear). Sweden's approach has been infinitely better than ours on just about every front. They have no fear of a second wave because their first wave has not disappeared. They have had a steady flow of infections across the period. We didn't miss the opportunity to follow that strategy. We bottled it when Prof. Fergusson forecast 500,000 deaths. His model also forecast 40,000 deaths for Sweden by May 1st (they had 2,653). As a result we ended up with the worst of both worlds.

History will show that most of the world reacted in a totally inappropriate way to this pandemic. Bad stuff sometimes happens and governments need to manage the expectations of their population, not scare them witless and make them afraid to step outside or come within a few feet of anybody else. The cure has killed (or at least very severely damaged) the patient. A second dose of the same medicine will certainly put the patient out of its misery probably permanently.

 

[Jozhua]

Economically, possibly. Societally, no.

Was funny to see the move from baking carrot cake in week 1 to abolishing the police on week 12.

Then there's the raves, parties, etc.

We also have to consider mental health, other conditions, including quality of life issues.

The ultimate answer to this question is a big fat NO.

Many people (myself included) have been more than prepared to adhere to lockdown and tow the line but to sacrifice many things again I would use the phrase 'get on your bike!'.

Several problems have come about from lockdown such as soaring mental heath, unemployment, relationship breakdowns,..... the list goes on.

I'll be blunt here and speak for myself and many others I know and say that if the UK was unfortunate enough to get a second wave I would be fully prepared to get the virus and take my chances rather than living in a prolonged state of limbo.

I do appreciate my attitude may be a selfish one if say I passed on the infection to a vulnerable person. However, my argument would be - if we had a second wave, are we likely to get a third wave, then maybe a forth wave? You can see my point here.

We all have to be realistic - if like Chris Whitty predicts we get a second 'Winter' wave can we honestly cope again not seeing love ones at Christmas & suffering limited daylight locked up, while also stood outside shops in sub zero temperatures. I rest my case.

The government knows this country will never adhere to a second lockdown anyway and even the most patient of people (like myself) wouldn't do it.

CJ

I wouldn't do it either. The first wave almost finished us off, never mind a second.

We couldn't really afford the first lockdown.

But the government will order it out of panic, just like the first time.

Question is whether people will obey again.

Question is will people screech at each other on social media about daring to go outside.

 

[HSTEd]

The only disease to prompt anything even close to this scale historically was the plague.

The plague killed 40+% of the infected......
Not really the same is it?

 

[Jozhua]

Why are so many forgetting why we went into lockdown?

The lockdown didn't cause economic harm, to think it did is so off beam its why our death numbers and infection rates will continue to be far far too many for a long time to come.

Coronavirus would have caused economic harm, no doubt and some of that number would have doubtlessly occured anyway.

But lockdown has been the most amount of restrictions citizens and businesses have faced in almost a century, to think this has not had an effect is crazy.

Coronovirus, not lockdown.

Until you can control the virus lockdown has to remain an option.

Many countries did manage to control the virus without a lockdown, or at least not a four month long one.

 

[johnnychips]

Many countries did manage to control the virus without a lockdown, or at least not a four month long one.

Just a bit of speculation... there seems to be a few ideas that many people in the U.K. have had it with mild or no symptoms, and therefore have built up some communal immunity. But in NZ, sooner or later they will have to open borders and then get a shock. But I suppose they will be prepared for it. Just a thought with no evidence at all.

 

[mmh]

Britain seems to have managed to suffer the worst of both worlds, an unimpressive death rate *and* heavy economic harm. Quite likely we may well score a hat-trick with the addition of severe social damage too, due to the ongoing effects of all this.

However, it’s impossible to “forget” why Britain went into lockdown because BJ never actually told us in the first place. I seem to remember there was a thread covering this some while ago.

Oh, he told us. We were bombarded with it. We were protecting the NHS. It may have been nonsense, but we were told constantly.

 

[bramling]

Oh, he told us. We were bombarded with it. We were protecting the NHS. It may have been nonsense, but we were told constantly.

Depends upon how one looks at it. I certainly remember the “save the NHS” message, indeed we now have it festooned on lamp posts in my town as part of the social distancing measures. But the NHS never came close to collapse, yet three months later lockdown continues.

So I can only conclude the “save the NHS” message was a publicity tactic knowing how some people seem to worship the NHS, and the real reason BJ opted for lockdown was because other countries were doing it.

Three months down the line I’m still none the wiser as to whether BJ was trying to eliminate the virus, prevent the NHS resembling what happened in Italy, buy time, or whatever. So if no one really knows why we went into the first lockdown and what we were hoping to achieve from it, I think we’re doomed should there be any attempt to go into a second one.

 

[HSTEd]

Depends upon how one looks at it. I certainly remember the “save the NHS” message, indeed we now have it festooned on lamp posts in my town as part of the social distancing measures. But the NHS never came close to collapse, yet three months later lockdown continues.

Supposedly the NHS overruled the RAMC over the purpose of the Nightingale hospitals.
The Army wanted them to be used for people who could not or would not be put on ventilators.

The NHS refused to do that because they were worried about publicity of HOSPITALS OF DEATH if they had a worse death rate than regular hospitals.
This wasn't a national emergency, because it wasn't managed like one.
It was managed like a political exercise.

 

[bramling]

Supposedly the NHS overruled the RAMC over the purpose of the Nightingale hospitals.
The Army wanted them to be used for people who could not or would not be put on ventilators.

The NHS refused to do that because they were worried about publicity of HOSPITALS OF DEATH if they had a worse death rate than regular hospitals.
This wasn't a national emergency, because it wasn't managed like one.
It was managed like a political exercise.

I bet down the road there’s going to be so much stuff that’s going to come out from various institutions regarding how decisions were imposed upon them.

Ultimately I don’t think we can afford to go through this all again.

 

[C J Snarzell]

I have family who work in hospitals and they have commented that wards have been empty, there has been a record number of empty beds and A&E admissions have been at their lowest in twenty years.

The Nightingale hospitals appear to have been a great idea but where eventually mothballed. Therefore the NHS has been massive ring fenced, but at the expense of people awaiting critical operations/surgery.

My argument would be - is a second lockdown really necessary anyway when we have all the contingencies available this time round.

I do think business leaders would boycout any attempt to have their companies closed down again (this would lead to financial meltdown), people in generally would 'Just Say No!' (like the Grange Hill song), and the police clearly cannot cope with the number of lockdown flouters anyway during this current one.

CJ

 

[Scrotnig]

They won't instigate another full lockdown.

What I wish they would do, is delay the opening of pubs for another few weeks at least.

I am the furthest from a 'locktivist' that you could get, but I do think end of July / early August would be safer for reopening pubs.

I was hoping they'd have gone with 'outdoor beer gardens only' for the 4th July, but they've gone full on and for my mind cases are still a bit too high.

Never thought I'd say that. I am very pro-opening up again.

 

[jumble]

Vikki Slade from ChristBournePoo Council or whatever it's called has said that it'll all be "safe" on 4th July. How clever of her to know that.

Is this the same Vicky Slade who fabricated a request from the police to remove Baden Powell's statue ?

 

[Starmill]

Why would they?

I am old enough to recall the 1968 "Hong Kong 'Flu" pandemic. As mentioned, it caused more deaths in the UK than this pandemic (so far). Worldwide it caused between two and eight times as many deaths. It also had a higher death rate among younger people than Covid. Nothing closed by diktat (although a few businesses closed for a time when sickness levels became too high for them to operate). Schools and businesses worked normally. Sporting fixtures continued with audiences. It didn't warrant any Parliamentary discussion as far as I can recall. There was nothing like the rabid hysteria that we have seen in the last three months. There was certainly no "furlough" scheme. It had very little effect on the economy.

Many people in the UK seem to believe that if we remain "locked down" long enough the virus will be "defeated." It won't. It will disappear when it's ready (or more likely mutate into a less damaging strain). Although further lockdowns may not be so well observed by individuals, the economic damage will come from a second closure of businesses. Those edicts will be observed and the results will be crippling.

Currently people are living in a fools' paradise. They're being paid, many have had a nice break, their jobs are still there (but they are beginning to disappear). Sweden's approach has been infinitely better than ours on just about every front. They have no fear of a second wave because their first wave has not disappeared. They have had a steady flow of infections across the period. We didn't miss the opportunity to follow that strategy. We bottled it when Prof. Fergusson forecast 500,000 deaths. His model also forecast 40,000 deaths for Sweden by May 1st (they had 2,653). As a result we ended up with the worst of both worlds.

History will show that most of the world reacted in a totally inappropriate way to this pandemic. Bad stuff sometimes happens and governments need to manage the expectations of their population, not scare them witless and make them afraid to step outside or come within a few feet of anybody else. The cure has killed (or at least very severely damaged) the patient. A second dose of the same medicine will certainly put the patient out of its misery probably permanently.

Well for a start because this isn't the same disease. The rest of your post is mainly just your opinion, and it's sufficient for me to say that I disagree with pretty much all of it.

One thing I've noticed is that this forum is really full of people who are complaining about others not going to work - this is the sort of zealot thinking that I mean when I say people are well out of touch.

 

[Freightmaster]

I am the furthest from a 'locktivist' that you could get, but I do think end of July / early August would be safer for reopening pubs.

I was hoping they'd have gone with 'outdoor beer gardens only' for the 4th July, but they've gone full on and for my mind cases are still a bit too high.

I agree - or they could have compromised by doing the same as Northern Ireland - only allowing people
inside pubs who are having a meal (as people don't tend to get rowdy/violent while having Sunday Lunch!)





MARK

 

[Bletchleyite]

Yes, I too expected only outdoors, then everything in August if outdoors didn't cause issues.

 

[nlogax]

The Nightingale hospitals appear to have been a great idea but where eventually mothballed. Therefore the NHS has been massive ring fenced, but at the expense of people awaiting critical operations/surgery.

While it was a decent achievement to get the Nightingale hospitals up and running, by the time the first one opened it was already too late into the Covid cycle to be of any real use. Most NHS trusts had already done an amazing job in treating patients in existing hospitals.

One thing that will surely come out of this for any future pandemics will be far quicker national and regional responses aligned to some sort of, I dunno, 'plan'. Imagine that.

 

[Jozhua]

Just a bit of speculation... there seems to be a few ideas that many people in the U.K. have had it with mild or no symptoms, and therefore have built up some communal immunity. But in NZ, sooner or later they will have to open borders and then get a shock. But I suppose they will be prepared for it. Just a thought with no evidence at all.

I have looked at this possibility, among other scenarios and I am somewhat skeptical.

I've been keeping a spreadsheet and looking at different death rates, 2%,0.8% and the proposed 0.1-0.36% from Oxford University.

0.1% seems to fit the bill with herd immunity in Europe, with the outbreak petering out at 60% infection. However, places like New York have had significantly higher numbers per capita, around 2-3x as many.

However, I've come up with a figure of 0.5%, based on antibody testing in Sweden compared with the number of deaths. This would put us at approximately 12-13% of the population having had the virus. More than the imperial reports, but not quite the whole population! I'm sure this will slow down the rate of infection slightly, but it's far away from what we need to stop another outbreak.

Obviously the death rate can vary considerably, depending which populations are hit hardest by the virus. New York may have done a perticularly poor job of shielding the old/vulnerable and its testing/reporting regime will be different.

I believe New Zealand is planning on opening up an "Air Bridge" with Australia, so that should help them somewhat. Then two week quarantine for everyone else I guess.

 

[Yew]

That's a good point, it's worth remembering the herd immunity is a spectrum, and that it has an effect on the R, even if we're not all the way to 60%

 

[MikeWM]

However, I've come up with a figure of 0.5%, based on antibody testing in Sweden compared with the number of deaths. This would put us at approximately 12-13% of the population having had the virus. More than the imperial reports, but not quite the whole population! I'm sure this will slow down the rate of infection slightly, but it's far away from what we need to stop another outbreak.

Have you taken into account the increasing amount of evidence that not all people exposed to the virus produce antibodies, but use other mechanisms of the immune system to fight it off? The proportion who test positive for antibodies are the minimum number of people who have been exposed; the actual number could well be considerably higher.

 

[bramling]

Well for a start because this isn't the same disease. The rest of your post is mainly just your opinion, and it's sufficient for me to say that I disagree with pretty much all of it.

One thing I've noticed is that this forum is really full of people who are complaining about others not going to work - this is the sort of zealot thinking that I mean when I say people are well out of touch.

The complaining on here is nothing compared to that which is going on out in the real world!

 

[MikeWM]

Here's one of the many reasons that the only answer to the question is a firm 'no'.

https://www.theguardian.com/society...onths-of-uk-lockdown-figures-show-coronavirus

Government figures have revealed that lack of money forced millions of people to go hungry or rely on food banks during the first few weeks of the coronavirus lockdown, with families and young adults worst affected.

...between 6.3 million and 7.7 million adults had reduced meal portion sizes or missed meals altogether because of lack of money, and between 2.7 million and 3.7 million adults sought charity food or used a food bank.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I believe New Zealand is planning on opening up an "Air Bridge" with Australia, so that should help them somewhat. Then two week quarantine for everyone else I guess.

It's probably worthy of note that there aren't many people who don't live in Oz or NZ who are in a position to take a weekend break in Oz or NZ due to them being miles from anywhere, though - the tourist economy differs a lot from Europe.

 

[thejuggler]

Here's one of the many reasons that the only answer to the question is a firm 'no'.

https://www.theguardian.com/society...onths-of-uk-lockdown-figures-show-coronavirus

Government failing to provide properly for people affected by lockdown is not a reason not to do it again if deemed necessary. Dead, ill and potentially permanently disabled people aren't good for the economy.

 

[Starmill]

Lots of people are considering the question of whether lockdown is convenient for them, or good for their own personal finances. Some people are asking if it's good for poorer people's in general. These are valid discussions but hyperbole about collapse isn't. This thread seemed mainly intended to be a consideration of whether the UK as a country can afford this - and the answer is a firm yes, still. As yet, at the moment, we can afford what we need to buy. The government decided not to support at least a million people financially for political reasons the first time around - they didn't do it because they could not afford it.

It's legitimate to have the opinion that lockdown inconvenienced you personally, but that doesn't seem to be the question being asked here.

The irony is that if we don't get the virus strongly under control there is a big risk of financial collapse. Lockdown would have been far shorter if it had come sooner and had been planned better.

 

[Starmill]

Government failing to provide properly for people affected by lockdown is not a reason not to do it again if deemed necessary. Dead, ill and potentially permanently disabled people aren't good for the economy.

I agree. And I say that regardless of any new form of "lockdown" or not, the government can and should be providing more support right now to people negatively affected by the virus.

 

[bramling]

Government failing to provide properly for people affected by lockdown is not a reason not to do it again if deemed necessary. Dead, ill and potentially permanently disabled people aren't good for the economy.

I agree. Ultimately if this does flare up again there are going be some *very* uncomfortable choices to be made.

Economic ruin versus excess deaths. It may very well be the case that we have to come to terms with the excess deaths as the lesser of two evils, as economic ruin will also lead to excess deaths.

We kind of needed to get this right first time. We didn’t, and have been playing catch up ever since. We needed to get infections down so that a viable track and trace could work, and we’ve achieved neither. We can’t have another lockdown, so our only hope is to get infections down to a manageable level. We just have to hope that these beach crowds aren’t going to cause a spike.

I personally don’t think as a country we can afford it, not without saddling ourselves with something terrible going forward.