What does the world do the moment a new pandemic/health emergency starts?

[brad465]

Now that we've seen a pandemic response like no pandemic in history, where our social lives have ground to a halt, large parts of the economy are shut down, along with international travel and more, I was recently thinking the above question in regard to the immediate onset of a new virus/pathogen. The specific focus here I'm getting at is not the overall response throughout the duration of the pandemic, but only the period where a pandemic takes off (say the equivalent of January-March 2020).

We already had panic buying as Covid took off, but lockdowns were not a concept initially. Now though we know they could theoretically be deployed again and all their consequences, I think the following actions might take place next time:

- Demand for international travel rockets, as overseas residents around the world rush to return home or be somewhere manageable in the event of border closures. There may also be a sudden surge in short term holidays in the hope of getting one in before they might be banned.
- Panic buying on an even bigger scale than last year.
- Social gatherings rapidly increase in number (and maybe size), for fear friends and family members won't be able to see each other for a long time. Related venues in hospitality, parks, beaches, etc. struggle to cope with numbers.
- Sectors of the economy believed to be secure in a pandemic (e.g. supermarkets, home working firms) see a rush of job applications/interest from those working in sectors at potential threat of closure/job losses (e.g. hospitality businesses).

In short I think there will be chaos, unless it can be proven before the next pandemic that much of what we did this time around is either ineffective/unnecessary/more harmful than good, with such evidence well communicated and put into future pandemic planning, while also building up healthcare capacity to improve resilience and ability to avoid getting overwhelmed.

 

[Cdd89]

I have been wondering/worrying about this too. New viruses spring up that could turn into epidemics/pandemics more often than one might think, and historically our approach has been to take limited measures and hope it fizzles out, which in every instance apart from this one served us well, and guided our (now much criticised, in hindsight) initial response to Covid. I don’t see governments taking that gamble for any future virus, and while New Zealand remains hailed as a role model governments may be incredibly quick to hard-shut borders, with repatriation of those abroad a distant second priority. I wouldn’t be surprised to see the U.K. earmarking compatible hotels and developing procedures for future isolation facilities as a long term contingency plan. For someone who travels frequently that is a non-zero risk.

 

[Yew]

I would love to say that we would follow the plans, and only deviate on the basis of high quality evidence and cost-benefit analysis. However based on this experience, we'll do whatever the daily mail screams for, or what consistently-wrong modelling says.

Hopefully, mRNA vaccines will come to the rescue, in theory we had successful vaccines within weeks of SARS COV-2 starting; if we can expedite deployment of new vaccines based on this technology to vulnerable groups early on in a pandemic, we might be able to 'beat' (like a race, rather than Johnsonian rhetoric) the virus to these people.


Ultimately it will depend a lot of how the costs of the lockdowns are calculated, if they are attributed to the lockdowns themselves, or lost if in the either of 'because covid'.

 

[Bantamzen]

I would love to say that we would follow the plans, and only deviate on the basis of high quality evidence and cost-benefit analysis. However based on this experience, we'll do whatever the daily mail screams for, or what consistently-wrong modelling says.

Hopefully, mRNA vaccines will come to the rescue, in theory we had successful vaccines within weeks of SARS COV-2 starting; if we can expedite deployment of new vaccines based on this technology to vulnerable groups early on in a pandemic, we might be able to 'beat' (like a race, rather than Johnsonian rhetoric) the virus to these people.


Ultimately it will depend a lot of how the costs of the lockdowns are calculated, if they are attributed to the lockdowns themselves, or lost if in the either of 'because covid'.

Perhaps any future "lockdown" should involve locking the scientists and experts in a room until they come up with a vaccine....?

(For the avoidance of doubt this is a joke, but you know might focus minds.... )

Seriously though, surely the kind of response seen in 2020 cannot be repeated. Its going to take a very long time for the world to recover from the economic shock of the last 18 months, let alone any social or psychological effect. Similar responses in that recovery time would just result in an even deeper shock, and eventually some countries would be forced into debt economic crisis. And as we know when countries are in strife, migration starts which would simply shift the problem elsewhere. So a 2021 / 22 / 23 global lockdown is unthinkable, the worst case scenario being political unrest between countries, possibly even resulting in military action. It would be nice to believe that countries would work together in a future pandemic, however as we have seen many countries we more keen on slamming borders and beating everyone else to medicines, equipment and vaccines. Its is this kind of thing that might fuel future unrest should the same situations be played out.

Longer term we need better global health strategies to cope not just with any future pandemics, but all sorts of possible situations that might happen. Realistically countries need to refocus economies to better provision public health services, making sure that countries have enough spare capacity to be able to react in the early stages of health crises until medical interventions come on line. And we probably need a drive in education, especially in this country, to get future generations getting into the health services & medical science. We are going to need better & more scientists in future to be able to react as quickly as possible whenever needed. That can only happen if governments fully commit to educating the next generations in science, as well as having funding in place. All this might need serious rethink on taxation policies, as well as looking at the relationships with medical & pharmaceutical industries. I would rather pay more in tax to fund this than sit meekly back as our lives are thrown into a semi-permanent cycle of lockdown & restriction, and those at the higher end of wealth must be expected to also share this cost.

 

[kristiang85]

I'm worried now that every large 'flu winter will now have daily updates of case numbers, hospitalisations and deaths, and the MSM and social media clamouring for lockdowns again. The genie is now out of the bottle, and I'm not sure how it will be put back in, now the precedents are in place.

 

[MikeWM]

Remember we've had at least 6 'scares' in the last 20 years alone before Covid came along. SARS-1, MERS, Zika, Swine flu, Bird flu (multiple times), and probably some other things I've forgotten.

Pandora's Box has been opened - every time anything at all potentially bad happens now, the lockdowns will be deployed, the borders will be closed, the masks will be required and the 'health passports' will be rolled out.

 

[LondonExile]

It'll depend on how long after COVID it happens.

Swine Flu from 2010 coming back in 2022/2023, would almost certainly trigger lockdowns etc. as governments try to get ahead of the virus.

Swine Flu from 2010 coming back in 2060 or 2080 would be much less likely to do the same.

Flu is still considered a significant threat due to the "memory" of 1918-1920, but enough time has passed that it wasn't a fear widely held outside of Public Health departments and researchers. There's a reason a lot of our initial COVID response was based on the assumption it acted like flu - that's what people had been preparing for.

Technologies such as mRNA vaccines will be a game-changer against future threats, and the next time we have something as "big" as COVID (perhaps in 100yrs time?), the response should be much better. With the flu pandemic of 1918-1920, all we had was isolation, cleaning/sterilisation, basic masks, and immunity through infection. This pandemic has had multiple rapidly-developed vaccines, plus the ability for many to work from home. The next pandemic should have an even greater toolbox to fight it with.

 

[PR1Berske]

Remember we've had at least 6 'scares' in the last 20 years alone before Covid came along. SARS-1, MERS, Zika, Swine flu, Bird flu (multiple times), and probably some other things I've forgotten.

Pandora's Box has been opened - every time anything at all potentially bad happens now, the lockdowns will be deployed, the borders will be closed, the masks will be required and the 'health passports' will be rolled out.

But I think you've reached the wrong conclusion.

Those were not "scares". They killed around the world. Covid 19 is the strongest so far. The next will be stronger.

We need Lockdowns and mask wearing, that much is true. And we may need more than that next time.

 

[Dent]

Covid 19 is the strongest so far. The next will be stronger.

Where is your proof of this statement?

We need Lockdowns and mask wearing, that much is true.

"Need" according to what comprehensive cost/benefit analysis? How could we "need" masks according to any cost/beneficent analysis given that they do not even have any real benefit?

]And we may need more than that next time.

What "more" is there? What we have done has already been totally devastating, that anyone would even consider doing anything like that again is truly horrifying, not to mention any unspecified "more".

 

[roversfan2001]

But I think you've reached the wrong conclusion.

Those were not "scares". They killed around the world. Covid 19 is the strongest so far. The next will be stronger.

We need Lockdowns and mask wearing, that much is true. And we may need more than that next time.

Are you still on the wind up? You almost sound like you *want* something like this to happen again.

 

[DustyBin]

But I think you've reached the wrong conclusion.

Those were not "scares". They killed around the world. Covid 19 is the strongest so far. The next will be stronger.

We need Lockdowns and mask wearing, that much is true. And we may need more than that next time.

You may remember I previously retracted an accusation that you were "trolling" but you really do yourself no favours with posts like this.... SARS-CoV-2 only succeeded in "going global" because it's not particularly virulent, an even less virulent pandemic may well require us to do nothing at all.

 

[PR1Berske]

You may remember I previously retracted an accusation that you were "trolling" but you really do yourself no favours with posts like this.... SARS-CoV-2 only succeeded in "going global" because it's not particularly virulent, an even less virulent pandemic may well require us to do nothing at all.

The moment I replied I realised how it looked!

I'm a pro-lockdown voice on a predominantly anti-lockdown forum. I understand how it might appear. But I can't agree with your conclusion. Covid is a warning that, along with changes in climate discussed elsewhere, our daily lives must now be highly caution-driven. "Freedom Day" is freedom for both humans and the diseases killing those humans.

 

[DustyBin]

The moment I replied I realised how it looked!

I'm a pro-lockdown voice on a predominantly anti-lockdown forum. I understand how it might appear. But I can't agree with your conclusion. Covid is a warning that, along with changes in climate discussed elsewhere, our daily lives must now be highly caution-driven. "Freedom Day" is freedom for both humans and the diseases killing those humans.

Fair enough, I'm not willing to exist in fear, I'd rather live, but we can agree to disagree!

 

[Dent]

The moment I replied I realised how it looked!

I'm a pro-lockdown voice on a predominantly anti-lockdown forum. I understand how it might appear. But I can't agree with your conclusion. Covid is a warning that, along with changes in climate discussed elsewhere, our daily lives must now be highly caution-driven. "Freedom Day" is freedom for both humans and the diseases killing those humans.

What are you actually proposing? What is your exit plan from this "highly caution-driven" state?

 

[PR1Berske]

Are you still on the wind up? You almost sound like you *want* something like this to happen again.

I'll use a real life example.

France tried opening up this week. Within two days, they're back in lockdown restrictions because of a huge spike in cases.

Another real life example. Rutte, the PM of the Netherlands, has had to publicly apologise for opening "too early" because of the massive problems they're having with variants.

When we go into lockdown this year, because we will, it's because real life examples like these are not being considered by our politicians.

What are you actually proposing? What is your exit plan from this "highly caution-driven" state?

We stay locked when cases rise, and reconfigure our lives to stay prepared for further Lockdowns until the disease is defeated.

No country has yet defeated Covid. And no country is free from restrictions. Real life example : Australia shut its borders from almost day 1, was championed as a success story, and is now in the grip of a huge wave of deaths. They have to be used as a warning for the UK. When even Australia, remote and closed borders, can't defeat Covid, we've got no chance without keeping restrictions in place for months, maybe years.

 

[Dent]

I'll use a real life example.

France tried opening up this week. Within two days, they're back in lockdown restrictions because of a huge spike in cases.

Another real life example. Rutte, the PM of the Netherlands, has had to publicly apologise for opening "too early" because of the massive problems they're having with variants.

When we go into lockdown this year, because we will, it's because real life examples like these are not being considered by our politicians.

So what exit plan are you proposing, and what is your proposed end date for the remaining restrictions? The release has already been delayed and delayed repeatedly to the point that it cannot be delayed any more without pushing the exit wave into winter when the health service is already under strain.

 

[PR1Berske]

So what exit plan are you proposing, and what is your proposed end date for the remaining restrictions? The release has already been delayed and delayed repeatedly to the point that it cannot be delayed any more without pushing the exit wave into winter when the health service is already under strain.

My proposed end date is whenever this disease is defeated. Our chief scientists don't know when that is. Australia doesn't know when that is. You don't know.

 

[DustyBin]

My proposed end date is whenever this disease is defeated. Our chief scientists don't know when that is. Australia doesn't know when that is. You don't know.

And if it can't be defeated (whatever "defeated" actually means)?

 

[Dent]

My proposed end date is whenever this disease is defeated. Our chief scientists don't know when that is. Australia doesn't know when that is. You don't know.

How do you define "when disease is defeated"?

So you're saying you don't know what you are advocating. In that case, don't you think you should have thought it through before advocating it?

 

[PR1Berske]

How do you define "when disease is defeated"?

So you're saying you don't know what you are advocating. In that case, don't you think you should have thought it through before advocating it?

I do know what I'm advocating. That we remain in lockdown and with restrictions for as long as Covid exists.

And that's currently the reality in France, who are back in lockdown after two days of returning to a form of normality.
Its true of Australia, once the golden child of dealing with Covid.

And it'll be true of us this autumn or winter when the next wave hits. Because no country has defeated this disease yet. And no country can be fully "free" yet.

My position is clear : we stay with lockdown and placing restrictions on society for as long as we need. I've always been clear on that.

 

[roversfan2001]

France tried opening up this week. Within two days, they're back in lockdown restrictions because of a huge spike in cases.

Another real life example. Rutte, the PM of the Netherlands, has had to publicly apologise for opening "too early" because of the massive problems they're having with variants.

When we go into lockdown this year, because we will, it's because real life examples like these are not being considered by our politicians.

Neither of those countries have vaccinated anywhere near as much of their population as we have though have they? It’s not a valid comparison whatsoever.

I do know what I'm advocating. That we remain in lockdown and with restrictions for as long as Covid exists.

And that's currently the reality in France, who are back in lockdown after two days of returning to a form of normality.
Its true of Australia, once the golden child of dealing with Covid.

And it'll be true of us this autumn or winter when the next wave hits. Because no country has defeated this disease yet. And no country can be fully "free" yet.

My position is clear : we stay with lockdown and placing restrictions on society for as long as we need. I've always been clear on that.

Hahahaha. You’re in for a shock when the penny drops and you realise that Covid is here to stay, and no amount of restrictions placed on human life will change that fact.

 

[kez19]

I do know what I'm advocating. That we remain in lockdown and with restrictions for as long as Covid exists.

And that's currently the reality in France, who are back in lockdown after two days of returning to a form of normality.
Its true of Australia, once the golden child of dealing with Covid.

And it'll be true of us this autumn or winter when the next wave hits. Because no country has defeated this disease yet. And no country can be fully "free" yet.

My position is clear : we stay with lockdown and placing restrictions on society for as long as we need. I've always been clear on that.

whilst under same breath destroy society peoples lives physically and mentally, well done you!

This doesn’t help anyone but if this is the true mentality I do think we are past the tipping point

Since you advocate lockdown how do we exit and get back to normal without affecting lives? How do you propose people get their health looked at or do we just ignore it and let the burden grow further? You need to stop looking at this so narrow minded but I couldn’t care but my health matters to me but if people like yourself don’t care than other than locking down then they will be hell to pay.

When Autumn/winter hits - it'll be flu season! Oh wait are we renaming Flu for 2021 as COVID this year? Who knew that viruses live along us all year round but i'll give you hayfever 2022 will be COVID 3.0 sorry its just another rebrand silly me!

My proposed end date is whenever this disease is defeated. Our chief scientists don't know when that is. Australia doesn't know when that is. You don't know.

We are not in some sci-fi film trying to beat up Darth Vader here - so how do we know the disease is "defeated" - whats the method on this? How do you measure it? You seem to know more than us but please do go on...

But I think you've reached the wrong conclusion.

Those were not "scares". They killed around the world. Covid 19 is the strongest so far. The next will be stronger.

We need Lockdowns and mask wearing, that much is true. And we may need more than that next time.

No we don't - what did we do with flu/colds or if you want to go things like menigitis? We didn't lockdown for any of that but i'm guessing this is some weird China crap to normalise it for the UK and world but still if you are happy with this sort of life - enjoy as I am out.

 

[Dent]

I do know what I'm advocating. That we remain in lockdown and with restrictions for as long as Covid exists.

"As long as Covid exists" is probably going to be centuries, and is quite likely to never end. Only one disease has ever been eliminated, and that took two hundred years. This is not a realistic exit plan.

 

[greyman42]

Longer term we need better global health strategies to cope not just with any future pandemics, but all sorts of possible situations that might happen.

We still do not know how this pandemic started. If we knew that it might help future planning for pandemics.

 

[kez19]

We still do not know how this pandemic started. If we knew that it might help future planning for pandemics.

As far as we know according to our trusted media - it was a bat from a wet market - so thats how it started or do we have some new info?

Future planning pandemics? What that? Is that meant to be our governments meant to be looking out for us? It seems it doesn't matter the situation in the world the governments say - they didn't see it coming or we didn't plan for that?

 

[DustyBin]

I do know what I'm advocating. That we remain in lockdown and with restrictions for as long as Covid exists.

And that's currently the reality in France, who are back in lockdown after two days of returning to a form of normality.
Its true of Australia, once the golden child of dealing with Covid.

And it'll be true of us this autumn or winter when the next wave hits. Because no country has defeated this disease yet. And no country can be fully "free" yet.

My position is clear : we stay with lockdown and placing restrictions on society for as long as we need. I've always been clear on that.

What level of collateral damage are you wiling to accept before you say enough is enough? How many people should be allowed to die as a result of lockdowns versus lives saved? And why are those deaths more acceptable than those from/with covid?

 

[greyman42]

My position is clear : we stay with lockdown and placing restrictions on society for as long as we need. I've always been clear on that.

Have you got any suggestions on what happens to the economy and peoples livelihoods while this endless lockdown goes on?

As far as we know according to our trusted media - it was a bat from a wet market - so thats how it started or do we have some new info?

The WHO report from China was far from convincing in some peoples opinions.

 

[kez19]

Have you got any suggestions on what happens to the economy and peoples livelihoods while this endless lockdown goes on?

I have a suggestion, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer!

The WHO report from China was far from convincing in some peoples opinions.

That I agree because I wasn't impressed.

 

[DustyBin]

The WHO report from China was far from convincing in some peoples opinions.

And worryingly they now know how to cripple the West without firing a single shot....

 

[RuralRambler]

I'd hope that there's enough research being done (across the World), looking at rates of infection, effectiveness of precautions/restrictions, data as to how and where the virus is spread most easily etc., that we could avoid lockdowns and harsh restrictions for the future.

I.e. the overall effectiveness of severe border controls, as to whether temporarily closing borders (strictly) the moment a new pandemic looks possible, to give a few weeks to evaluate spread/severity etc., i.e. to keep it out to buy some time.

Or, if, say, research shows, say pubs/restaurants are where a high incidence of infection is spread, then hard closure of those establishments. The same could be said for all different types of events/workplaces/educational establishments, etc. Surely, the statistics/data must be available as to where it's been spreading the most by now?

Rather than knee jerk reactions of closing everything "non essential", there must be a better way of shutting down the places/activities where the highest rate of spread occurs, at least as the first line of defence.

As it was, it does seem that the "experts" just took the small pox manual off the shelf and thought that it would be good enough to stop Covid, i.e. 2 metres, washing hands, etc. There was a TV programme a few months ago (Indian Doctor I think) that had a small pox outbreak, set in the 1960s, and the things they were doing were almost identical to the first defence strategy of covid early in 2020. Things have progressed since the 1960s, i.e. explosion in foreign travel, far more local travel for commuting to work, goods moved more by road by vans/lorries etc., i.e. far more movement of people generally, yet, the experts seemed to think that washing hands and keeping 2 metres apart was going to solve the problem!

And worryingly they now know how to cripple the West without firing a single shot....

Well, yes, but realistically, I don't think any future pandemic will be handled the same way. I think we've now proved that widespread lockdowns etc doesn't really work in the long run as covid can't be eliminated. Even countries who closed their borders are suffering covid, as you can't keep borders closed, just like you can't keep harsh lockdowns for long.

I have a suggestion, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer!

For some yes, but I think maybe it's the squeezed middle who've been squeezed some more, especially small business/self employed. The working poor are quite likely to have been able to carry on working as normal (i.e. delivery drivers, shop workers, etc), or if furloughed, they've been able to get other work and earning a second wage on top of their furlough pay from the first job.

Then you have those earning over £50k, who've had their furlough limited to just £2,500 p.m. which is quite a drop in income. Not to mention self employed earning over £50k who were excluded from the SEISS covid support scheme.