Should we go back into lockdown at this point?

[TheGrandWazoo]

So what' is not being understood?

Herd immunity is what keeps most viruses at a relatively low level! Only a minority actually have vaccines.

Because herd immunity works on the basis that you are vaccinated (and so can't be infected) or that having had it, you are again unable to be reinfected and transmit it so the virus has no hosts to infect.

We don't have a vaccine and, AFAIK, it is not proven that having had Covid, you can't be reinfected.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Because herd immunity works on the basis that you are vaccinated (and so can't be infected) or that having had it, you are again unable to be reinfected and transmit it so the virus has no hosts to infect.

We don't have a vaccine and, AFAIK, it is not proven that having had Covid, you can't be reinfected.

Given that the two are quite strongly linked, if you can be reinfected there won't be a vaccine. What then?

I'd favour wholly removing restrictions if that was to be proven, and allowing people to make their own risk judgement, possibly with some new benefits for people at high risk.

 

[Bantamzen]

Has it ever been attempted?

Not deliberately by governments, but it's been happening in our species for about 2 million years. So there must be some merit in it, we are still here after all.

 

[Jamiescott1]

Kicking the can down the road

 

[Bantamzen]

Kicking the can down the road

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.

 

[Ianno87]

*If* there were to be a lockdown, then education *must* be allowed to continue as normal both the disruption to kids education and to parents lives who suddenly have all-day childcare and teaching responsibilities impose back on them again.

And no going back to the "essential travel only" nonsense on public transport either (it'll be self-limiting anyway if there's nowhere to travel to).

 

[Bletchleyite]

*If* there were to be a lockdown, then education *must* be allowed to continue as normal both the disruption to kids education and to parents lives who suddenly have all-day childcare and teaching responsibilities impose back on them again.

Isn't the proposal to do it over October half term a way to avoid that, if it is just a "short sharp shock"? OK, that's normally a week, but extending it to two with schools giving large homework projects would smooth that. Longer than two weeks would be a problem. Conveniently, 2 weeks would be enough to "reset" the COVID situation in schools, being the length of an isolation period.

 

[Reliablebeam]

I think we all know the government can't be trusted to keep this to 'two weeks'!

We can't go on like this.

 

[Ianno87]

Isn't the proposal to do it over October half term a way to avoid that, if it is just a "short sharp shock"? OK, that's normally a week, but extending it to two with schools giving large homework projects would smooth that. Longer than two weeks would be a problem. Conveniently, 2 weeks would be enough to "reset" the COVID situation in schools, being the length of an isolation period.

Oh goody. The week I can take off with my kids I can take them out and interact with them in the way I do best (playgrounds, museums, trains, parks etc.), we'll be stuck in front of endless YouTube again.... Only for it to all end up back at square one by Christmas.

 

[Saint66]

Isn't the proposal to do it over October half term a way to avoid that, if it is just a "short sharp shock"? OK, that's normally a week, but extending it to two with schools giving large homework projects would smooth that. Longer than two weeks would be a problem. Conveniently, 2 weeks would be enough to "reset" the COVID situation in schools, being the length of an isolation period.

The latest from Beth Rigby at Sky is that it might be implemented from as early as next week, but schools will be kept open.

 

[Bantamzen]

I think we all know the government can't be trusted to keep this to 'two weeks'!

We can't go on like this.

They can't be trusted, not in the least. And of course what happens when the numbers go back up after a "circuit break"? Another one, and one after that?

 

[DB]

Because herd immunity works on the basis that you are vaccinated (and so can't be infected) or that having had it, you are again unable to be reinfected and transmit it so the virus has no hosts to infect.

We don't have a vaccine and, AFAIK, it is not proven that having had Covid, you can't be reinfected.

The two are inextricably linked. If people can be reinfected again then a vaccine will have very limited impact. Therefore herd immunity in one way or another (be that naturally occurring or via a vaccine) is effectively the same thing.

This basically means that if people can be reinfected (which has not been really established yet) then it'll be around forever.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

My reading is the only plan they seem to have is hope and pray that scientists have a vaccine ready by spring if they can get through winter. Now what kind of country we'll have at the end of this is anyone's guess, but in my social circle, any 'unity' and camaraderie has long gone. One of my technicians summed it up to the other day when she said how infuriated she was when senior managers were appearing on web conferences boasting how great WFH is from their plush home office, when she was attempting to find something to do from her work laptop sat on the bed in her house share. On the other hand, my own group leader is currently cavorting around work in her mask of virtue which magically protects her from having to social distance..

As a professional scientist I can't wait to be blamed for economic damage. 'The nerds told us to do it!'

Very true. The unity of April has long since disappeared. I have the type of job where WFH can be achieved but I've been relegated to the downstairs and limited broadband means having to dovetail my working with my other half. Not only that, it's the social aspect of not working with colleagues.

I'm not a religious type but prayer is now beginning to seem attractive.

 

[DB]

Oh goody. The week I can take off with my kids I can take them out and interact with them in the way I do best (playgrounds, museums, trains, parks etc.), we'll be stuck in front of endless YouTube again.... Only for it to all end up back at square one by Christmas.

It's just kicking the can down the road - and as you say, it'll be back to the same position again in a few months.

 

[scotrail158713]

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.

I’d interpreted that as just delaying any potential impacts we might face soon, to a few months down the line.

 

[dave87016]

Why should the public be forced into a lockdown even local lockdowns , are the public to blame ? No , we face a lockdown because this involved
Incompetent goverment makes promises it can’t keep this failure of the track and trace and Covid testing is because of the goverment and the main reason why we are facing a second lockdown

Boris claimed at the very beginning of this in 12 weeks we will have it under control yea right Boris

People at daily briefings who disagreed with Boris and his cronies were not seen at briefings again

 

[adc82140]

The schools are far enough behind as it is. The whole idea is ludicrous. We are considering a lockdown because testing has failed. Testing has failed because every Tom Dick and Harry can ask for a test if they have a cold, and there is a cold going round at the moment. Respiratory diseases in general multiply in September. I know this, so surely the government does as well, and should have expected it.

From a selfish point of view a few restrictions for a week or two won't make much difference as I'm a bit bogged down with work and don't have much in the diary. But I've still voted no, as this will be hugely disruptive to the economy just as things were starting to show signs of recovery. It'll finish the hospitality industry. It'll finish the creative arts.

What has made me incandescent today is the suggestion that non covid hospital services will be restricted again. What mentality in government thinks that's OK?

Never mind the mental wellbeing of the people who cannot access their support network.

There are obvious reasons why countries with a bigger problem like France and Spain have not gone back to national restrictions.

 

[big_rig]

There is a story on Sky news on this topic. I will take note of one quote in it (some consolation is that it doesn't sound like a mandatory stay at home order but 'merely' the closing of hospitality, no socialising allowed..):

"It comes amid fears that daily coronavirus case numbers could, in a few weeks, hit the figures seen in March and April if the government doesn't take decisive action now and "hammer down" on the disease"

Assuming these 'fears' are coming from within the Government whoever is spreading them should be fired for gross incompetence. There is no way of knowing how many cases there were during the peak. Estimates range between 100,000 - 350,000+ per day. The graph showing 5,000 cases a day in March/April is absolute nonsense and if this is what they mean then they are just plain wrong, in which case I would not rule out them choosing to do another full-on lockdown, which would be the most pointless and largest self-inflicted act of economic and social harm in living memory.

Coronavirus: Boris Johnson considering national restrictions on social lives to curb infections

Government figures stressed the plans being drawn up stopped short of a full national lockdown, as seen in the spring.

news.sky.com

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

Given that the two are quite strongly linked, if you can be reinfected there won't be a vaccine. What then?

I'd favour wholly removing restrictions if that was to be proven, and allowing people to make their own risk judgement, possibly with some new benefits for people at high risk.

As @DavidB says, they are inextricably linked.

The problem with people having their own risk assessment (and their own judgement) is that the implications are not confined to the individual. To show what I mean, I would be happy if the drink-drive limit was a matter of personal judgement and the implications were incurred purely by the individual making their choice; they want to endanger their lives, fine.

We just need to have proportionality of risk vs. impact. Just letting the virus rip through the population is not a great option but neither is a life of perpetual lockdown.

 

[HSTEd]

It's far too early in the epidemic for a "circuit break" to be of any use.

You should only employ one when cases start to fall again naturally - that cuts the tail off.
Now it just imposes a random step in the curve that achieves nothing.

 

[brick60000]

Goodness me, this is absolutely ridiculous. How on earth can we afford another lockdown. It’s bye bye economy & bye bye mental health if what’s being reported is true.

People aren’t going to stand for this for too much longer I fear.

Protecting our way of life is one thing. The way we’re going about this seems akin to protecting somebody from sunburning their face by putting a plastic bag over their head, and suffocating them in the process.... There isn’t going to be anything left to protect at this rate

 

[DB]

We just need to have proportionality of risk vs. impact. Just letting the virus rip through the population is not a great option but neither is a life of perpetual lockdown.

So what they should be doing is putting in place measures to protect those most at risk, so far as is possible, then yes, let it run through the population. Cases will probably increase fast but then decrease fairly fast as well. Once it's back down to a low number, the job should be done (assuming that most individuals retain immunity). It is looking increasingly that Sweden is now in that position - the next few months should show for sure.

 

[adc82140]

In addition, what happened to the thought that the rule of 6 needed two weeks to see if it worked? They gave it 3 days. Why are the government behaving like impatient 5 year olds?

 

[Andyh82]

ABSOLUTELY NOT!!! The further catastrophic damage it will do to the economy again. If we go into lockdown again, I expect this will finish off many pubs, cafes, restaurants, hotels, etc, as well as places like gyms, spas, leisure centres, theatres, etc. That's on top of all the ones that have already closed down as a result of the first lockdown. Thousands upon thousands of more people will become unemployed. It will also do even more damage to the nation's mental health, on top of the damage to what has already been done. Many many people won't be able to take going into full lockdown all over again!

The problem is, "the economy" is seen as a bad word in some quarters, there was a vox pop on the news the other day where someone said something like "How come you can't meet your family at home but you can go to work, this government seems more interested in the economy than saving lives"

The economy is seen by some as a short hand to mean fat cat bosses making millions rather than looking after your typical working class granny, so its 'typical tories', they forget these fat cat bosses are who employ everyone

Give it a few days and there will be 'rising pressure on the government' for a lockdown.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Very true. The unity of April has long since disappeared

It disappeared (as did my support) when Cummings was not sacked. Therefore, it is clear that the decision not to sack Cummings was indirectly the cause of many thousands of deaths. I wonder how Bozza feels about that?

We just need to have proportionality of risk vs. impact. Just letting the virus rip through the population is not a great option but neither is a life of perpetual lockdown.

If it becomes clear that there can be no vaccine or herd immunity, just letting it rip through is my preference, as the two options then are that 500K die quickly or 500K die over a dragged out period.

My only reason to support restrictions are to tide people over for a relatively short period (1-2 years at most) pending a vaccine.

 

[adc82140]

It disappeared (as did my support) when Cummings was not sacked. Therefore, it is clear that the decision not to sack Cummings was indirectly the cause of many thousands of deaths. I wonder how Bozza feels about that?

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

 

[HSTEd]

As far as I know every confirmed case of reinfection known was asymptomatic.

Has that changed?

 

[Ianno87]

Goodness me, this is absolutely ridiculous. How on earth can we afford another lockdown. It’s bye bye economy & bye bye mental health if what’s being reported is true.

It *must* be remembered that the approaching months (dark evenings from October, cold weather, Christmas run-up) aren't exactly great for mental health / suicide rates as it is.

Can't just say "lockdown at half term" without understanding the consequences of that.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The economy is seen by some as a short hand to mean fat cat bosses making millions rather than looking after your typical working class granny, so its 'typical tories', they forget these fat cat bosses are who employ everyone

And that is an issue - a major one - that needs to be addressed more widely (later).

 

[birchesgreen]

I don't have children, and its decades since i was at school, when actually is "half term"?