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

[bramling]

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.

This is my biggest worry about the whole thing.

Lockdown is now a “business as usual” political tool, and I think this genie is going to prove hard to put back in its bottle.

Furloughing has a lot to answer for, as it has insulated people from the real consequences of lockdowns. There’s no doubt in my mind that furloughing has been to generous, especially the amount of time it has gone on for. Again, a completely unaffordable policy has become “business as usual”, something we’re going to suffer consequences from for many years.

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!



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.



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.

I think the difficulty is that a lot of spread is happening in two particular settings - domestic and hospital. The former is impossible to control, the latter is politically awkward to admit and also seems to be proving hard to address.

 

[Freightmaster]

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.

Putting aside your other delusional zeroCovid rantings for a minute, can I ask where on earth
you get the idea that Australia is "in the grip of a huge wave of deaths", unless your idea of
a huge wave is one 90-odd year old woman:

Australia: New South Wales confirms first Covid-related death in 10 months

A woman in her 90s died in Sydney, as state officials warn of a surge in new infections.

www.bbc.co.uk

MARK

 

[Bantamzen]

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

True, and sadly we probably won't ever fully find out thanks to China's authoritarian government.

 

[island]

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

This is a nonsensical suggestion. Covid is never going to “not exist”; the only endemic virus that has been eradicated is smallpox and that was in a world where the average person rarely set foot more than 5 miles from home.

And that's currently the reality in France, who are back in lockdown after two days of returning to a form of normality.

This is verifiably false and misleading. France is not “back in lockdown”.

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.

I’m very glad you are not in any position of power.

 

[nlogax]

@aoin, I don't agree with you re. continuing lockdowns. I really don't see the point in a situation where there is a far, far lower risk of death as compared to the first wave over a year ago. We need to be in a position to get on with things and work these particular coronaviruses into our regular system of healthcare.

However, I do appreciate you being upfront about how you feel on what is a largely anti-lockdown forum. Hope your piñata outfit doesn't get too damaged!

 

[zero]

In a future pandemic the pathogen may be very different from SARS-CoV 2.


The problems with SARS-CoV 2 are that

1) most people who are not elderly and have no health problems are unlikely to become seriously unwell

2) it can take 1-2 weeks or longer to show symptoms of infection, if they even appear

3) those who do become seriously unwell need to spend a long time in hospital

Thus, many infected people don't notice they are infected. The idea of a lockdown is to stop these people from unwittingly spreading the virus. However because of 1), most people don't feel at great personal risk and thus feel that lockdown measures hurt them more than the disease. The longer it goes on the less compliant they become.

Because of 2) quarantines and lockdowns last a long time.

3) puts pressure on the NHS resulting in the deprioritisation of other diseases.


In a future pandemic, if the vast majority of infected people got symptoms within a few hours of infection and could be isolated / treated so that they stopped being infectious in a few days, any quarantines would be short, and if a lockdown is used it might work very quickly.

Once people realise this, they would be more compliant, which makes the measures even more effective. If most people voluntarily isolated when they got symptoms (or maybe are forced to because they become too sick to go out) then a general lockdown may not add any benefit.

If those who did become seriously unwell recovered or died quickly, there wouldn't be so much pressure on health systems, so it may be less acceptable to have such severe measures as making it illegal to open your business or meet your friends.

If a range of age groups were affected, then more people may feel at personal risk of the pathogen and voluntarily reduce their social contact regardless of whether it was made illegal. The same would be true if the disease course was more severe. If a typical 30-year-old had a 5% chance of becoming bedbound for a week after going to the pub, then a lot of people would stop going (though not everyone).

If masks, or another uncomfortable intervention, were proven to work well, more people would voluntarily adopt them, and that might help enough to make a lockdown unnecessary.

Or it could be so bad that half of the population is too sick to do anything, so there's nobody to impose a lockdown and nobody to enforce it, but then the world economy would probably stop existing.

 

[kez19]

@aoin, I don't agree with you re. continuing lockdowns. I really don't see the point in a situation where there is a far, far lower risk of death as compared to the first wave over a year ago. We need to be in a position to get on with things and work these particular coronaviruses into our regular system of healthcare.

However, I do appreciate you being upfront about how you feel on what is a largely anti-lockdown forum. Hope your piñata outfit doesn't get too damaged!

If the forum is very anti lockdown then by all means throw solutions at us, sorry let’s hear compromises?

It’s basic tit for tat but I look at it different, people like SAGE the media and our own politicians have created this and are dividing society further maybe that is the end goal and I bet that ain’t a conspiracy but don’t you think however those causing damage should pay back than roll in it? Something is coming but I think those that back lockdown etc will get a rude awakening, however I’m as someone who could easily sorry and forget but with all this I truly give up, I have health issues possibly mental issues coming out but can’t see a doctor due to this, I maybe have some symptoms after being vaccinated but can I see about it probably not either. I want questions answers I want all those held accountable no pissing up the wall, surely we can agree on that?

 

[MattA7]

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.

You forgot about monkeypox (multiple instances that thankfully remained isolated) and some Australian flu strain in 2018

 

[Eyersey468]

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.

This is my concern too

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.

I presume your job and income is safe then. We cannot sustain this cycle of open close open indefinitely, there will be nothing left and no tax income to pay for things like the NHS in future

 

[DustyBin]

This is my concern too

Mine too and it has been all along. Some people are so blinded by fear they can't see the potential long term implications of what's happening.

 

[Eyersey468]

Mine too and it has been all along. Some people are so blinded by fear they can't see the potential long term implications of what's happening.

I've been concerned about it all along too, I'm not surprised people are scared though given the messaging over the last 16 months

This is my biggest worry about the whole thing.

Lockdown is now a “business as usual” political tool, and I think this genie is going to prove hard to put back in its bottle.

Furloughing has a lot to answer for, as it has insulated people from the real consequences of lockdowns. There’s no doubt in my mind that furloughing has been to generous, especially the amount of time it has gone on for. Again, a completely unaffordable policy has become “business as usual”, something we’re going to suffer consequences from for many years.



I think the difficulty is that a lot of spread is happening in two particular settings - domestic and hospital. The former is impossible to control, the latter is politically awkward to admit and also seems to be proving hard to address.

I think furlough was necessary in March 2020 otherwise millions of jobs would have been lost as companies ran out of money, however I agree a lot of people don't understand the cost of the last 16 months and that it has gone on too long

 

[kez19]

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.

Who thinks that this was quite possibly a plan all along?

It’s quite telling how media can also put a twist on things to suit their narrative, I never seen that coming but since first lockdown and media’s attitude towards it was quite telling, could be from informing to then in my mind feels sinister (weird), also if we to look at things in another way the way figures are played out from our government(s) on deaths/cases is/was very Big Brother/Hunger Games surprised we haven’t had The Purge yet!

 

[XAM2175]

Who thinks that this was quite possibly a plan all along?

... you think that the Covid response was specifically engineered to normalise a similar response to annual influenza?

 

[Eyersey468]

... you think that the Covid response was specifically engineered to normalise a similar response to annual influenza?

I don't think that but I do worry that the precedent has now been set and there will be calls for it

 

[PR1Berske]

See, let's look at both sides of that argument.

You can say that it's malicious, scary, maybe even a sinister plot, to put in place safeguards against disease spreading through humans. You may have some valid reasons for worrying about a state that requires its population to be under social restrictions for this purpose.

You can say its sensible, responsible, maybe even morally correct, to put in place safeguards against disease spreading through humans. You may have some valid reasons for worrying that the state is not protecting the population with necessary restrictions.

I'm fully aware that few people on this discussion forum, or Twitter, or wherever, have been swayed from one argument to the other during the last 15 months. I'm fully aware that each side is entrenched. I'm fully aware that there are no correct sides, or fully valid arguments.

It's my personal view, and has been from the start, that we must be prepared for a disease like Covid, and any of its successors, and that preparation might have to be unusual, and hard, and restrictive. And I get it, genuinely, when people object to that view.

I'm not sure that any of us have a fully correct, valid answer to how we deal with whatever the planet has next in store for us.

 

[Eyersey468]

See, let's look at both sides of that argument.

You can say that it's malicious, scary, maybe even a sinister plot, to put in place safeguards against disease spreading through humans. You may have some valid reasons for worrying about a state that requires its population to be under social restrictions for this purpose.

You can say its sensible, responsible, maybe even morally correct, to put in place safeguards against disease spreading through humans. You may have some valid reasons for worrying that the state is not protecting the population with necessary restrictions.

I'm fully aware that few people on this discussion forum, or Twitter, or wherever, have been swayed from one argument to the other during the last 15 months. I'm fully aware that each side is entrenched. I'm fully aware that there are no correct sides, or fully valid arguments.

It's my personal view, and has been from the start, that we must be prepared for a disease like Covid, and any of its successors, and that preparation might have to be unusual, and hard, and restrictive. And I get it, genuinely, when people object to that view.

I'm not sure that any of us have a fully correct, valid answer to how we deal with whatever the planet has next in store for us.

I agree we need to be prepared for a pandemic as one could strike at any time. I just worry that rather than the once in a lifetime last resort to buy time some seem to see lockdowns as a sustainable go to thing every time something threatening comes along

 

[kez19]

... you think that the Covid response was specifically engineered to normalise a similar response to annual influenza?

Well who knows do you really believe the truth will come out or will it be buried for some time yet?

What other reasons could there be to normalise a virus? Like I said before - we have flu/colds all year round - I am similar to what others have mentioned since wearing a mask I haven't had much sniffles until more recently - why?

Its also a bit coincedental that, couple months or so back the talk of flu had gone from last year but to expect it this year to be worse than ever? I'll not be an alarmist but I just find it to be either weird/coincedence regardless (in my mind if it was to look at it differently than following the media storyline - it seems to me as if they pretty much knew what would happen or may happen next? - sounds a bit like control but as I say I don't follow theories I just use my own head and look at things more openly and question it), but you decide.

 

[XAM2175]

What other reasons could there be to normalise a virus? Like I said before - we have flu/colds all year round - I am similar to what others have mentioned since wearing a mask I haven't had much sniffles until more recently - why?

Yes, we know that incidences of other transmissible respiratory conditions have declined because their chains of transmission are broken by the same responses that control the spread of Covid, and yes there's a certain validity to being concerned that these disruptive responses will be used again in the future to control seasonal flus and the like. You, on the hand, appear to be suggesting that the responses used to control Covid were selected in order that they might be normalised for future use - that is to say, a bunch of governments all thought to themselves "gee, we've always wanted to lock everybody in their houses and completely trash the economy in an attempt to cut annual flu deaths, so let's see if the plebs will bend over for it now".

Its also a bit coincedental that, couple months or so back the talk of flu had gone from last year but to expect it this year to be worse than ever? I'll not be an alarmist but I just find it to be either weird/coincedence regardless (in my mind if it was to look at it differently than following the media storyline - it seems to me as if they pretty much knew what would happen or may happen next? - sounds a bit like control but as I say I don't follow theories I just use my own head and look at things more openly and question it), but you decide.

I don't understand what you're trying to say here.

 

[Eyersey468]

Yes, we know that incidences of other transmissible respiratory conditions have declined because their chains of transmission are broken by the same responses that control the spread of Covid, and yes there's a certain validity to being concerned that these disruptive responses will be used again in the future to control seasonal flus and the like. You, on the hand, appear to be suggesting that the responses used to control Covid were selected in order that they might be normalised for future use - that is to say, a bunch of governments all thought to themselves "gee, we've always wanted to lock everybody in their houses and completely trash the economy in an attempt to cut annual flu deaths, so let's see if the plebs will bend over for it now".


I don't understand what you're trying to say here.

I'm not sure either, I think kez19 is trying to say the media are trying to spread alarm by saying next winter will be bad for colds and flu

 

[kez19]

I'm not sure either, I think kez19 is trying to say the media are trying to spread alarm by saying next winter will be bad for colds and flu

I might not be able to explain things properly but yes, I believe this will indeed be the next step of stoking up more fear.

Just a quick google and what appears from early this year however:

Expect flu to surge next winter as lockdown has led to low levels, experts warn

Lockdown and social distancing has led to low levels of flu but experts expect it will come back with a vengeance next winter

www.telegraph.co.uk

most recent:

Is the UK in for a bumper flu season this winter?

Experts warn population immunity will have waned, as studies look at combining Covid and flu vaccines

www.theguardian.com

Yes, we know that incidences of other transmissible respiratory conditions have declined because their chains of transmission are broken by the same responses that control the spread of Covid, and yes there's a certain validity to being concerned that these disruptive responses will be used again in the future to control seasonal flus and the like. You, on the hand, appear to be suggesting that the responses used to control Covid were selected in order that they might be normalised for future use - that is to say, a bunch of governments all thought to themselves "gee, we've always wanted to lock everybody in their houses and completely trash the economy in an attempt to cut annual flu deaths, so let's see if the plebs will bend over for it now".


I don't understand what you're trying to say here.

Well it doesn't take that long to work that one out does it if what I am saying is correct? Why not for once step back and re-evalute the past 18 months or so and see where things jump out at? I'm not going to highlight where I think things have went, as I know certain people on this forum can't think for themselves but would other than just take whats been said in the media with a pinch of salt.

As for the economy and trashing it - well why not? Why the reluctance in some areas to reopen or different parts of the UK to act differently? Why are the media obsessed then by SAGE given the spotlight regardless of vaccinations/deaths etc without challenge?

As for lockdowns and future use - well how many lockdown/circuit breakers have we gone through recently? Lets repeat the cycle regardless - so if the likes of small businesses go bankrupt but the likes of Amazon aren't touched by the fallout doesn't this not make you think otherwise? What I am saying is question everything and question yourself, I know I have but I am not going to lecture people on what to think or do its up to you whether you believe in whats happening or not.


Just to add this as this is something I have seen appearing quite alot its either good or bad but again i'll leave this to you to decide as for my own opinion on this particular part I am on the fence but on the other it again make me think:

The Great Reset explained: what it is and why you should care about it - The Oxford Blue

Oxford University's new independent newspaper | A new voice for a new decade | Est. 2020

www.theoxfordblue.co.uk

 

[Cowley]

OK. Let’s keep things respectful on here please. Time to take a break from this section if it’s starting to get to any of you…
There’s plenty of other areas on the forum that don’t involve Covid and I’d advise getting involved with some of them to have a break from all of this stuff for a bit.
That is after all, what we’re actually here for…

 

[Bantamzen]

See, let's look at both sides of that argument.

You can say that it's malicious, scary, maybe even a sinister plot, to put in place safeguards against disease spreading through humans. You may have some valid reasons for worrying about a state that requires its population to be under social restrictions for this purpose.

You can say its sensible, responsible, maybe even morally correct, to put in place safeguards against disease spreading through humans. You may have some valid reasons for worrying that the state is not protecting the population with necessary restrictions.

I'm fully aware that few people on this discussion forum, or Twitter, or wherever, have been swayed from one argument to the other during the last 15 months. I'm fully aware that each side is entrenched. I'm fully aware that there are no correct sides, or fully valid arguments.

It's my personal view, and has been from the start, that we must be prepared for a disease like Covid, and any of its successors, and that preparation might have to be unusual, and hard, and restrictive. And I get it, genuinely, when people object to that view.

I'm not sure that any of us have a fully correct, valid answer to how we deal with whatever the planet has next in store for us.

So taking your views into account, how would you apply them going forward? Remember, we live in a largely capitalist society so in order to have future lockdowns, furlough schemes, government support for the low paid & companies forced to shut or run a massively reduced capacity, support for all the additional health measures & support, vaccines, treatments, PPE, ventilators etc etc, all have to be funded either through taxation or privately.

So given the global economic downturn, as well as loss of a large amount of tax revenue since early 2020, how would you propose we fund all this going forward given a possible bill of £350-£500 billion (the current estimate for covid measures in the UK) for a year a so? Its an important question, because not being able to fund any one of these could lead to even more people being at risk, losing their jobs, being more dependant on state handouts and so on. From my perspective there is really is no way the UK alone could afford to go through that again in at least a decade without very serious and long term effects not only on the economy, but on society. And applied globally again it would likely lead to mass poverty in poorer countries, which in turn could lead to mass migration, unrest and even the threat of military action in some regions of the world.

 

[greyman42]

I've been concerned about it all along too, I'm not surprised people are scared though given the messaging over the last 16 months

That is providing people were daft enough to take it all in.

 

[Eyersey468]

That is providing people were daft enough to take it all in.

A lot of people seem to have done

 

[DustyBin]

A lot of people seem to have done

Indeed. What has surprised me though is how many people are more scared now than ever (and I don’t mean because of Monday). Here we are 18 months in, with the majority vaccinated and a greater understanding of who is actually vulnerable, and young(ish), fit, healthy people are terrified. My mother is worried for me for some reason whereas she hasn’t expressed any specific concern previously. I say for some reason, she’s worried about the “Indian virus” as it’s “far more dangerous” (yes she watches BBC News). It’s absolutely bonkers. Then again, propaganda has always been a powerful weapon!

 

[3141]

It's been most interesting reading these posts. The question posed by the OP soon got sidetracked with people who didn't like aion's views weighing into him because he didn't have an "exit plan" for a future unspecified pandemic. What might happen in the future will depend very much on how serious the new disease is. Imagine if it was ebola, or something similar. There'd be people demanding to be allowed to stay at home and not have to go out and risk catching it. Or imagine if Covid-19 had not been a virus whose effects became increasingly serious the older the person who got it, but something from which anyone of any age was equally likely to die from. You can take that a step further and envisage something more likely to be fatal if you're under 40, while those aged 65+ have mild symptoms or none at all. That would change the tune of some regular posters.

Perhaps we've been fortunate that the overall death-rate from Covid-19 has been low. A future pandemic may very possibly be a lot more serious and a vaccine much harder to develop. Covid-19 itself may mutate into something much worse. In some of these scenarios, events may quickly overtake whatever action governments may envisage, and the consequences of breakdowns in electricity generation or food distribution would be immense.

The final paragraph of post #1 assumes that a future pandemic would be manageable and that we'd only have to do whatever we think our government should have done better this time. But what's happened across the world is the result of what all governments have done (or in some cases not done) in the face of the virus, and it's still very definitely with us. There are limits to how far it will be possible to make effective preparations for the unknown.

 

[yorkie]

It's been most interesting reading these posts. The question posed by the OP soon got sidetracked with people who didn't like aion's views weighing into him because he didn't have an "exit plan" for a future unspecified pandemic.

The replies made very good points I thought.

Covid-19 itself may mutate into something much worse...

That is highly unlikely; having listened to podcasts by virologists I would say that the opposite is far more likely.

...But what's happened across the world is the result of what all governments have done (or in some cases not done) in the face of the virus, and it's still very definitely with us...

Of course; once a virus becomes a pandemic of this proportion, it's not realistic to expect the virus can be eliminated.

There are limits to how far it will be possible to make effective preparations for the unknown.

That is true.

 

[bramling]

Of course; once a virus becomes a pandemic of this proportion, it's not realistic to expect the virus can be eliminated.

It is quite depressing that the scientific fraternity have done little to educate the wider population of this unfortunate reality.

There *may* have been some possibility of elimination back in the first couple of months of 2020, it might have been worth a shot slightly beyond that if it had genuinely been confined to a few localities, however we're way beyond that point now. So herd immunity is the only realistic way of managing this, yet this is still viewed by some people as an evil political experiment, or that a piece of mouldy cloth on (someone else's) face and a phone ping are somehow going to save the day.

I hope the current number of cases does start to decline, or else I have a nasty feeling Boris may buckle to a reintroduction of restrictions. Whitty was already alluding to that recently.

 

[Horizon22]

Mine too and it has been all along. Some people are so blinded by fear they can't see the potential long term implications of what's happening.

Imagine how weird it would be if we did this for deaths & hospitalisations caused by smoking / lung cancer or car crashes. People would be advocating for tobacco sales to be completely banned! It's a matter of pytschology as to how you normalise something that will be here for a long time to come.

 

[DustyBin]

Imagine how weird it would be if we did this for deaths & hospitalisations caused by smoking / lung cancer or car crashes. People would be advocating for tobacco sales to be completely banned! It's a matter of pytschology as to how you normalise something that will be here for a long time to come.

It sounds weird now but I’m not so sure that we’re a huge leap away from this kind of thing to be honest. I’m not suggesting we’ll see it in the coming months, but with the precedent now set we’re closer than we’ve ever been in my life time. Your absolutely right though, it’s all psychological, we’ve been conditioned to live in fear.