Second National Lockdown...

[Dustydazzler]

Would you support it , would it have any affect and is it necessary...?

Coronavirus: Two-week national lockdown in October proposed by top scientists - report

Chris Whitty is advising PM for a two-week national lockdown."

uk.yahoo.com

 

[littlespark]

I don’t think it is required. A national lockdown before Xmas will cause panic buying again... you won’t be able to get a big tub of Quality Street for love or money..

The problem being people don’t adhere to the current level of restrictions, so going back a step won’t be listened to.

Schools are not the problem, if they can get the kids to wear masks when needed. Scotland govt failed in that respect after saying masks should be worn 2 weeks after they went back.

The biggest problem is opening the pubs. If they couldn’t get customers to behave properly before, how can they get them to now?

North Northumberland is now in a local lockdown, which means my local supermarket is back to marshalling queuing customers outside, counting them in and out....
But the pubs now have a curfew! They must close 1 hour sooner than they have been. What a lot of difference that’s going to make!

 

[Dustydazzler]

I don’t think it is required. A national lockdown before Xmas will cause panic buying again... you won’t be able to get a big tub of Quality Street for love or money..

The problem being people don’t adhere to the current level of restrictions, so going back a step won’t be listened to.

Schools are not the problem, if they can get the kids to wear masks when needed. Scotland govt failed in that respect after saying masks should be worn 2 weeks after they went back.

The biggest problem is opening the pubs. If they couldn’t get customers to behave properly before, how can they get them to now?

North Northumberland is now in a local lockdown, which means my local supermarket is back to marshalling queuing customers outside, counting them in and out....
But the pubs now have a curfew! They must close 1 hour sooner than they have been. What a lot of difference that’s going to make!

just means get To the pub 1hr earlier

just close all pubs after lunchtime , simples...

 

[telectrix]

just means get To the pub 1hr earlier

just close all pubs after lunchtime , simples...

i will have my lunch at 11.00 p.m. from tomorrow.

 

[Zerax]

Not needed in my view.

We now know far more about this virus and how to treat it than we did 6 months ago... at that time it was generally perceived by the media as an 'instant-killer'. We just need to make sure that the NHS/PHE is better organised to deal with any patients that need help.

I have a suspicion that long term (a few more years yet) the approach that Sweden took might have been the right one.

 

[Wilko]

There’s no doubt this heartless virus is readily transmitted and can be fatal.

However the purpose of lockdown was to “protect the NHS and save lives” (sorry can’t quite remember the nightly broadcast statement now). My understanding is it was achieved, one way or another, in that the NHS didn’t collapse and the poor folks that needed hospital care were able to get it, thankfully. Today the UK death rate has dropped significantly (thankfully a fact) and I understand that hospital intensive care beds are no longer anywhere near full of CV19 (I’m happy to see data on this aspect, as I’ve only anecdotal info from Mr. I-Can’t-Say-Who). And this is while the number of cases is going up again.

I don’t think additional lockdown will help anything just now.

 

[snowhead]

This possible Lockdown is not proposed as a full lockdown like the first one.
Work and schools would continue, it's seems to be aimed at restricting leisure.

 

[Risteard]

Would you support it , would it have any affect and is it necessary...?

Coronavirus: Two-week national lockdown in October proposed by top scientists - report

Chris Whitty is advising PM for a two-week national lockdown."

uk.yahoo.com

No. I didn't support the first either.

In fact I believe all of the restrictions are an unlawful interference in our lives.

The fact that the virus has an infinitesmally small mortality rate makes it all the more criminal.

Countless more lives will have been lost to the lockdowns/restrictions than the virus ever killed.

 

[UNG]

Not needed in my view.

We now know far more about this virus and how to treat it than we did 6 months ago... at that time it was generally perceived by the media as an 'instant-killer'. We just need to make sure that the NHS/PHE is better organised to deal with any patients that need help.

I have a suspicion that long term (a few more years yet) the approach that Sweden took might have been the right one.

I don't think we know much if anything more about this virus than we did at the start of the year, a lot of the science seems to be very assumptive and unpredictable

This possible Lockdown is not proposed as a full lockdown like the first one.
Work and schools would continue, it's seems to be aimed at restricting leisure.

We haven't had a full lockdown yet. The first one was a feeble attempt at a lockdown as we didn't close our borders, the police and the military were not on the streets enforcing it

No. I didn't support the first either.

In fact I believe all of the restrictions are an unlawful interference in our lives.

The fact that the virus has an infinitesmally small mortality rate makes it all the more criminal.

Countless more lives will have been lost to the lockdowns/restrictions than the virus ever killed.

Spoken like someone who hasn't felt the effects of the corona virus yet and I really hope you don't, I have and it is something I would not wish on anyone, it took me about 3½ months to recover to something close to normal.
A mate of mine spent 3 weeks in hospital with it, his wife, M-I-L and 2 other family members also caught it
Would you think it criminal if you caught it and it ultimately killed you? or you unknowingly were a carrier any one of your family caught from you and didn't recover
While the mortality rate might be considered low the stats don't tell you how many will never fully recover and have lasting effects or how long it will take those who are lucky enough to make a full recovery to get back their full health

 

[Zerax]

Spoken like someone who hasn't felt the effects of the corona virus yet and I really hope you don't, I have and it is something I would not wish on anyone, it took me about 3½ months to recover to something close to normal.
A mate of mine spent 3 weeks in hospital with it, his wife, M-I-L and 2 other family members also caught it
Would you think it criminal if you caught it and it ultimately killed you? or you unknowingly were a carrier any one of your family caught from you and didn't recover
While the mortality rate might be considered low the stats don't tell you how many will never fully recover and have lasting effects or how long it will take those who are lucky enough to make a full recovery to get back their full health

You've highlighted an important point... when you're managing a country you need to look at the macro level, not the micro level. You have to do what is good for the country as a whole and not what is good for Mrs Jones at No. 32 or your M-I-L.

Whenever the government or indeed commentators on this forum, talk about the general situation, someone will always bring up a specific case of someone they know who has died or might die. That seems to instantly trump the situation of the whole country... so we never get anywhere.

The simple fact is that the vast majority of people that catch the virus have either no symptoms or very mild symptoms. The number of people that have symptoms that require medical attention is incredibly small... and yes yes yes I know that 'small' does mean that 'some' will suffer, but it's a very very small proportion.

An example of the nonsensicalness of all this is the school teachers saying they didn't want schools to reopen until it was 'safe'. Kids are far far more likely to get run-over on the way to school than from the virus when they get there !!