Re: Coronavirus
 

I think it's possible. Let's not forget covid is basically a milder but more transmissible version of SARS from what, 2003? In reality it had to get milder and infect more people but then we had also MERS and other coronaviruses which have become endemic so it wasn't a total surprise.


So in reality, there are a few kind of distinct ideas spinning off of that situation:
1. that covid as we know it will reset the response we have.
2. that the above will lead to govs implementing extreme measures as opposed to more targeted response to try and slow it down, as opposed to allowing it to spread
3. that something else will come along and that govs will respond in the same way


Covid didn't cause the destruction to the economy and other effects. The government response/restrictions did. Whether the same effect would have happened from staff sickness and other factors such as people avoiding mixing situations, we have no idea.



So what scenario would you come up with, which would (based on a cost/benefit/impact analysis at the most primitive level) result in basically lockdown measures needing to be done again?

Re: Coronavirus
 

There’s no money for furlough, the economy is on its arse only a lunatic would consider lock down. Not for this virus anyway.

I doubt that many would take any notice of it.

Hospitality is fighting to get it’s head back above the water, a lock down will kill it.

There would be civil unrest, as people lose their jobs with no furlough.

Any PM overseeing it wouldn’t be PM for very long.

Re: Coronavirus
 

The key word here is ‘this’ should the virus be able to mutate to such a degree that it can escape the vaccine or immune response and is as transmissible and has the same levels of serious illness, hospitalisations or death then what options are there apart from to lockdown again?

Without it healthcare services globally would collapse which in turn destroys everything else.

Perhaps the better question to ask is how do we minimise the chances of this occurring again?

Re: Coronavirus
 

I'm not sure that's really possible. You can neither control the spread of an existing virus (within certain conditions) nor the evolution of a virus mutating. In essence it's likely that this is some sort of evolution of the original SARS virus anyway, they don't come out of nowhere even if this came over from bats, pangolins, labs or whatever you believe... it still came from something.


Lockdown isn't the only option we have, and it should be an absolute last resort, I can't see how anyone should think it's the first thing we should turn to.


In that situation what would you try and do to keep everything open but try and stop people dying in hospital car parks?


Certainly I'd say we'd need to be going back to testing people with symptoms and their contacts, providing them with the free tests to do that, educating people when they need to test and have this as clear guidelines, and when to isolate, what this means etc. Knowing who has the virus at any point and how they can minimise spreading it will keep it under control without needing to impact on those who don't (except where it's necessary).

Re: Coronavirus
 

Don’t remember anyone recently stating that lockdown is the only or first option we have, just that it maybe an option…

Re: Coronavirus
 

Meanwhile, lockdown is being blamed for an outbreak of Hepatitis amongst young children, who are lacking immunity that would normally have been acquired by natural exposure while infants.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-61269586

Re: Coronavirus
 

Nobody has said it in so many words.


But when the hypothetical "vaccine evading & serious" variant has come up then some people are mentioning it without then mentioning other possibilities as though it's possible but it's the only way and not really discussing any alternative options.


So if they're not mentioning anything else, they clearly hold less faith it is going to be an answer.

Re: Coronavirus
 

"It has mutated down to a mild cold". I hear that a lot. The Influenza virus mutates, and certainly hasn't become any less lethal to those most at risk.

So it'll be an annual 'Flu-Covid jab for those most at risk, and the rest will possibly end up feeling like crap for a few days. Unless the unvaccinated get hit by the Delta variant that is still around, and the hospitals fill up with the weakest of them.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I really don't see a lockdown now. The purpose was to avoid huge numbers of A&E admissions when the virus was at its worse. Even now when cases can go sky high the vaccine means the numbers of admission don't get anywhere near the path it was heading for back in March 2020.

Re: Coronavirus
 

The Flu is still as deadly as ever, but has had to take a back seat in the news in the last two years.

Recent ONS figures show that there were 148,606 deaths where Covid was identified as the underlying cause of death in England and Wales between the weeks ending 13 March 2020 and 1 April 2022, at the same time there were 35,007 deaths due to flu and pneumonia.

However, in that same time period there were 170,600 deaths where Covid was mentioned anywhere on the death certificate [as a cause or factor] but 219,207 deaths where flu and pneumonia were mentioned as a cause or factor.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Did we not just learn that lockdowns did more harm than good?

The answer is to have more temporary accommodation and bring the Army in.

Re: Coronavirus
 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-62344902

Re: Coronavirus
 

Being blamed being a rather apt description.

Notably absent: any assessment on whether it could have been Covid.

---------- Post added at 18:32 ---------- Previous post was at 18:31 ----------

We haven’t learned any such thing, indeed restrictions followed by vaccinations are credited with saving millions of lives globally.

Economies remain in tatters regardless. No glorious rebound.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Well, some of us have. I accept you don’t, jfman.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...says-scientist

[EXTRACT]

. “We did serious harm to our children and young adults who were robbed of their education, jobs and normal existence, as well as suffering damage to their future prospects, while they were left to inherit a record-breaking mountain of public debt,” he argues. “All this to protect the NHS from a disease that is a far, far greater threat to the elderly, frail and infirm than to the young and healthy.

“We were mesmerised by the once-in-a-century scale of the emergency and succeeded only in making a crisis even worse. In short, we panicked. This was an epidemic crying out for a precision public health approach and it got the opposite.”



Not to mention the increased deaths and suffering that occurred through a failure to review the medical position of those who should have regular reviews, failure to carry out countless operations, the waiting lists for which will take years to recover.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Let's have another couple of paragraphs from further down the article, because sometimes the bits you select can say something quite different to whatever follows ;).

However, Woolhouse is at pains to reject the ideas of those who advocated the complete opening up of society, including academics who backed the Barrington Declaration which proposed the Covid-19 virus be allowed to circulate until enough people had been infected to achieve herd immunity.

“This would have led to an epidemic far larger than the one we eventually experienced in 2020,” says Woolhouse. “It also lacked a convincing plan for adequately protecting the more vulnerable members of society, the elderly and those who are immuno-compromised.”