H
hariseldon
Unconfirmed Member
Almost every country will have a complete lockdown. There is simply no alternative. The sooner this happens, the better. Early lockdowns can and will massively limit the spread and lead to declining case numbers. If you live in a country that is on the verge of a complete lockout, you should be happy because it is the most effective tool we have.
There are arguments both ways - like all serious matters there is no magic bullet solution (and I think that's the thing that freaks people out most with this in an age where there's always an app for that). Locking down travel in and out of the country is useful for instance if your country isn't infected and neighbouring countries are, but if the level is equal then it's not likely to be hugely useful. Locking things down internally is also of mixed benefit - yes you may reduce the impact of large crowds, people being at work, etc, but this isn't just about biology, it's also about human behaviour which is a tricky beast to predict, and one can reasonably assume unintended consequences would follow from any action, especially in relatively free societies that just can't do what China did. Grandparents getting sick looking after kids, NHS workers unable to go to work because they can't find anyone to look after their kids, people congregating in pubs instead of football stadiums to watch matches, etc.
I'm inclined to agree with the view that most of us are going to get it, whatever measures we take, and that herd immunity would be useful, especially as it will prepare us better for the next big pandemic (and yes in an interconnected global age they will happen more frequently unless we significantly row back on that). In many ways the best plan is the one that sees your country come out the other side stronger relative to other countries than it went in. For my money, Boris is therefore taking the right approach.