'Next pandemic is around the corner,' expert warns - but would lockdown ever happen again?

[Social Media]

 

As the UK commemorates the fourth anniversary of its initial COVID-19 lockdown, experts in infectious diseases caution that another pandemic could be lurking on the horizon. Despite the unprecedented challenges posed by COVID-19, the threat of future pandemics remains a looming concern, with scientists warning of the increasing likelihood of viruses "jumping" from animals to humans and triggering widespread outbreaks.

 

 

Dr. Nathalie MacDermott, a clinical lecturer in infectious diseases at King's College London, underscores the pressing need for continued vigilance and preparedness. Factors such as global warming and deforestation are creating environments conducive to the emergence of new infectious agents, heightening the risk of future pandemics. Dr. MacDermott emphasizes the importance of remaining alert and ready to make necessary sacrifices in the face of potential outbreaks.

 

Reflecting on the duration and severity of lockdowns during the COVID-19 pandemic, experts offer insights into how future lockdown measures might differ. Professor Stephen Griffin of the University of Leeds suggests that investments in mitigating strategies, such as improved ventilation systems and adaptable vaccines, could lead to shorter and less stringent lockdowns. However, Dr. MacDermott acknowledges that until scientists gain a comprehensive understanding of emerging viruses, lockdowns may remain an inevitable response to mitigate transmission.

 

 

The prospect of renewed lockdowns prompts considerations of their impact on social interactions and educational settings. Professor Lucy Easthope of the University of Bath advocates for a nuanced approach to quarantine measures, emphasizing the importance of community connections and social cohesion. While temporary closures of schools may be necessary in infected areas, innovative solutions such as outdoor education spaces and organized social gatherings could help mitigate the disruption to children's lives.

 

 

The efficacy of pandemic response measures hinges on public compliance and trust in government directives. Social psychologist Chris Cocking highlights the significance of fostering a sense of shared purpose and identity to promote adherence to restrictions. While concerns over privacy and individual liberties may arise, experts stress the need for transparent communication and tailored responses to address diverse concerns within society.

 

 

Looking ahead, preparations for future pandemics must incorporate lessons learned from the COVID-19 crisis. Despite past shortcomings in pandemic preparedness, opportunities for improvement exist, including the adaptation of existing flu pandemic plans and bolstering infrastructure resilience. The UK government remains committed to learning from the COVID-19 inquiry's findings and implementing recommendations to enhance future pandemic response efforts. As the world braces for potential future health crises, proactive measures and collaborative efforts will be essential to safeguarding public health and well-being.

 

25.03.24

Source

 

[thaibeachlovers]

Given the chaos in NZ that forced the IMO wannabe dictators in Wellington to end the restrictions, it'll be a brave government that tries that BS again.

 

Fool me once that's on you, fool me twice that's on me. Well they fooled us once......................................

Edited March 24 by thaibeachlovers

[impulse]

4 hours ago, Social Media said:

The efficacy of pandemic response measures hinges on public compliance and trust in government directives.

 

It's a shame they screwed the pooch so bad on the last go-round.  On both sides of the pond.  I don't think the people will trust the gub'ment directives for at least a generation.

 

[JonnyF]

I don't think people would accept it again.

 

I don't think they'd be bullied into taking vaccines again either, even if they were accused of being a "granny killer" or any of those other ludicrous insults thrown at people who wanted control over what was injected into their bodies. 

Edited March 25 by stats
trolling term removed

[Tug]

Personally I will trust the science not the random internet conspiracy theory guys……….that being said I hope she is wrong about it happening again soon

[hotchilli]

4 hours ago, Tug said:

Personally I will trust the science not the random internet conspiracy theory guys……….that being said I hope she is wrong about it happening again soon

I wouldn''t trust big Pharma again, what the governments say or even bother listening to the WHO orgasnisation.

Lock-downs would cripple any country so I hope that would never happen again.

[simon43]

Wow, this post has really brought out the soft-brained, the wannabe scientists, the low IQed, the anarchists, the gullible, the useful idiots etc etc!

 

During Covid I saw very little wrong with government strategies, based on what is known about viruses, virus infections and general medical/scientific knowledge.  Although some policies turned out to be too 'harsh', in general it was 'better safe than sorry' and it worked reasonably well.

 

If people are mentally-unable to cope with lock-downs, then may I politely suggest that it is these kinds of people that Darwin was referring to when he espoused about survival of the fittest. 

[Nick Carter icp]

9 minutes ago, simon43 said:

Wow, this post has really brought out the soft-brained, the wannabe scientists, the low IQed, the anarchists, the gullible, the useful idiots etc etc!

 

During Covid I saw very little wrong with government strategies, based on what is known about viruses, virus infections and general medical/scientific knowledge.  Although some policies turned out to be too 'harsh', in general it was 'better safe than sorry' and it worked reasonably well.

 

If people are mentally-unable to cope with lock-downs, then may I politely suggest that it is these kinds of people that Darwin was referring to when he espoused about survival of the fittest. 

 

   Its OK for you, you live in the wilderness on your own in seclusion all the time , for other people a sudden change to  that life can be difficult .

   I would rather live normally and take my chances with the virus

[newbee2022]

13 minutes ago, simon43 said:

Wow, this post has really brought out the soft-brained, the wannabe scientists, the low IQed, the anarchists, the gullible, the useful idiots etc etc!

 

During Covid I saw very little wrong with government strategies, based on what is known about viruses, virus infections and general medical/scientific knowledge.  Although some policies turned out to be too 'harsh', in general it was 'better safe than sorry' and it worked reasonably well.

 

If people are mentally-unable to cope with lock-downs, then may I politely suggest that it is these kinds of people that Darwin was referring to when he espoused about survival of the fittest. 

I really love your description of members of this forum. 🤗❤️👏🥰

[xylophone]

10 hours ago, JonnyF said:

I don't think people would accept it again.

 

I don't think they'd be bullied into taking vaccines again either, even if they were accused of being a "granny killer" or any of those other ludicrous insults thrown at people who wanted control over what was injected into their bodies. 

Do you mean those very vaccines that were being developed 10 years prior to Covid?

 

So much nonsense published about these vaccines, as well as other folks recommending the likes of hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin, that it's estimated millions of people died because they were convinced by the quacks and anti-VAX brigade – – and as for the "unexplained heart attacks and sudden deaths", see below: –

 

Who Really 'Died Suddenly'? 
 A new study sheds light on the risks

by Jeremy Faust, MD, MS, MA, Editor-in-Chief, MedPage Today March 21, 2024

During the initial COVID-19 vaccine rollout, a rare complication called myocarditis was detected, primarily in young males. The incidence of this problem was low and most of the cases were mild. Still, even for people in the highest-risk demographic for vaccine-associated myocarditis, receiving the primary series of the COVID-19 vaccines was safer than getting COVID-19 without having been vaccinated.

Nevertheless, the anti-vaxxer factions seized on this and used it to sow doubt. The phrase "Died Suddenly" became a kind of motto for those looking to spread misinformation about vaccines. There has never been any link between COVID-19 vaccines and sudden cardiac death.

Meanwhile, one of my least favorite cliches during the pandemic was the image of some muscular person flexing for a camera saying that they didn't need vaccination, because they were just so damn healthy. Nor did I get any joy out of stories of athletes who refused the vaccines on those very grounds, only to die of COVID-19 later.

 

https://insidemedicine.substack.com/p/who-really-died-suddenly-anabolic

[VBF]

1 hour ago, Nick Carter icp said:

 

   Its OK for you, you live in the wilderness on your own in seclusion all the time , for other people a sudden change to  that life can be difficult .

   I would rather live normally and take my chances with the virus

Quite agree with you and disagree with @simon43

People should have been WARNED about the effects of Covid and the vulnerable ENCOURAGED to isolate rather than the whole world crashed to a halt.

Isolation should have been offered to those in need, letting the rest of us adults get on with our lives.

I personally ignored the restrictions that I could ignore and here I am....still alive and 5 times vaccinated.

Edited March 25 by VBF

[Donga]

1 hour ago, simon43 said:

Wow, this post has really brought out the soft-brained, the wannabe scientists, the low IQed, the anarchists, the gullible, the useful idiots etc etc!

 

During Covid I saw very little wrong with government strategies, based on what is known about viruses, virus infections and general medical/scientific knowledge.  Although some policies turned out to be too 'harsh', in general it was 'better safe than sorry' and it worked reasonably well.

 

If people are mentally-unable to cope with lock-downs, then may I politely suggest that it is these kinds of people that Darwin was referring to when he espoused about survival of the fittest. 

Wannabe scientists eh? So the Swedish scientists got it wrong? If only they'd protected the elderly better at the onset, they would have been one of the higher achievers, rather than middling in terms of deaths per capita.

How often folk ignore detailed science and righteously postulate, while everyone around them is also forced to lockdown.

They are still uncovering the damage caused by protracted lockdowns from kids missing school, and elderly missing vital doctor appointments let alone the hundreds of millions worldwide effected financially, from small business closures, hospitality workers to Bangladeshi garment workers.

Lockdown by all means, THOSE VULNERABLE, or are concerned for their own well-being, especially the elderly. Otherwise sensible distancing, masks and vaccinations, once available, were by far the main effective measures in mitigating Covid.

[NoshowJones]

It would not surprise me, a lot of people made a lot of money out of the last pandemic, the medical profession, some hotels etc. so it would seem that the next pandemic will be welcomed in some quarters.

[Darksidedude]

people will revolt and will not accept this lockdown/isolation bullocks, i sure as heck wont be following anything the government throws at me  

[scubascuba3]

In the "review" which is still ongoing for millions they have ignored the most important question of lockdown instead focusing on who said what to what so more political, so a good chance lessons won't be learnt

[impulse]

3 hours ago, simon43 said:

Wow, this post has really brought out the soft-brained, the wannabe scientists, the low IQed, the anarchists, the gullible, the useful idiots etc etc!

 It's going to be years before we know if the long term effects of the mRNA are a net positive or a net negative.

 

It'll also be years before we know whether shutting kids out of school ruined more lives than it improved.

 

I'm pretty sure we already know how stupid it was to close restaurants while letting liquor stores stay open.  But I'm open to new data.  Though they lost me when they banned walking on my beach in the middle of winter, which is how many of us get our exercise.

 

The useful idiots are the ones who take as gospel the narrative that's being spoon fed to them without critically examining simple stuff like how they know long term results when it hasn't been a long term yet.  And more complicated stuff like conflicts of interest and asking what the vax skeptics have to gain, compared to the vax pushers who have gained $billions. 

 

[digger70]

13 hours ago, Social Media said:

Dr. Nathalie MacDermott, a clinical lecturer in infectious diseases at King's College London, underscores the pressing need for continued vigilance and preparedness. Factors such as global warming and deforestation are creating environments conducive to the emergence of new infectious agents, heightening the risk of future pandemics.

What a Scare mongering Cr@p this is .

Anything to trying to scare the people . brainless sods.

[James105]

9 hours ago, JonnyF said:

I don't think people would accept it again.

 

I don't think they'd be bullied into taking vaccines again either, even if they were accused of being a "granny killer" or any of those other ludicrous insults thrown at people who wanted control over what was injected into their bodies. 

 

I admire your optimism but I think "the people" will willingly accept it all over again.  Even if you could inject hindsight directly into the 70-80% of people who craved lockdowns and literally show them how much economic damage it caused for no difference in outcomes they would do the same thing all over again, and probably demand longer and harder lockdowns as the previous ones were ineffective.  Propaganda is a powerful tool and far too many people are susceptible to it.   Governments have experience of using this tool now and will use it even more effectively next time as covid was a wonderful and profitable time for the richest and most powerful on the planet, and there is just no way they will let the next one go to waste.

[thaibeachlovers]

19 hours ago, simon43 said:

If people are mentally-unable to cope with lock-downs, then may I politely suggest that it is these kinds of people that Darwin was referring to when he espoused about survival of the fittest. 

It's not the people unable to cope with lockdowns, it's the businesses destroyed and the economic ruin as a consequence that is the problem.

 

I suppose you were all right Jack, and didn't care about the effects it had on the economy? Dogs and mangers comes to mind.

[thaibeachlovers]

14 hours ago, James105 said:

Even if you could inject hindsight directly into the 70-80% of people who craved lockdowns and literally show them how much economic damage it caused for no difference in outcomes they would do the same thing all over again, and probably demand longer and harder lockdowns as the previous ones were ineffective. 

IMO there are a lot of sheeple out there.

[thaibeachlovers]

15 hours ago, impulse said:

It's going to be years before we know if the long term effects of the mRNA are a net positive or a net negative.

Won't affect me as I refused to have one of those.

 

I don't think I could go through another lockdown BS, so I might just deliberately get infected and shuffle off. I've had my best days and nothing to look forward to anyway.

 

There aren't any guarantees though. I had covid and it wasn't worse than a mild cold.

[300sd]

Next pandemic around the corner!

 

Perhaps one should be looking a little closer at funding certain bio labs, and stop them playing around with or inserting sites to make viruses more lethal. Kinda like Wuhan etc!

 

[candide]

19 hours ago, impulse said:

 It's going to be years before we know if the long term effects of the mRNA are a net positive or a net negative.

 

It'll also be years before we know whether shutting kids out of school ruined more lives than it improved.

 

I'm pretty sure we already know how stupid it was to close restaurants while letting liquor stores stay open.  But I'm open to new data.  Though they lost me when they banned walking on my beach in the middle of winter, which is how many of us get our exercise.

 

The useful idiots are the ones who take as gospel the narrative that's being spoon fed to them without critically examining simple stuff like how they know long term results when it hasn't been a long term yet.  And more complicated stuff like conflicts of interest and asking what the vax skeptics have to gain, compared to the vax pushers who have gained $billions. 

 

The usual nonsense...

The effect of lockdowns and vaccine have been extensively analysed...

Talking about idiots... 😀

[candide]

18 hours ago, James105 said:

 

I admire your optimism but I think "the people" will willingly accept it all over again.  Even if you could inject hindsight directly into the 70-80% of people who craved lockdowns and literally show them how much economic damage it caused for no difference in outcomes they would do the same thing all over again, and probably demand longer and harder lockdowns as the previous ones were ineffective.  Propaganda is a powerful tool and far too many people are susceptible to it.   Governments have experience of using this tool now and will use it even more effectively next time as covid was a wonderful and profitable time for the richest and most powerful on the planet, and there is just no way they will let the next one go to waste.

B.S. There were differences in outcomes!

[candide]

3 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

IMO there are a lot of sheeple out there.

Lots of anti-science social media sheeple, it seems.... 😀

[James105]

5 minutes ago, candide said:

B.S. There were differences in outcomes!

 

Yes, I stand corrected.  Sweden without a lockdown had lower excess deaths than countries that applied lockdowns, so it could easily be argued that lockdowns caused worse outcomes than not locking down.   

 

 

https://www.cato.org/policy-analysis/sweden-during-pandemic#excess-deaths

 

 

[candide]

33 minutes ago, James105 said:

 

Yes, I stand corrected.  Sweden without a lockdown had lower excess deaths than countries that applied lockdowns, so it could easily be argued that lockdowns caused worse outcomes than not locking down.   

 

 

https://www.cato.org/policy-analysis/sweden-during-pandemic#excess-deaths

 

 

It seems you are quite selective about which statistics you share! 😀

Taking Covid death rates as measure doesn't show the same outcome.

 

If you look at historical data Sweden had a much higher Covid death rate than its neighbours in 2020, so lockdowns implemented by its neughbours have been efficient). From 2021 they introduced much more restrictions, and the death rate fell. (even if not a full-lockdown). Another aspect is that Sweden has one of the highest Covid vaccination rate (too bad for the antivax nutters 😀)

 

 

Another more general comment us that Nordic countries have lower death rateS, bothered us also a geographical/cultural factor.

[James105]

8 minutes ago, candide said:

It seems you are quite selective about which statistics you share! 😀

Taking Covid death rates as measure doesn't show the same outcome.

 

If you look at historical data Sweden had a much higher Covid death rate than its neighbours in 2020, so lockdowns implemented by its neughbours have been efficient). From 2021 they introduced much more restrictions, and the death rate fell. (even if not a full-lockdown). Another aspect is that Sweden has one of the highest Covid vaccination rate (too bad for the antivax nutters 😀)

 

 

Another more general comment us that Nordic countries have lower death rateS, bothered us also a geographical/cultural factor.

 

Sure, if the only thing people died of was covid then preventing covid deaths would be a good thing.  Unfortunately during this period the things that kill people in much greater numbers did not go away and were probably exasperated due to lockdowns (people not being screened for cancer/heart conditions whilst still treatable etc).  Also different countries counted covid deaths differently so is not a reliable number for comparison.   

 

What is a reliable number though is excess deaths from any cause.  So my point stands, that Sweden without a lockdown had lower excess deaths than countries that applied lockdowns, so it could easily be argued that lockdowns caused worse outcomes than not locking down.   

 

I know the data does not suit the narrative that 'lockdowns saved lives' (sorry about that), and this is the point I was making earlier.   Even with cold hard facts presented to those who thought lockdowns were a good idea that demonstrates they were palpably not a good idea, people (such as yourself) would willingly accept lockdowns even with knowing this fact.  

[fondue zoo]

On 3/25/2024 at 5:15 PM, simon43 said:

Wow, this post has really brought out the soft-brained, the wannabe scientists, the low IQed, the anarchists, the gullible, the useful idiots etc etc!

 

Yeah, but what do you really think about us?

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

Did Sweden beat the pandemic by refusing to lock down? No, its record is disastrous

 

"One fact that tends to be glossed over by anti-lockdown advocates is that Sweden did eventually tighten its social distancing regulations and advisories, though only after the failure of its initial policies became clear."

...

in December 2020, King Carl XVI Gustaf shocked the country by taking a public stand against the government’s approach: “I think we have failed,” he said. “We have a large number who have died and that is terrible.”

 

He was correct. If Sweden had Norway’s death rate, it would have suffered only 4,429 deaths from COVID during the pandemic, instead of more than 18,500."

 

https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2022-03-31/sweden-covid-policy-was-a-disaster