Action taken to "flatten the curve" and protect the most vulnerable. The pandemic wave continues but there are lower peaks. Sweden attempted this at start. Now stopped – destructive to be in recurring lockdown cycles. Might reach point where public no longer support. Issue of long Covid and reinfection> - Depend on country – e.g. some countries demographics might mean greater percentage of population vulnerable so mitigation more risky. - Even Sweden, perceived as healthy country, has had to move away from this approach. High level of long Covid in 30-60 age group leading to long term health issues. - Sweden less densely population than central belt, reputation for ‘rule following’. - Travel from Sweden into neighbouring countries not allowed due to prevalence of coronavirus in Sweden. - Leads to recurring lockdown cycles – might decrease compliance with restrictions - Might be possible to implement for a while but people will push back if cycle continues year after year
People would get fatigued as no end in sight
Does not work with new strains so off the table
Keeping the vulnerable "Bubbled" is too difficult
The way the data is presented and communicated during a mitigation strategy might be worth looking at for other strategies. If more people know the level of infection etc.
Aspects of this strategy would be required if the government decides to keep international transport hubs open to support the economy
Possible to implement short term, but in long term not implementable. Despite Sweden being a 'healthy', less densely populated, country herd immunity has not worked.
Doesn't necessarily save economy - people changed behaviour anyway in Sweden.
Destructive long term cycles of lockdown - people might follow rules less. You would end up with more deaths, non covid relate, not dealing with anything -
Does this strategy come in to play when things start to open up - masks, 2 metre distance etc - but it opens you up to exponential growth of infection
It would be one of the easiest strategies to implement and get public buy in for, but it does not make this the right option.
It would aggravate long term conditions and disabilities. Shielding was proven to not be that great and exacerbated Mental health problems
There is no way in which we can shield vulnerable people: they still need cared for. So wider society has to get virus prevalence low enough so that they can still be kept safe. Mitigation isn't going to go far enough towards doing this.
Back to group
Back to group
This content is created by the open source Your Priorities citizen engagement platform designed by the non profit Citizens Foundation