Student Opinion: European Countries Impose New COVID-19 Measures As Cases Spike

Photo by Jason Alden

By Michelle Moreno Lira

Despite implementing COVID-19 restrictions, cases in Europe have spiked once again and hospitals are preparing for a new wave of sick patients. Some countries in Europe are enforcing a four-week lockdown as a result and are only allowing residents to go out for essential activities. 

The Prime Minister of England, Boris Johnson, gave an announcement this week detailing the precautions they’re planning to take before the cases become higher. In an article provided by BBC, they explain how the lockdown will help prevent hospitals from being unprepared. Although officials expect hospitals and essential healthcare workers to be overwhelmed, they’re preparing for “hospitals even in the southwest of England, where cases are among the lowest, will run out of capacity in weeks.”

It’s admirable that the Prime Minister of England is acting quickly to help protect residents and prepare hospitals for the new wave of COVID-19 cases. According to BBC, many people feared that their businesses would suffer, but officials acknowledged the public’s concern and confirmed the “furlough system paying 80% of employees wages will be extended through November.” Despite the nation suffering from business closures and employees losing their jobs, Europe plans to support their employees and maintain a steady paycheck until November. 

Concerns about a second wave came when the World Health Organization and elected officials saw a spike in cases and deaths. Although this four-week lockdown has its effects on different people, I believe it’s intelligent to shut down the country to protect residents and healthcare workers.

In an article by CNN, they discuss the new data that lead to this decision, “Europe recorded a 22% increase in new coronavirus cases and a 43% increase in deaths in the seven days to Tuesday.” Although it was a 22% increase, Europe decided it was in everyone’s best interest to shut down again and restrict everyone to only essential activities. 

Instead of refusing the need for a lockdown, European countries used all of their available resources and are preparing ahead for any events that may be presented following new case numbers. Many countries should look to European countries as a guide for handling COVID-19; in order to prevent more deaths and COVID-19 patients, Europe took action and closed non-essential businesses along with non-essential restrictions. Their actions are commendable despite residents becoming anxious and stressed about everything closing up again and having no choice but to remain home. 

People at the beginning of the pandemic feared the effects of the virus, yet as lockdowns began and businesses began to close, many saw the effect it had on their personal lives aside from COVID-19 related effects. An article from CNBC explains a shift in reactions and compliance from people in European countries, “people strictly followed the rules there at the beginning of the outbreak, but that’s changed.” Although officials fear a bigger rise in numbers, the public seemed to comply less this second lockdown out of frustration. 

While it’s understandable that a great deal of people are under stress and other anxiety-related emotions, they must understand that their countries can’t afford a second wave as big as the first. Hospitals and essential healthcare workers have been fighting against the virus since late March, resources are running low for many countries and they’re working hard to maintain everyone’s health. Providing new restrictions, closing businesses and mandating that everyone remain inside (unless allowed to) is a small price to pay for the damages that a second wave can cause. 

An uncontrolled second wave can prove to be more damaging for countries that choose not to act immediately. Although European countries have enforced a second lockdown, it’s not as demanding as the first wave’s lockdown was. People’s reactions and feelings towards a second lockdown are different from those at the end of March. CNBC describes these feelings as “pandemic fatigue,” which has caused some people to stop complying with lockdown measures. Emotions are high for everyone right now, yet we must remain vigilant and do our part in slowing the spread. 

Europe has maintained a close eye on the number of cases reported, which has allowed them to prepare their residents and hospitals as they try gaining control of the virus. Acknowledging the virus and the spread of the virus will allow Europe to continue moving forward as they focus on the virus day by day. 

Support our work – to become a sustaining at $5 – $10- $25 per month hit the link:

About The Author

Related posts


  1. Tia Will

    Thanks, Michelle for the article.

    A couple of tips for more successful COVID managment that so far Europe has managed better than we have.

    1. Less politicization of the preventive effect of masking.

    2. The willingness to buffer the financial effects of partial shutdown by providing wages and support for small businesses.

    What Americans still seem unwilling or unable to grasp is that there will be no return to economic normalcy until we have control over the spread of the virus. Control of the virus should never have been portrayed as the enemy of business and/or the economy, but rather as a necessary step to economic stability and eventually growth

  2. John Hobbs

    But since apparently just over 71M Americans reject scientific and medical data and advice, we’ll have to mandate and vigorously enforce regulations. I was under the delusion that most of my neighbors had good sense until Halloween when little super-spreaders came to the door trick or treating.

    1. Bill Marshall

      Hmmm… am torn…

      Have always complied with reasonable requests/suggestions, etc., such as masking, hand-washing, sanitizer use, temp checks… but there must be a gene in my system that when someone tells me I have to, or else (aka mandatory)… don’t know if it is the “Irish” in me, or whatever, I lose almost all motivation to do the ‘thing’, even when I know it is the “right thing”… even tho’ long compliant, I have a real issue with folk telling me what I have to do, as opposed to, what I should do…  always have… at least 55 years… might be a ‘control issue thingy’… folk like me may be in a minority, but we are here…

      I also never could put up with ‘bullies’… I challenged and fought them, not because of their demands, but because they said “you HAVE TO!”… I hope all will choose to the right things… I also believe their failure to do so means that they should not be covered under med insurance, gov’t bailouts, if they choose poorly… let them live (or die) by their choices, and if they cause illness, death, etc. (of others), they should be civilly liable, with no caps as to required compensation.  Up to and including, 90% garnishment of wages, loss of real property…

      But we are “pro-choice”, yes?  But choices have consequences, yes?


      1. Richard McCann

        Bill M

        So you don’t wear a seat belt, you don’t buy car insurance, don’t wear clothes in public, don’t put your garbage in your trash can? There are laws telling you that you must do each of these things. When people complain that they don’t want to be told that they must do something, I see a spoiled child having a tantrum. An adult recognizes that we sometimes have to compel behavior either to protect all of us (e.g., car insurance, vaccines and face masks) or to reduce the harm to the individual to avoid society incurring high costs (e.g., seat belts). The problem with civil liability is that there’s no real ability to demonstrate individual causation in this situation–that’s why we have to have mandates instead.

        1. Bill Marshall

          Car insuance is not mandatory… proof of financial responsibility is.  Vaccines are not required… you cannot be forced to have a vaccine.

          Your points fail.

          I choose auto liability insurance.  I choose vaccination against flu, shingles, pneumonia.  I am not legally compelled.

        2. Ron Oertel

          In reading the link you provided, I don’t think this is a “semantical argument”, in regard to what most people think of as insurance.

          Getting back to masks, I’m not sure what the “law” actually is (other than what you’ve reported for businesses’ responsibility).

          As far as I know, Bill is right regarding no one having the ability to hold you down and vaccinate you, against your will.

        3. Ron Oertel

          However, if you’re a dog, cat, or farm animal, “all bets are off”. 

          Hell, they might even kill you – legally. Without even having committed a crime.


          Of course, some of those “folks” also kill with legal impunity. But, I digress.

        4. Ron Oertel

          Oh wait – for what we classify as pets, they usually kill you for “homelessness”.

          O.K., I’ll shut up now.

          Apparently, I’ve been influenced by Buddhism (or my understanding of it, at least).

      2. Alan Miller

        But we are “pro-choice”, yes?

        On this matter, I’m “pro-life”.

        and if they cause illness, death, etc. (of others), they should be civilly liable,

        Then it’s too late for those suffering or dead.  That’s what makes this situation rather unique and why individuality and choice don’t cut it in a pandemic.  This isn’t a matter of premeditation, it’s a matter of one’s carelessness itself harming others, and everyone (who cares to believe) knowing they are harming or killing others by being CARE LESS.

        Lock ’em up!

  3. Don Shor

    Providing new restrictions, closing businesses and mandating that everyone remain inside (unless allowed to) is a small price to pay for the damages that a second wave can cause. 

    There is no funding in place for businesses or their employees in the United States in the event of a closure at this time. The “price to pay” will be catastrophic, not “small”, in the absence of continued wage support, possible rent reprieves for businesses, delaying due dates of tax payments by property owners and landlords, and extension of health care benefits.

    Mandating mask usage is very helpful to the small businesses that remain open.


    1. Tia Will


      You make an excellent argument for ongoing wage support until at least a modicum of success is achieved in controlling either the spread of the virus or its disastrous effects for some, whichever comes first. Unfortunately, much of the country seems wedded to the strategy of contain/ open/ surge/ contain/open/ surge, which is proving so ineffective.

  4. Tia Will


    Two thoughts about your post.

    1. We can afford to be pro-choice when it is only our own well-being, or in this case our own life that is at stake. When choose to put the lives of others at risk, IMO, we do not deserve and should not be allowed to make that choice. Does anyone here believe we should be allowed to drive under the influence or to drive 100mph in a school zone?  I have a sister that has your inherent dislike for being told what to do. As a surgeon, I lost every vestige of that as a resident, and learned how to “give orders” instead of make suggestions as a senior doctor. I frankly do not understand it when you know the order is “right”.

    The second point is that, unlike what fear mongers were claiming, there will be no national mandate. Presidents do not have the authority for that. So what Biden is pleading for is national compliance. So knowing that, do you have any objection to doing so?

    1. Bill Marshall

      So what Biden is pleading for is national compliance. So knowing that, do you have any objection to doing so?

      Asked and answered… no… was responding to John H’s comment about making it mandatory… wrong target…

      You may disagree, but some ‘pro-choice’ medical decisions involve other’s health, not just the ‘decision-maker’… but I note you brought that up…

  5. Richard McCann

    Next question though is what’s the duration of the immunity from the vaccine.

    Of course, rather than putting ALL of our eggs in the silver bullet basket, we could have taken measures like they have elsewhere and cut the death rate by half or more while we waited for if and when the silver bullet arrives (and its still not here.) Such a reckless disregard for life.


Leave a Reply

X Close

Newsletter Sign-Up

X Close

Monthly Subscriber Sign-Up

Enter the maximum amount you want to pay each month
Sign up for