As Victorians prepare for yet another extended period of enforced lockdown, real questions are being raised regarding the ability of the populace to follow the new directives and the effects of such protracted social isolation on mental health.

Disillusionment, ongoing stress, and social isolation all carry significant and real consequences. While the behavioural effects of “lockdown fatigue” are becoming more apparent, the following questions need to be addressed from the perspective of mental health:

• Who is most likely to suffer consequences from a prolonged, stricter lockdown?
• What are the public policy measures most likely to produce tangible results?

Job losses and social disconnection

Prior to the current increase in instances in Victoria, our most conservative projections indicated a 14% rise in overall suicide rates as a result of COVID-19 restrictions, as well as the ensuing social unrest and economic repercussions on a national level.

Additionally, we predicted a minimum 25% rise in suicide rates in rural and regional areas where substantial unemployment and educational disadvantage already existed.

Job losses, social isolation, and, for young people, the availability of support for continuous education and training are the true causes of these serious health concerns.

Given the return to lockdown in Melbourne, we now anticipate significantly higher levels of job instability — notably in those already decimated areas like hospitality, tourism, and the arts — as well as a longer time of social isolation.

The length of the lockdown and the level of uncertainty it creates are crucial for both of these criteria.

What can be done by the government to lessen harm to people?

The harder question to answer is the second one: what can our political and social leaders do to minimise the damage on people’s mental health and well-being, given the necessity to “act fast and go hard” to stop the spread of the virus?

Job security is at the top of the list. JobKeeper is essential conceptually because it connects users to actual workplaces, social contacts, and their social identity.

However, in its first application, it neglected to include many casual employees, young people, and women. Each of these groups was severely impacted by COVID-19 restrictions, and their long-term employment prospects have since been even worse.

And according to our place-based approach, decision-makers should consider how policies might work best in Melbourne and the surrounding areas.

From the standpoint of social connections, all governments must focus their public messaging. The effectiveness of a top-down, law-and-order-focused approach in enacting the necessary behavioural changes is limited and only temporary. Frequently, it produces the opposite result from what was intended.

Public health campaigns that encourage individuals to be socially conscious and involved in their communities in order to assist and care for one another through particularly trying times are really what are needed.