UK Lockdown

[tavyred]

Please flesh out what you mean here.

Fairly obvious I would've thought Al, despite you thinking life is going to be dominated by periodic lockdowns, there is the stated desire in Government circles to make this the last one. I don’t share the anathema some people have when it’s comes masks and social distancing, so if those measures are part of our lives for another a year or so, then so be it. Regularly vaccinations are going to be the norm as well for most of us unfortunately, but if that means no more lockdowns, then again so be it.

 

[RedPaul]

Fairly obvious I would've thought Al, despite you thinking life is going to be dominated by periodic lockdowns, there is the stated desire in Government circles to make this the last one. I don’t share the anathema some people have when it’s comes masks and social distancing, so if those measures are part of our lives for another a year or so, then so be it. Regularly vaccinations are going to be the norm as well for most of us unfortunately, but if that means no more lockdowns, then again so be it.

I agree with you Tav. Masks and SD'd, I can live with. Jabs, fine - as long as I don't have to prove it every 5 minutes. I don't even mind keeping windows open if someone comes round.

It's all the other nonsense that grates. 1 adult per kid watching a football match. I mean, come on.

 

[Alistair20000]

Fairly obvious I would've thought Al, despite you thinking life is going to be dominated by periodic lockdowns, there is the stated desire in Government circles to make this the last one. I don’t share the anathema some people have when it’s comes masks and social distancing, so if those measures are part of our lives for another a year or so, then so be it. Regularly vaccinations are going to be the norm as well for most of us unfortunately, but if that means no more lockdowns, then again so be it.

The Great Blatherer and his cohorts have promised so much but not delivered on the matter of restoring our basic civil liberties.

What is it I recall about a second lockdown being unconscionable blah blah, a nuclear option blah cannot possibly do that blah blah ? Yeah right.

Excuse the scepticism matey. It is well founded and evidence based, unlike a lot of the turd that Bunter spouts.

 

[InTheBigBank]

I think it’s the hyperbolic use of language like ‘authoritarianism’ that grips my s***.
No one is getting welded inside their homes like we saw in China ffs.
As far as I can see the one basic civil liberty being denied us is the right to association, which considering we’re dealing with a nasty virus that relies on humans being in close proximity to each other to spread, sounds eminently sensible to me, at least until we can test the success or otherwise via the data of the vaccines being deployed.
There is no descent into a post-pandemic dystopian Britain being planned, just a country that’s been hit hard thus far trying to make this period the final act in a pretty dreadful 12 months.

The dictionary definition of ‘authoritarian’ is thus - favouring or enforcing strict obedience to authority at the expense of personal freedom.

I would say that pretty accurately sums up the conditions we’ve been living under for a year.

But putting pedantry aside, I see your point that it’s not ‘real’ authoritarianism. However you did reference China and its in prisoning of people in their homes.

Lockdowns AKA restrictions on people’s free movement IS a policy borrowed from the most oppressive and authoritarian government in the world, namely the CCP. By Neil Ferguson’s own admission he didn’t think he could ‘get away with it here’, such a departure from Western values and act of governance it is.

To introduce infringements on people’s liberty is a problem to me. It’s considered to be a selfish point of view, but I am 31 years of age. I have, if I’m lucky, 40 odd years left of life to lead. I might have children one day. If government policy we are currently living under is allowed to go unchecked or normalised, what kind of a Britain are we leaving for the next generations?

The fear people like myself have, is that there could always be a reason to enter a restrictive state. See variants, cases, et al.

You say the hyperbolic use of ‘authoritarian’ irks you.

Would you say, that not only the way the media have reported on the lethality of Covid, but even our own panel of experts and their hyper inflated Excel spreadsheets have been hyperbolic? If so does this also irk you to the same degree? Or even at all?

After all, it is this which is driving policy.

Let us not forget that the survivability rate upon contracting Covid is over 99%, the average age of death is 84. And let’s not even go into comorbidities and the ‘deaths within 28 days’ scenario.

People seem to prickle when this is brought up. But they are the facts.

The heart of the matter is the question: Is what we have done/are doing in proportion to the threat?

People will have different answers. But I don’t think government have even bothered to ask themselves the question.

 

[Rosencrantz]

The thing that has caught my ear in the last week or so from Boris (admittedly not exactly glued to the coverage as much now) is a reining back of vaccine dependency in his output and pushing forward of testing once again, particularly the lateral flow variety. I might be a bit over cynical here but wasn't it Hancock who nailed his colours early on to the vaccine mast whilst Boris was an enthusiastic pusher of "Operation Moonshot"? Not saying that Boris still wants to get his pet project to the forefront but how many lateral flow tests have we bought in, stacked up, waiting to be used?

NB. Doing a test and sitting around in the car park for half hour is a small price to be able to see my Gran in her Nursing Home even if she isn't sure who I am anymore.

 

[Alistair20000]

The thing that has caught my ear in the last week or so from Boris (admittedly not exactly glued to the coverage as much now) is a reining back of vaccine dependency in his output and pushing forward of testing once again, particularly the lateral flow variety. I might be a bit over cynical here but wasn't it Hancock who nailed his colours early on to the vaccine mast whilst Boris was an enthusiastic pusher of "Operation Moonshot"? Not saying that Boris still wants to get his pet project to the forefront but how many lateral flow tests have we bought in, stacked up, waiting to be used?

NB. Doing a test and sitting around in the car park for half hour is a small price to be able to see my Gran in her Nursing Home even if she isn't sure who I am anymore.

As you say Rosey, anything is a price worth paying to see a loved one; especially an elderly Gran or Mum

All good wishes to you with your Gran.

 

[tavyred]

The dictionary definition of ‘authoritarian’ is thus - favouring or enforcing strict obedience to authority at the expense of personal freedom.

I would say that pretty accurately sums up the conditions we’ve been living under for a year.

But putting pedantry aside, I see your point that it’s not ‘real’ authoritarianism. However you did reference China and its in prisoning of people in their homes.

Lockdowns AKA restrictions on people’s free movement IS a policy borrowed from the most oppressive and authoritarian government in the world, namely the CCP. By Neil Ferguson’s own admission he didn’t think he could ‘get away with it here’, such a departure from Western values and act of governance it is.

To introduce infringements on people’s liberty is a problem to me. It’s considered to be a selfish point of view, but I am 31 years of age. I have, if I’m lucky, 40 odd years left of life to lead. I might have children one day. If government policy we are currently living under is allowed to go unchecked or normalised, what kind of a Britain are we leaving for the next generations?

The fear people like myself have, is that there could always be a reason to enter a restrictive state. See variants, cases, et al.

You say the hyperbolic use of ‘authoritarian’ irks you.

Would you say, that not only the way the media have reported on the lethality of Covid, but even our own panel of experts and their hyper inflated Excel spreadsheets have been hyperbolic? If so does this also irk you to the same degree? Or even at all?

After all, it is this which is driving policy.

Let us not forget that the survivability rate upon contracting Covid is over 99%, the average age of death is 84. And let’s not even go into comorbidities and the ‘deaths within 28 days’ scenario.

People seem to prickle when this is brought up. But they are the facts.

The heart of the matter is the question: Is what we have done/are doing in proportion to the threat?

People will have different answers. But I don’t think government have even bothered to ask themselves the question.

I’ve repeated this point a couple of times over the last 12 months and never really had a real answer to it, not many of the ‘it’s all a big overreaction’ merchants ever mention the ability of this virus to quickly overwhelm first world health care systems.
I cannot think of any emergency public health response in the NHS’s history where we just accepted that thousands of otherwise healthy people can get ill and say don’t worry the death rate is still very small, the care you will get in hospital will be chaotic and dangerous and that’s before we even factor in the risk (mentally and physically) to those tasked with looking after you in hospital like nurses and doctors.
This thread is a microcosm of the Government’s COVID conundrum, in December and January it was all “lockdown Boris ffs, people are dying in their hundreds” last summer and now its “set us free, you authoritarian barstewards, my civil liberties are being infringed”.

 

[IndoMike]

The Great Blatherer and his cohorts have promised so much but not delivered on the matter of restoring our basic civil liberties.

What is it I recall about a second lockdown being unconscionable blah blah, a nuclear option blah cannot possibly do that blah blah ? Yeah right.

Excuse the scepticism matey. It is well founded and evidence based, unlike a lot of the turd that Bunter spouts.

Didn't the scientists say that we needed 60% + of the population to be immune before we reach a "herd immunity" level? I don't think we have achieved that yet.

I assume that the scientists have a better idea than we do about when and how we should return to "normality". If you don't trust the scientists you have to ask yourself "why?":
Do you think they are lying?
Do you think they are exaggerating the risks?
Do you think they (or Johnson) have a secret agenda?
Re the above question : if "yes", what is the agenda?
Or do you just think our scientists are not "world-beaters" and that they don't understand their specialty?

You make sweeping judgements about the scientists and lockdowns but AFAIK you have never provided a justification for your cynicism and disdain apart from the fact that lockdowns p*ss you off.
I await your reply with great anticipation. I am genuinely interested to know why you have such little faith in our world-beating scientists.

 

[InTheBigBank]

I’ve repeated this point a couple of times over the last 12 months and never really had a real answer to it, not many of the ‘it’s all a big overreaction’ merchants ever mention the ability of this virus to quickly overwhelm first world health care systems.
I cannot think of any emergency public health response in the NHS’s history where we just accepted that thousands of otherwise healthy people can get ill and say don’t worry the death rate is still very small, the care you will get in hospital will be chaotic and dangerous and that’s before we even factor in the risk (mentally and physically) to those tasked with looking after you in hospital like nurses and doctors.
This thread is a microcosm of the Government’s COVID conundrum, in December and January it was all “lockdown Boris ffs, people are dying in their hundreds” last summer and now its “set us free, you authoritarian barstewards, my civil liberties are being infringed”.

I’ve repeated this point a couple of times over the last 12 months and never really had a real answer to it, not many of the ‘it’s all a big overreaction’ merchants ever mention the ability of this virus to quickly overwhelm first world health care systems.
I cannot think of any emergency public health response in the NHS’s history where we just accepted that thousands of otherwise healthy people can get ill and say don’t worry the death rate is still very small, the care you will get in hospital will be chaotic and dangerous and that’s before we even factor in the risk (mentally and physically) to those tasked with looking after you in hospital like nurses and doctors.
This thread is a microcosm of the Government’s COVID conundrum, in December and January it was all “lockdown Boris ffs, people are dying in their hundreds” last summer and now its “set us free, you authoritarian barstewards, my civil liberties are being infringed”.

Yes, fair points.

I would like to say, I’m not blasé about how dangerous the virus can be to some people. Or that the NHS would be under more significant pressure than at other times.

I still to this day don’t know how an ‘overwhelmed’ NHS is defined. Even if the overwhelming of the NHS is the biggest trump card that can be played, it doesn’t necessarily justify lockdowns. What about building more capacity in staffing and facilities to cope with its new needs? Easier said than done obviously, but hopefully you see my point.

Do I think it’s an overreaction? Well, truthfully, I don’t know. In the absence of a portal into another timeline in which we didn’t have lockdowns, none of us do.

It’s more the way in which restrictions are implemented and policed which is the problem to me.

There’s little scientific basis for many of the measures put in place, and it makes me uncomfortable for people to be getting harassed by the police for sitting in a park having a picnic. It’s the bureaucracy and safety theatre, the accusations of being a murderer for meeting up with friends and being part of a community. It’s dehumanising.

Ultimately we’re debating on a League Two football club’s forum. Nothing is changing on behalf of what anyone says on here, but it’s something to do in lockdown, innit.

 

[MJP_Exeter]

Didn't the scientists say that we needed 60% + of the population to be immune before we reach a "herd immunity" level? I don't think we have achieved that yet.

I assume that the scientists have a better idea than we do about when and how we should return to "normality". If you don't trust the scientists you have to ask yourself "why?":
Do you think they are lying?
Do you think they are exaggerating the risks?
Do you think they (or Johnson) have a secret agenda?
Re the above question : if "yes", what is the agenda?
Or do you just think our scientists are not "world-beaters" and that they don't understand their specialty?

You make sweeping judgements about the scientists and lockdowns but AFAIK you have never provided a justification for your cynicism and disdain apart from the fact that lockdowns p*ss you off.
I await your reply with great anticipation. I am genuinely interested to know why you have such little faith in our world-beating scientists.

One of the biggest problems this cohort of current government have is that they spent the previous 5 to 6 years stocking anti expert analysis. It's not about knowing what you're doing, but you're own gut feeling rather than listen to those whom know.

Unfortunately this has not only clouded his voters judgement, but been the root cause of how are government have handled this whole sorry situation.