To think "it's alright for you" for those who want lockdown for now until eternity?

[GlummyMcGlummerson]

I've seen, on both MN and social media, outrage after the PM announcement last night that strict lockdown won't be in place any more. Lots of sensationalist "great so now people can come to the Dales and kill us all" type posts. Furious that builders can go back to work and school children can go back to school in June to "kills us all". People are saying we should have lockdown until there's a vaccine, or until September. All these people on social media either:

• work from home anyway
• run their business from home
• didn't work anyway

AIBU in thinking "yeah it's alright for you!". Some of us need to return to work to keep a living and roof over our heads. I am furloughed until the end of the month but if my workplace can't re-open by around July then my job is basically fucked. I'm a single parent to 2, my ex runs a business that also relies on lockdown being eased, so if he loses his business then I lose maintenance payments.

I think it also shows a woeful misunderstanding of what lockdown is for. It wasn't implemented so that we could stay at home while the virus fairy magicked corona virus away. It was never the expectation that lockdown would solve the virus problem. There will be a second peak - NHS barely survives flu season as it is, it's important that the next peak doesn't coincide with the inevitable flu peak

At least Scotland's being run by someone whose actually got a clue.

Sturgeon warned against lifting the lockdown too soon as it would it only result in the country in being in some form of a lockdown for much longer and lead to the loss of many more lives.

daisy, I don't think we disagree with each other. I wrote " The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) Regulations 2020 have not changed and nor has the obligation generally under English law for employers to look after the safety of workers". So I am saying there is a duty under English law for employers to protect the safety of workers as you agree too.

The question then for every possible illness and risk is what we do to try to ensure safety whether from accidents at work and all forms of disease so my son's employers eg take temperatures every morning and he does not now go into people's houses with the food and just leaves it outside. They have worked full time throughout. That sounds pretty safe to me.

Yes I do apologise I missed out the "I'll do what I want, group" luckily a minority.

Listen , everyone bleets on about how we need a war time effort, all be together and so on .

You do realise it's the risk takers that saw the country through war, those men and women who risked their lives on battlefields. The men and women at home who worked in ammunition factories at risked being blown up, farming, coal mining, went to work when a bomb could be dropped on your head at any moment.

They didn't live in bomb shelters, or consienciously object, the risk takers are what gets a country through, you follow the rules, but you take the risk. Risk takers have always driven our economies through bad times like war, or even won us a war.

So don't begrudge or belittle the risk takers, they are literally doing what you won't for the better long term outcome.

The economy has to pick back up, the depression, recession and taxes are going to be horrific following this.

The fearful well honestly need to stop, it's time to muck in and get on with it, obeying the rules, wash hands, socially distance and be mindful of others.

So? What is a police officer going to do if you've written 'going to the supermarket'? It's no different to just saying you're going to the supermarket.

so what? The police is not as thick as you think they are, or there wouldn't have been so many fines.

Just because you have 1 friend there, you know all about France? Lucky us you haven't got one friend in Spain and one in China too!

Death rate is still too high. If adults want to risk their life by going back to work it's up to them but I'm not risking my child's life by sending them back to school. I'm on maternity leave so don't have to make the decision about returning to work yet

SeperatedSwans
you are willingly confusing risk takers - such as the NHS frontline workers, police officers, firemen.. working for the greater good

and the selfish idiots who chose their own rules because they think they know best, or don't care about anyone else.
Parents who want to get rid of their kids as soon as possible and also loudly complain that school holidays are too long and should not even exist are not exactly risk takers, are they.

"Just because you have 1 friend there, you know all about France? "

I never said that, did I? You're the one who claims to know everything and to claim it's more strict because there's a permit. I'm just pointing out that as the permit is a form you fill in YOURSELF then it's no more strict than here, is it?
(except for the fines being more).

adults want to risk their life by going back to work it's up to them

You do realise lots of people have been working throughout, right? And aside from resigning from your job (not a good idea before a recession) you don't usually have much choice about whether you fancy going in or not?

@Rosebel oh please. The death rate of people my age is tiny enough for me not to be particularly concerned. I'm not risking my life going to work.

YABU. Fear is what's making many peoples choices, may come as a shock to you that some people would far prefer the 20% pay cut and loss of child maintenance to ensure that our chances of being alive at the end of this are as high as possible.
It's not that people are financially unaffected, but value our lives more than money gained by going out there right now.

Gwenhwyfar
I don't need to claim anything, the lockdown in France was more strict. It's a simple fact, the permits were a part of it.

Not sure what your issue is about it?

OneandTwenty no they belong in the I don't give a fuck group. I'll do what I want, it's all about me, perhaps we could call them the selfish group overall.

I've worked all through this pandemic in my role I prominently WFH but I still need to visit my at risk/vunerable clients in the community on a weekly basis, just with social distancing rules in place, some PPE and hand hygiene.

Other friends who work in construction have also worked through this pandemic already, as have factory workers.

Many of my friends who work in call centers want to go back to a socially distanced office based environment. Same for some LA staff I know.

Many of us could have refused, but then the implications are not worth thinking about, so we took the risk of working.

It's time now to start emerging, taking small controlled risks and attempting to re-boot a stalled economy.

If I lose my job who is gonna take on a single mum with 2 kids who need full time care until October?

Benefits? Isn't that why we have them. So that people who are out of work (among other categories) can be supported?

Well bully for you, I and many others won't have access to food if we aren't paid or in work

If you're not being paid you'll be entitled to Universal Credit, and at a considerably higher rate than those people who had the misfortune to be on benefits before the lockdown started were expected to live on.

However, if people working in food production or the supply chain started to get ill in significant numbers, you won't have access to food, even if you're still getting paid.

Lockdown protects the workers who are employed in our essential services, as well as those who are locked down. That's in all our interests.

As a minority and someone who works from home, I still think its too soon and even if some are prepared to go back to work, as for me and my household, we will be staying indoors till its gone for good. Prepared to home school for the forseeable and work nights. You can always get another job but only have one life.

@Waxonwaxoff0 But it isn't just about you, is it? It's about the people you might infect without realising it, some of whom might be vulnerable, or who, after catching the virus from you, might pass it on to vulnerable or shielding family members.

And I agree that you're very unlikely to die if you're under 60, but you can end up in intensive care (as Boris Johnson found out).

I agree there's a lot of fear, but it's become a trendy point of view and I would love to see how many of those shouting about this on Twitter and here actually stay inside until a vaccine is found
People wary of lifting lockdown because hundreds are dying every day and idiots can't even manage to stay 2m apart in supermarket ueues.
I don't want to stay inside until a vaccine is found.I want there to be appropriate measures to stop hundreds of people dying every day.

I expect all the people who are saying "you'll get universal credit" have never been on Universal credit themselves. It doesn't even cover rent for most areas in the country as private rent costs are so high. And if you have a mortgage you're not entitled to the housing element.

I also expect the people saying "just go on Universal credit" are not suffering financially themselves at the moment.

I tend to think most people screaming about the economy have benefited the most from it at the expense of those who benefit the least.

I also expect the people saying "just go on Universal credit" are not suffering financially themselves at the moment.

Of course they aren’t.

I agree with you. Some people’s lives lend themselves to lockdown better than others.

Personally I think we need to lift lockdown for everyone other than the elderly/vulnerable. The risk of dying from Covid is staggeringly low to the general population. If everyone else goes back to work the government will have more money and resources to continue to protect the shielding and their families for as long as it takes. Healthy people hiding indefinitely makes no sense. Obviously supported by excellent social distancing and hygiene practices in work places and communities.

I’ve been a bit at the comments on here from people saying that they/their families will be staying inside for the rest of the year/until there’s a vaccine. Obviously not thinking about the people who don’t have that luxury because the country would grind to a halt if they did the same.

@Mittens030869 Boris is in his 50s so is still higher risk than me. I'm 29.

And I'm afraid that being able to pay my bills and ensure that my DS is fed and has a roof over his head is my priority.

lyralalala you are very naive if you think the benefit system prevents people from losing their home or it having food to eat. Why do you think Food Banks exist?

And who will be working and paying taxes to enable the ‘benefit system’ to function?

Of course the vast major of the population need to get back to work if at all possible.

You cannot ‘furlough’ people for ever, surely everyone understands that.

somenerve I am screaming about the economy but not because I'm middle class and wealthy.

I work 40+hours, am in receipt of UC as a top up for my council house rent and am a single mother!

I lived a life of a childhood poverty, I don't want it for my child. Economic downturns lead to mass child poverty! I grew up in the 90's in a house where all we had for heating was a coal fore and someday the only warm meal was boiled water, Weetabix and a splash of milk.

I know what it feels like to be poor, and I'd rather be dead.

Yes a lot of people have been working but there will be more people going back and that increases the risk of more people catching the virus. It's not just about saying well the death rate for my age group is low,so I'm not worried, it's about all the other people you could infect.
I don't think they should have eased lockdown yet. For heaven's sake we have the second highest rate of death in the world.