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

WTF is wrong with people on this site,

Yes some of us have been ‘on house arrest’ for months.

Lots of people can’t work.

And generally some really cunty attitudes here

In response to ddt1's post:

If you don't fall under the category of those who need to shield but also are unable to take extra precautions, I sympathise massively. It's a difficult position which doesn't seem to have been particularly well considered, especially for those who are younger. Over 70s are less likely to be needing to work for example. So I agree there needs to be solid protection for that vulnerable group, which allows them to continue to work from home and get delivery slots.

I've read that people are receiving shielding letters now, so wonder if they are expanding the definition of those who need more protection.

However calling for the rest of the UK to not begin easing lockdown isn't the answer.

I'm not saying you're doing that. But that is what I believe this thread is generally against. Not downplaying the worry that anyone with health issues must be experiencing.

Those who are willing (and able) to take the very small risks and return to work / school / normal life means there is more budget and flexibility to protect not just those shielding, but those who are vulnerable.

People voluntarily lumping themselves in with those who have a genuine reason to be concerned will not help the situation long term. Even if in the short term that collective voice helps.

But why is it better for more people to be out spreading the virus? Clue: it’s not

And no, it’s not “alright” for me, DH can’t work at all right now. But I still think lockdown is the right thing to do. Just look at other countries.

I thought I was on the dementors thread so mentioned that term in the context I understand it, as thought the PP was feeling as a vulnerable person she was being classed as worried well and criticised. I've asked MN to edit my post.

one it's not ideal, obviously it would be better that the virus wasn't being spread or even existed.

But it a case of risk assessment. If no one goes out, yes we won't spread it but obviously that's not possible for multiple reasons.

So we have to go out and take precautions to limit the spread. What is the alternative?

This is one situation where time achieves nothing.