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

I actually worry about the people who seem to want lockdown to go on forever. I mean - what were their lives like before this shitshow?

Ah yes, good old "common sense" ie allow employers to do whatever they want.

Some people just want this to continue working from home/not working on someone else's shilling

100 per cent this. This has been the case from day 1.

But once we have a vaccine will it be 100% effective? I thought a typical flu vaccine was only 50% effective or less some years. So surely that means that some people will still catch Covid 19 or its mutated form?
I’m with you op. Yes I feel desperately sorry for people who die but surely these people were vulnerable to lots of things and they don’t expect the whole country to lock down to protect them?

I think we need to appreciate that everyone's situation is different.

Not everyone who wants lockdown to continue is affluent and just enjoying sitting on their arse catching up on hobbies on boxsets.

I work as a school administrator and have been incredibly fortunate to be able to work from home since lockdown began. However, a few days later we had the news that my dad has only a couple of months to live. Being on lockdown and not having to go to work means I can help care for him and support my mum, as I'm otherwise practicing strict social distancing ( 2 click and collects and 2 pharmacy pick ups in 7 weeks).

If I have to go back to work I will be at risk which will put them at risk and there is an increased possibility that I will lose both my parents. Either that or I stay away from my dying father and devastated mother and let them get on with it with just ad hoc carers to help out.

And how, in an increasingly casualised and deunionised national workforce, with something like six HSE inspectors per local authority, and in the context of several million newly unemployed, is any of this implimented/negotiated/enforced in order that employee rights, including crucially the right not to be put in danger at work, are protected?

This. We already see dreadful H&S practices in some sectors, what are the chances of those employers who don't give a shit being forced to comply with distancing etc? Two chances - fat and slim.

It is driven by fear. But also for many people their financial positions mean they don’t have the same worry as others.

If DH’s employer can’t take him back on once furlough ends, our future is completely changed. We’d just got on the track we’d dreamed of too.

For others, they might be facing certain homelessness if lockdown continues. When faced with those choices many would choose to take a risk on a virus they might not get or that might be mild.

It’s an impossible choice but when people are in desperate financial crisis, facing absolute ruin, I can totally understand it.

Whether it's a jogger/cyclist coming up behind you who coughs/spits as they pass you less than 2 metres, or someone coming down the shop aisle the wrong way and stands next to you then sneezes, when you're picking something off a shelf. Your life is in someone else's hands

Well, yes, but even if that happens a healthy persons chances of dying are still tiny, arent they?

@returnofthemollymawks I agree with that analysis. If you're a "professional" who owns your own car and home, even better if your children are at private school and you use private healthcare, you have much more control over your level of exposure and risk and what services you have available to you.

How do we know the figures for the survival rate though @TrustTheGeneGenie?

because we are told them? look at all the people who have died vs all the people who havent?

if you dont trust the death rate, then thats up to you. if you feel you personally want to stay in because its safer, fine, but people who dont should be allowed to work and send their children to school.

The risk of poverty is far higher than the risk of dying from corona.

I’m torn on this. Whilst I agree that people can’t be kept in lockdown endlessly It’s a simple fact that people will now flock to what they see as beautiful ‘outdoorsy’ places.
Beaches, Lake District, peaks, small beautiful villages trendy with hikers (like I live in), will be rammed with everyone from local towns and cities desperate to escape lockdown in their urban homes.

Whilst they do technically have a right to come and these places have always been popular, the lockdown ending will mean higher numbers than even the sunniest of bank holidays usually sees.

People have a right to come but locals have a right to walk out of their front door and be able to maintain a safe 2 meter distance from tourists. Otherwise we end up in a situation where people are forcing other people to remain in lockdown because they can’t maintain a safe distance. I’d like to know what happens if a thousand people turn up to the same beach on Wednesday. Who gets to stay and who has to go home? How will the police enforce that? Some places/spaces can only take X amount before it’s impossible to social distance.

The lockdown should have happened a week or more earlier, but comparisons with other countries are dangerous. We have more deaths but it's not inevitably because our response has been worse. It's also because:

The two most urban countries in Europe are the UK and Belgium. Worst death statistics because virus spreads and is transmitted more easily in crowded peopled environments.

London has the biggest population of any European city.

London has the busiest airports in the world and sees far more through-traffic of passengers from China than any other European city. Because Trump closed flight from other EU countries before the UK there was also a short period where people from other European countries were coming through London to get to the US, seeding infection further.

In other words our INCIDENCE of the virus will be higher than in almost all other, probably any other, EU country. So it isn't that we've proportionately had more deaths, it's that we're a different kind of society (global hub, urban, densely populated) and therefore more at risk from a virus like this.

Given that there is no imminent cure for this virus and FAR too many global cases for it to be eradicated, we will find that higher incidence before lockdown means lower transmission afterwards. With an R rate of 1.1, only 10% of the population would need antibodies for the virus not to be able to spread easily. Thats what we had according to Vallance before lockdown happened.

In other words, ending lockdown with more cases isn't obviously worse than ending it with fewer, if it reflects a higher incidence in the population. If you have ANY cases there's a possibility of exponential spread starting again.

Herd immunity is much maligned and misunderstood as a strategy. It doesn't mean letting the virus rip through the population. It means some people who can't get or transmit it function as shields, and benefit those who are shielding.

There have been a lot of 'im staying home' posts on Facebook this morning from people who are on full pay working from home or not working because they cant due to childcare but still getting paid. Good for them, but I don't think for everyone that's a viable option, it can't be that hard to empathise that some people need to be getting back to put food on the table.

We'd rather people were dead than poor

To be fair I'd rather be dead than poor.

I grew up in severe poverty and would die rather than inflict that on my children.

It's mostly fear.

But we have to get back to work soon or the economy will be toast. The government can't possibly mandate for every single circumstance so they are trying to treat us like adults who can make sensible decisions about what we as individuals can safely do. They can give us guidelines but it's up to us to identify our risks as best we can and act accordingly. The alternative is that they implement draconian measures like full quarantine and who wants that?

I agree op, some have turned very nasty .
We cannot lockdown for the foreseeable and some don’t seem to understand that .
We all have family members that are classed as vulnerable and the fear is real but what do people really want ?
What if the R rate doesn’t go down for months and months ? How will people feed themselves , keep their homes ?
This lockdown is just not sustainable and the government will not be able to pay people indefinitely to stay at home without dire consequences

Good for them, but I don't think for everyone that's a viable option, it can't be that hard to empathise that some people need to be getting back to put food on the table.”

Good for everyone, surely? The less people circulating, the safer for those who have no option,

I live in a tourist hotspot and after Boris has announced what's essentially a free-for-all when it comes to travelling for "exercise", I know where I am is going to be absolutely flooded with day-trippers

I share this fear, @vanillandhoney. I live in the nearest national park to London. I'm praying for really bad weather for the next bank holiday weekend, so they don't feel tempted to come down here with their hiking boots, mountain bikes and picnic blankets!

There have been a lot of 'im staying home' posts on Facebook this morning from people who are on full pay working from home or not working because they cant due to childcare but still getting paid.

That's good for everyone if you think about it. If everyone who can stay home does stay home, then that makes it less risky for those who can't.

"Iactually worry about the people who seem to want lockdown to go on forever. I mean - what were their lives like before this shitshow?"

Well, yes, you have a point. I for one was pleased to get off the treadmill of life for a break. No more running round here there and everywhere and worrying that I'm not where I should be.

Good for everyone, surely? The less people circulating, the safer for those who have no option,

Yes, for those who can work from home and not worry about finances it does benefit others too. But by some of the comments on their statuses they are calling people saying they have to or want to get back to work as selfish, only thinking of themselves, wanting people to die. Some don't seem to comprehend that not everyone has the luxury of staying at home, and they shouldn't be judged.

Seriously though, how does someone on a minimum wage zero hours contract/bogus self employed contract "act accordingly" if their workplace or journey to work is unsafe for them or members of their household? You know, the millions of people who don't negotiate anything to do with their working terms and conditions, because they can't?

People are bloody hysterical and this virus has demonstrated how woefully incapable a huge proportion of the population are of assessing risk.

There will be millions of people on here who every year take risks like driving a car, going ski-ing & other adventure sports, using a barbecue, using toxic cleaning chemicals, using power tools. Not to mention going about their daily lives risking exposure to flu & other serious viruses.

Many of these same people will be overweight,will smoke, drink heavily, despite these behaviours also carrying huge impacts on their mortality.

We cannot lockdown until a vaccine is produced. The mental and physical health impacts on the low risk young healthy proportion of the population are intolerable and disproportionate to the overall risk.

@Sauron I couldn't agree more. The people that haven't had it that confidently announce 'I'm young, fit and healthy I'm not scared of catching it' worry me.
I'm 35, fit and healthy...I was taken to hospital in an ambulance with low oxygen levels and honestly thought I was going to die. There are no guarantees.

When one of your loved ones dies because of this virus. I'm sure your perception will be very different and NOT just vunerable people die. Healthy people do die too.