Eat Out To Spread The Virus About

[verdantverdure]

AIBU to think that it was basic common sense to know in advance that Rishi Sunak's Eat Out To Help Out short term boost for the economy would begin the covid second wave and kill tens of thousands of people in the U.K.?

YABU Who knew that packing out restaurants during an airborne pandemic would lead to infections and deaths?

YANBU Eat Out To Help Out was obviously going to cost British lives.

I loved it. I have some lovely memories from that part of the ordeal.

I find the involvement of Simon Case in all this pretty extraordinary. It comes as no surprise that Hancock and Sunak were being irresponsible arses, but the Cabinet Secretary is, as I understand it, meant to be reasonably neutral and the voice of reason. For him to be colluding in continuing a policy that was spreading disease and in covering that fact up is really reprehensible.

I was I little uncomfortable about it. I was shielding and at the same time my tax contributions was subsiding half price meals for those that could go out.

I thought this would be one of those resurgent threads, can't believe a new thread! Far too much want to live in the doom and gloom days!

That’s sort of how the tax system works.

It’s to do with the current news and hancocks what’s app.

It didn't feel safe to me so I didn't do it but it doesn't follow that it shouldn't have been available. You cannot forcibly lock an entire population down for more than a short period and by summer 2020 hospitals were no longer overwhelmed. As a pp said it was a balancing act with decisions made at a time when a huge amount was still not know about the virus, its transmission and who would be worst affected.

It wasn’t compulsory eat out, if people were clinically vulnerable and high risk they could decide not to go, it was just a way to try and help struggling businesses

The NHS was completely overwhelmed by the amount of sick patients. If there hadn't been a lock down, more would have died through lack of resources

We loved it, used it loads and I know several independents who swear the scheme kept them in business. The thing is, you can spend an eternity hiding under the duvet from the bogeyman but when you emerge, he'll still be there. Sometimes it's best just to pull back the covers and crack on.

I remember going out just before Christmas 2021 and finding pub-goers playing sardines as though Covid had never been a thing. In retrospect, I suspect that many had been mixing heavily for six months and had learned that whether they caught Covid or not, the jabs minimised symptoms.
The plans to lockdown the country were made hastily and reflected the groupthink of senior politicians and civil servants who think that international travel most weeks is the norm. In future, any lockdown should be defined against the context for reopening society - I know people who are still terrified of venturing outside their front doors.

This.

The argument is over whether the state subsidy over EOTHO was justified, not whether people should've been able to be going out to eat and mixing in summer 2020. Even assuming that lockdown and the restrictions based approach was the best way, and an assumption is all that could possibly be at this point, cases were low then, plus we knew full well there was going to have to be a second wave and that it was liable to be more deadly.

If it hadn't been, the death toll would have been much higher, and hospitals would have been swamped. I really don't understand the anti-lockdown argument.

@NotTerfNorCis the anti lock down argument centres on restricting those vulnerable to the virus to an extreme level I.e. house arrest for the entire household. You have strict criteria of who you treat and who you send home to die (this is taught at even an undergraduate level).

You then it run through the healthy population, it what we basically did but used a vaccine instead of extreme shielding. I'm firmly in the antilock down for the healthy camp, we locked up our vulnerable (they only mixed with each other after two weeks of total shielding) none of them caught it. Yes it discriminatory but could have saved trillions of pounds and our kids mental health.

God, Matt Hancock’s typing though 😱

£840 million subsiding dining out yet arguing the toss with nurses, ambulance crew, fire service and junior doctors over pay rises. Rishi’s priorities are a little different to mine.
I eventually caught it a couple of months ago and was extremely unwell even after having extra vaccines and antivirals.

Incorrect. It was inhuman and unnecessary to lock up the entire population and it has caused much more damage and subsequent death because of it.

It arguably saved many establishments and jobs.

The NHS is used to being overwhelmed every winter.

In the long term I do not think the effects of lockdown were worth it. There was literally no benefit to an all person lockdown

YANBU!

We called it A Dishi On Rishi and took full advantage and had a lovely time, so each to their own 🤣

Unfortunately though the clinically extremely vulnerable don't all.live alone they have families ,who might work in shops ,be police officers ,Drs, Nurses e etc,etc,,children who attend school ,if the virus had been allowed to.rip.and just the clinically vulnerable had lockdown all.their family members would have had to lockdown too , if the rest of society had just been allowed to.get in with things ,imagine the sickness rate in schools ,hospitals , emergency services etc,because just because for some.people ,symptoms were mild ,it wssent, just a case of very mild symptoms and ,people needing hospital admission ,lot ,s of people felt very unwell they just didn't need to.go.into.hospitsl.,for many it was still.a nasty virus ,and if there had been no.measures in place many more people would have been to.un well to work but not bad enough ti.need hospital admission ,I think things would have gone on a lot longer .

Four problems spring to mind with the 'lockdown only for the vulnerable' argument.

1. It's hard to define who was vulnerable. By these criteria most middle-aged people would have been forced out and about and would have caught Covid, of whom some would have died, more would have been seriously ill, and a significant number would have developed long Covid, meaning that years afterwards their lives would still be affected.

2. A much greater number of people would have caught Covid, and would then, unintentionally, have ended up spreading it to the vulnerable who were trying to shield. Either directly - to a grandparent for example - or indirectly - such as to a relative who worked in a care home.

3. Many who would be classified as vulnerable would have ignored it and gone out anyway, exposing themselves and other vulnerable family members to the virus. A lot more would have indulged themselves with small risks - like seeing their grand kids - and got infected.

4. The rise in Covid cases would have swamped hospitals, which would have resulted in other conditions not being treated. I know that happened to an extent anyway, but it would have been much worse.

Most of the world went into lockdown for good reason.

Most of the world went into lockdown for good reason.

@NotTerfNorCis No, most of the world went into lockdown because they fucking panicked and didn’t know what else to do. They didn’t actually think it through.

I can guarantee that a lot of thinking and discussion went on. Look at how much Britain hesitated (and the higher death rates it caused in 2020). This wasn't panic so much as following pre-defined processes and scientific advice.