(Covid) To think these recommendations are bonkers?

[NoCharnce]

So the government commission into how to memorialise the Covid pandemic has recommended the government implement “A UK-wide day of reflection should be established and held annually.”

Other recommendations include national memorials (10 sites already identified!), oral histories and museums plus additional funding for local authorities to set up their own memorials.

I can’t be the only one who thinks this is nuts and hope the government ignores the recommendations? I genuinely cannot believe people get paid to produce this crap.

@TrashedSofa

So the lockdown sceptical Unherd is saying every constituency in UK agrees that lockdown was not a mistake? Is that right?

Very true. It's extremely naive to think the way we manage pandemics could somehow not be political. That was true of covid and it will be true with the next one that comes along.

Yep as far as I can see- I'm still not clear on what you're getting at here though, whether you think it's valid or not? I posted what I found about people's views now for information, not to make an argument. It's up to us what we do with that data. I was also hoping people might know of other sources.

The car park queuing

The months of trying to buy plain flour!

People with no babies buying formula for milk just in case!

The kids books in Wales being wrapped up in cling film

Greetings cards and gift wrap deemed to be non essential so I couldn’t send sympathy cards to a family member

Having to order gloves for my job in winter off Amazon as they were barricaded in Tesco!

@TrashedSofa

I’m just surprised! Ok Unherd’s take on the data there is still lockdown = bad. “So why, three years on, do most people not share this conclusion? Partly because most people haven’t seen the evidence. Nor will they. The media and political establishment were so encouraging of lockdowns at the time that their only critique was that they weren’t hard enough. They are hardly going to acknowledge such a grave mistake now. Nor do I expect the inquiry to ask the right questions : obfuscation and distraction will continue and mea culpas will never arrive.”

So pretty much “the general population are sheep and don’t question the narrative unlike me. Me the extra special person who can see through the media. Follow me and come be part of my cult” type line that’s also been the mantra of certain vile comedian in the news.

Frankly I don't want a specific day every year to remind me of how DP got his terminal cancer diagnosis alone, how the only reason I wasn't sitting totally alone at his funeral was because my Dsis was in my "bubble". Nor do I want a specific day every year to remember how I wasn't able to see my Dad as he was dying of cancer.

If the government want to do anything then use the money to put towards the necessary research and preparation for any future pandemic.

This is just typical of this government, to suggest something that they think will make them look as if they care and not actually doing something that will actually be of any practical benefit .

Far right?! Anyone else playing bingo or is it just me!

There was a massive attempt to shame people who questioned, a deliberate effort to make them feel isolated, selfish, thick etc etc etc

As time as has gone in it became clear how many of them there were

You can't shut people down with insults. The UK government's and therefore the media's messaging was absolutely appalling. The "selfish" schtick got tired by summer 2020. And now it seems like there's more of the same - that lofty, sneering tone telling people who, for example, found being holed up in their homes ALONE for weeks difficult and depressing, that they were selfish and didn't care enough. Who cared about them?

Oh ok, now you're trying to equate people who questioned lockdown with Russell Brand?

Jesus Christ 🤦‍♀️

People using vulnerable people as a tool to emotionally blackmail others while not giving a fuck about them the rest of the time.

AND i cant help noticing that the concern about some of us living in smaller places so couldnt self isolate have not yet developed into a campaign about people being allowed to live in bigger homes where they can self isolate more easily. e,g the bedroom tax still stands. Its funny how certain people didnt/dont want to follow up their faux concern with more room for social housing tenants to self isolate. We could start with a new campaign to end bedroom tax for good. I wonder how many of the middle class who loved lockdown but denigrate SH tenants would put their money where their mouths are for this!!!

And I don't doubt that there's another pandemic coming that will be more serious.

Governments, especially the UK one, have ruined any kind of pandemic preparedness by their nonsensical illogical rules during the last one, and their insistence that it was the big one, despite it being clear pretty early in that it was not. They have alienated and made sceptical entire populations. THAT'S the worrying thing

SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO how many of you are willing to be part of a campaign to end the bedroom tax for good to enable more room for isolation next time

Sparkle? You up for it!!!!!!!!!!!!

You heard it here first folks its people on the right who want to end the bedroom tax Apparently!

15 pages in and this didnt even occur to people who claim to care so much.

Hi @WestwardHo1 Hope you are keeping ok

Oh and in future you pay people their whole wage plus a bit extra to self isolate.

Given 9 people out of the 700 who caught died, the death rate was a lot higher than flu.

@TrashedSofa

I completely agree with this. Feel like they need some sort of algorithm to follow according to parameters of potential diseases.

i.e. novel disease has X fatality rate, Y transmissibility and hospital capacity is Z therefore we implement plan 2.3.7.

Once they have the inquiry and a sound cost benefit analysis this sort of thing could be easily done.

So what’s the solution then? An out of control virus, no method of control and hospitals that are collapsing under the strain.

People aren’t supporting lockdown or mask wearing to be lofty or sneery : they are doing it because they want don’t want others to die, get seriously ill and so that hospitals could provide care to their patients.
According to that constituency map, people DON’T think lockdown was a mistake. So I’m not sure who this ‘entire population’ refers to…

@TrashedSofa I am again agreeing!!

One of the biggest frustrations in science is getting anything to go forward into policy, and even when it does it might not remotely resemble the initial output from research.

Very often the science is sound, but to put that into policy would not forward political objectives and so it goes by the wayside. I’m talking everything from conservation policy to disease control. Really frustrating.

By political it’s more that decisions cannot be based on science alone because there are a raft of societal considerations which need to be taken into account for a pandemic

I used it initially in the broadest sense. Eg science feeds in to but isn’t the only factor in decisions.

I felt Whitty and co spoke well on that

@WhalePolo Why exactly are you bringing Russell Brand into this?!

Look I am telling you, as a person who is not a Professor, but is well enough trained. That I looked at the stats in Jan of 2020, practically shat myself and got on the phone to relatives abroad telling them get the fuck home this is nuclear.

If you have studied zoonotic disease and virology in any respect you’d realise a coronavirus’s capacity to evolve quickly, particularly given the size of the host population and transmissibility.

There being a realistic chance of the fatality rate increasing to something akin to SARS or MERS was just plain horrifying.

Catastrophic. Especially considering the complete lack of therapeutics.

Lockdowns prevent not only deaths/disease but also slow evolution of the virus. We were incredibly lucky we had a scaffolding of sorts with which to develop vaccines. And we are incredibly lucky that as yet variants have had a low fatality rate.

I hope that our luck holds out and that we are able to establish a structure whereby we would be set to develop vaccines/therapeutics quickly towards whatever diseases emerge in future.

To have not had lockdowns considering the threat/lack of any real way of fighting it would have been imbecilic and utterly irresponsible, not only for the health and well being of our own people, but for those worldwide.

Obviously the trade offs involved need to be properly analysed and a robust plan developed for the future.

What happened was unprecedented and under the circumstances I don’t see what other way it could have been handled. The fine details changed maybe. But the main headline restrictions, not so much.

To be clear, I was not a sheep, I questioned the narrative, I read 100s of papers during nights when I couldn’t sleep because of the negative impact the restrictions were having on my life. I applied everything I had ever learnt to the situation and I read widely. I came to the conclusion that there was FA else we could be doing than what we were doing.

@JenniferBooth

I think bringing the bedroom tax into this isn’t wholly appropriate..

The point being if you have working class Sally let’s say in a 2 bed terrace home and you do away with the bedroom tax which allows her to have a 3 bed terrace home - that isn’t really going to have a massive input to her ability to isolate properly and protect herself.

1. Sally’s house still has one bathroom and one kitchen. Unless she gets a portable loo, endless food supply, and means of cooking in there it’s going to be hard to isolate without opening the door to others.
2. She still may be living with a large (for the given space) family in confined conditions.
3. Her neighbours are in close proximity to her and everyone is coughing so windows are open - it’s airborne so you have amplified risk from adjoining properties.
4. Adding an additional room 3x3x2.3 room gives you an additional 20.7m3 of potential airspace for the dispersal of covid viral particles which isn’t a wild lot of a difference.
5. Sally likely has much stronger family and community ties and will rely on them more than say an upper class person and breaking these will be more difficult.
6. Sally’s level of education may be low and therefore understanding and following restrictions and the reasoning behind them may be difficult.
7. Sally may have experienced a myriad of negative experiences and this may have led to her being distrusting of the government and therefore less likely to follow guidance for her own protection.

Meanwhile John who lives in a detached property in the country with no close neighbours converted his garage to an annexe a while back so he or his family members can use this or his caravan, or his holiday home to isolate safely….

Do you see? An extra bedroom in a very small council house with the social circumstances surrounding makes sod all difference.

Sally’s level of education may be low and therefore understanding and following restrictions and the reasoning behind them may be difficult

And there it is folks!!!!! Just because someone lives in social housing.

@Sparklecats

I’m not a fan of Unherd/Daily Telegraph - and I’m sorry but the justification given by Unherd to the constituency map results reminded me of the same logic used by the likes of Russell Brand to justify their anti lockdown stance.

Which is political - whether people like it or not, or want to cross off their bingo card - rather than giving an adequate explanation as to why: it’s the likes of reformUK/Trump/Elon Musk/Laurence Fox/Farage/Brand who are vehemently anti-lockdown. Who say they champion free speech until someone says something they don’t like. It stinks of survival of the fittest : that other people are dispensable or should die - so long as I’m not uncomfortable and so long as my well being is protected.
It’s an economic right wing argument whether people like it or not.
I’m very willing to be told I’m wrong. I want to be wrong. But I haven’t heard a decent, balanced, unbiased explanation yet…