How many people actually understand what a lockdown would involve?

[Bearbehind]

I realise there’s outrage about our governments handling of this but, on one hand we appear to have countless people insisting schools must shut now

And on the other hand we have people who-

• think they could still participate in their hobbies
• think a lock down would be over in a fortnight
• think they could go on a cheap holiday while the kids are off

How many people genuinely understand locking down now will be for months and you won’t be classed as ‘exceptional’ or ‘special’ - you’ll be expected to actually stay inside for the duration otherwise it achieves nothing.

Ours will be permitted to remain open but there will be limits on group sizes and groups isolated from each other. I don't think it will be exactly business as usual and there may be some reduction in service in some way. Still waiting to hear the details from our preschool. There is an inset day on Monday when they will get themselves organised.

Compulsory schools (ages 6-16) are the same, not closed but some restrictions in place. High schools (ages 16-20) are closed. They are obviously trying to strike a balance, not sure if it's the right one.

That's for Iceland, 4-week assembly ban starting Monday.

can i please reassure people that police officers love animals and wouldn't let any animal starve etc.

personally if needed i would make the journey to feed someone's animal to prevent suffering, as would all of my colleges.

like wise any elderly person or any person in need.

we would make it work.

Watch 'Our World, Wuhan on Lockdown' on the BBC iplayer for a tiny insight into what lockdown looks like. It's under news and documentaries.

Lockdowns mean you are still allowed out of the house for buying food, medicine and exercise. Individual outdoor activity (walking and jogging) has still been permitted in Italy.

So many people here imagine they can go on lock down and still get deliveries. But what happens if the delivery people fall ill and cannot work? What happens when there’s no police service due to illness and a neighbour wants your specially saved goods? Why are you so special but expect these people to work to protect you

Well that didn’t take long. With the announcement due imminently for partial lockdown ie the over 70s, mn has become pearl clutching central.
There are now several threads claiming that it is just not practical or sensible🙄

Yes, people don’t want to make changes to their lives. Those changes are coming, like it or not.

What you can and can’t do will depend on regulations introduced. Lockdown in Wuhan and Hubei province is very different from ‘lockdown’ in my province of Jiangsu.
I agree with Daisy people do not want to make changes to their lives, but restrictions are coming without a doubt.

So many people here imagine they can go on lock down and still get deliveries. But what happens if the delivery people fall ill and cannot work?

What happens if there are food shortages is that rationing would be implemented.

Was it too early?

Oops wrong thread!

There are now several threads claiming that it is just not practical or sensible

That pretty much sums up the reason I started this thread ie, that people didn’t seem to be considering the practicalities of a lock down whilst insisting we need to ‘lockdown’

There are some utterly bizarre posts on here from people who are insisting it’s me who’s dictating what a lock down does or doesn’t mean and that I’m hoping for something like China 🤔

I think some of you just want to vent their anger and it seems you see me as fair game for that

All the above is pretty indicative of some people’s lack of ability to look at this situation pragmatically

My point all along has simply been that we have to do whatever we are told to do and not make excuses about how special we are so the rules don’t apply

I do also think that people need to think twice about what they do and don’t regarding things like Amazon ordering - just because you ‘can’ do something, it doesn’t make doing it pretty selfish if it’s for unnecessary things

I think you've changed direction a bit OP back to your original assertion which as you know I essentially agreed with. But in the early pages you did literally say you disagreed with people going to the shops for food, or getting food delivered, and the point was that people were explaining that this is actually essential and does happen in lockdown countries. Of course there will be disruption and we may not get exactly what we want but food in general is a basic necessity. These times will be severe but if we prevent people getting food it will cause more problems obviously than the virus.

Equally, the Amazon drivers you mention very likely need their salary and in many cases are probably glad to be delivering. If not, they could choose to give up their jobs and self isolate. I appreciate it's not always that simple and they may be hoping service is suspended and they are still paid regardless but we don't know what financial help will be available yet.

But in the early pages you did literally say you disagreed with people going to the shops for food, or getting food delivered,

If that’s how it was perceived then I apologise

What I was trying to say was that ‘popping’ to the shops wasn’t necessarily going to be allowed and, that if there were to be restrictions on how often you can go to the shops, that couldn’t just be by-passed, as some appear to think would be possible, by just doing your shopping online for home delivery

My friends in northern italy are going to work as normal, shopping as well (even for frivolous items, like paper!)

But there are huge number of variations between NO LOCK DOWN and TOTAL LOCKDOWN. It’s ridiculous to discuss it as if those are your options. Of course not-total lockdown gives more possibility of spreading infection. But closing what we can is totally sensible to resisting spread.

OP - you do seem to have kept arguing that what would be considered by most as perfectly reasonable variations to the rules - going to the supermarket to restock, allowing people to order things on line they need, looking after animals and some exercise away from crowds to avoid the population becoming unwell - that they wouldn't be allowed and the idea that the majority will expect the government rules have to be reasonable if they are to be followed, was wrong.

You might feel that we don't understand that it'll be total lock down. I think from your posts, you are frustrated that you are up against people being prepared to make many restrictions but won't cooperate with unreasonable ones.

We don't have enough police and army staff to enforce a total lockdown - even presuming none of the police or army staff get sick or are needed as back up support to the NHS. The government will rely on people finding the restrictions managable and so chosing to cooperate.

So of course people will be allowed to leave their houses, of course they will be allowed to buy fresh foods, cleaning products, sanpro, medication etc - it just might be we are encouraged to have that delivered rather than phsyically go to supermarkets/chemists to collect.

On line shopping is safer - the staff can take precausions and limited contact with the people they are delivering to (think Amazon parcel left on your doorstep with the bell rung as they walk away).

I think from your posts, you are frustrated that you are up against people being prepared to make many restrictions but won't cooperate with unreasonable ones.

My frustration comes from the fact that people shouldn’t get to decide what is ‘unreasonable’ if you want to act for the greater good of the country

As is already clear from the threads about over 70s self isolating - many deem that to be ‘unreasonable’ already

Well, despite people insisting I was being a drama llama, it seems that ‘lockdowns’ in other countries like Spain and Italy are pretty serious now.

So are people prepared for it, or are they still planning on finding ways to be treated differently?

What response are you looking for?

I think my last sentence summed that up really 5zeds?

May I ask, without seeming rude, why you think you understand it better than most?

It appears OP believes she understands it better than most because she is, in general, better than all other people, and we should all follow her rules and ideas rather than the advice of the government.

I haven’t listed any rules

I’ve said all along that people are just going to have to do as they are told, whatever that might be and that many don’t seem prepared to do that

It’s the majority of posters on here who are the ones who think they know better