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.

This reminds me if the super soaker thread

So basically you want people to blindly follow the powers that be.

Erm......that’d be a big fat “no”.

It is NOT EVEN POSSIBLE to be sick from coronavirus.

Well, problem solved then! Silly us.

We have partial lock down here and it means no schools, universities or childcare facilities. No sporting events, no afterschool activities for kids.
A lot of people now working from home . All indoor play facilities and playgrounds closed .
Kids not allowed to meet their friends .
As of today no pubs and a lot of restaurants are closing as of tomorrow.

If it steps up, it will mean, only essential services like grocery stores, chemists and frontline/ emergency services. One person allowed out of a house at time , unless going to work.
All ports closed off .
Army patrolling the streets .
It's scary and very un nerving for people. I think its inevitable that we will have complete lock down by the end of this week and I do think its necessary, but it's going to be so difficult and isolating for people .

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

No, you haven't said that all along, at all, as anyone who reads your posts will see. You have variously, and quite rudely:

• Told someone who asked about essential trips for supplies and medical care that they couldn't just pop to the supermarket and doctors when they felt like it, wildly and purposefully misinterpreting them to do so
• Told people incorrectly that being able to access food, medical and veterinary functions isn't how things work in countries with lockdown
• Repeatedly berated a poster for ordering paper from Amazon, despite that being within the rules of the lockdown in their country - calling them lazy and selfish (and, by implication, a fuckwit)
• Said that you simply want people to follow the rules and not make excuses why those rules don't apply to them, despite berating people for actually following the rules
• Said that you are frustrated by people deciding what is unreasonable - despite repeatedly doing exactly that yourself

And, despite saying that you haven't listed any rules, you've made it very clear that you don't consider it essential for someone to order paper on Amazon (despite the authorities not restricting Amazon deliveries to essential items), that an Amazon driver delivering paper to bored kids isn’t on your list of what’s ‘needed’, that you don't consider walking dogs and getting exercise to be essential (so people shouldn't do it, even if they aren't prohibited).

All of the above suggests that you simply don't like people doing things you don't approve of, despite them being within the rules.

So which is it?

Do you want people to follow the rules? Or do you want people to go over and above the rules - in which case, who sets these new arbitrary 'super rules' (it isn't you)?

Because this is the bit you've been really, really unclear about, despite being very rude to people about it.

When so many people disagree with you, maybe you should stop and think about what you're actually writing, rather than trying to dismiss it as them using you as a misplaced way to vent their anger.

I actually think you owe at least two posters on this thread (@mouldyoldonkey and @Pluckedpencil) very big apologies - and not of the mealy-mouthed "if that's how it was perceived..." variety.

Getting food, medical and veterinary attention, and other essential functions will of course continue.

Someone I know has just had their beloved dog's urgent surgery for cancer postponed as the clinic is shutting its doors.

Getting food, medical and veterinary attention, and other essential functions will of course continue.

This from my local hospital:
“X responds to increasing numbers of coronavirus cases. All elective inpatient activity will stop until further notice.

In response to the increasing numbers of people being tested and treated for coronavirus, we are taking steps to redirect our resources at X.

Therefore, with the exception of surgery for cancer and other life-threatening conditions, we have stopped all elective inpatient activity until further notice at X Hospital and Y Hospital. Day cases will continue but will be reviewed on a daily basis. Outpatient appointments will be conducted by virtual clinics or telephone consultations as long as it is clinically safe to do so.”

Sounds like you live in South East London too daisy!

I think, OP, you should read back your comments, particularly those targetted at the MNer in Italy who was trying to explain to you how you had mistook what living with 'lockdown' means.

I get the impression you have been panicking, have got an idea in your head that 'lockdown' needs to be avoided as it will be hell, and that other people aren't getting why you are so stressed.

Lots of people are getting stressed about how scary this could get. It is unlikely the UK government will go for very draconian lockdown plans, simply because the British have a habit of ignoring what they see as silly rules. If they push us too far, then everyone will ignore all the rules, and we will be in a much worse situation.

In the U.S.
In my area, we have a curfew from 8 p.m. to 5:00 a.m.
Schools are closed.
Libraries, public services, etc. are closed down.
One town is in total self-quarantine.
Many many people are working from home.
I am one of those in self-quarantine (just returned from Italy, plus immunocompromised).
Getting bored!!

BUT, I think this will save lives. And the idea that people get 'herd immunity' from being around a massively dangerous virus is crap. People get 'herd immunity' when a large number are VACCINATED against a virus

My son lives in a locked down city. Yes you can take the dog out, you must wear a scarf over your face or a mask, you can go to the supermarket/pharmacy/vet.
Bars, cafes and pubs are closed but some are offering deliveries.
There are police on the streets checking up on what people are doing and why they are out. (EU City)

What ItsGoingTibiaK said

We don't need a total lockdown. If you look at the simulations that create these graphs, it still permits the unrestricted members of the population to infect the restricted ones. The third graphs shows 75% of people following the restrictions. The fourths shows 87.5%. A full shutdown is neither desirable, nor necessary.

Those who stay inside are helping those who have to work by ensuring that the hospitals are not overrun and making sure that those who are exposed receive the kind of care that minimises the death rate.

This is not about everyone being treated identically. That is a ridiculous thing to aim for if it results in societal breakdown and worse outcomes for every member in a population.

www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2020/world/corona-simulator/

This reminds me if the super soaker thread

It does a bit 😀