Has their been a change of opinion about lockdown?

[Maryann1975]

So three weeks ago, all I heard about was why weren’t the government locking everything down quickly enough. There was such outrage about it at the time, how bad it was that the government hadn’t shut schools quickly enough, that people were still mixing and big events were still going ahead.

We are now at The start of week three of the ‘lockdown’ (which wasn’t really a full lockdown, But I’m not really sure what to call the period we are in) and people are desperately wondering when everywhere will reopen and seem to be desperate for the schools to reopen.

I’m wondering if the reality of ‘lockdown’ doesn’t fit with what everyone thought it would be (it’s quite hard dealing with dc every day with no break and no where to take them especially if you are having to work through out from home with the dc arguing around your feet). It’s really boring staying at home all the time, missing holidays, missing family, missing friends and gatherings, social interactions, No eating out, cinema, theatre, coffees etc.

Maybe there are two groups of posters and three weeks ago I mainly caught the pro lockdown group Posting and now I am just seeing the pro economy/lift the lockdown posts. I don’t know? I have also just had a group call with friends and it seemed to be that some thought we should be lifting lockdown pretty soon.

It just seems so contradictory from three weeks ago when people were clamouring for the government to take action.

This is a good overview of the response to Spanish Flu. It wasn't a decision to protect the economy, more a lack of medical staff, medical knowledge, public health authorities, lower literacy, higher poverty (overcrowding), poor employment rights (no section 44 stating you can refuse to work if unsafe).

www.historyextra.com/period/first-world-war/spanish-flu-britain-how-many-died-quarantine-corona-virus-deaths-pandemic/

I wish someone would explain what happened in 1918; did folk shrug after the carnage of WWI?

How can you even compare 1918 with now?

We are talking about an era where there was no healthcare for the poor. The simple true was if you didn't work you didn't eat. Death in childhood was normal. Death in childhood was normal. Death in industrial accidents was normal. Premature death was normal. Death from things like TB, measles and a general lack of sanitation were normal. Penicillin was still ten years away from being invented.

The difference between 1919 and 2020 is scientific advances in healthcare and healthcare in this country being regarded as sacred and something that should be available to all. We have the ability to make decisions that prevent deaths in a way we didn't in 1919.

I find the idea of comparing attitudes and expectations 100 years apart gobsmacking. Do you really think we should revert to the situation and the limitations of society a century ago?

The first wave of Spanish flu was covered up in the push for victory

The main difference of course is who it killed - young adults.

@BreathlessCommotion thanks for the link - that article is really interesting.

As with many historical events (I'm an historian, although not my period) there is rarely one reason. There are a number of factors and causes. And hindsight is a wonderful thing. It's very easy to look back and analyse a whole event of period of time with the benefit of full hindsight. Much harder, or impossible to do when in the middle of it.

RTB is a perfect example of how divisive this experience has been online, and maybe in real world.

Whatever you say...

... I've been pointing out government fuck ups for a very long time and how they are into eugenics and a very hard right agenda.

Inflation is the least painful way out of this. I hope that’s the route they choose tbh

Not hyperinflation though, which is what printing money causes.

I think that people feel that if only we lockdown for longer and harder the virus will go away and they’ll be safe?

Not safe, but safer definitely.
At the moment, the people dying are ones who caught it before the lockdown.
Once the current people who have it get better (or sometimes sadly die), if they no longer have it and everyone else managed to isolate well for several weeks, then the numbers remaining who have it will be v small, so as long as there are quarantine periods for people travelling, and there’s much more testing, it’ll be under control/not infecting anyone else until there’s a cure/vaccine.

That really doesn’t sound an unreasonable goal. It won’t be easy for a lot of people, but if the lockdown can stay for enough time for anyone who has it within any household to have stayed in and not let it jump to anyone else beyond the household, then the virus will die off and infect fewer people => fewer deaths.

@duffeldaisy but how will that work? As soon as one person who has it interacts with the world, off we go again? It will still be here.

but if the lockdown can stay for enough time for anyone who has it within any household to have stayed in and not let it jump to anyone else beyond the household, then the virus will die off and infect fewer people

Except there is always going to have to be a number of people going about their daily business, not just NHS staff but those keeping water/gas/electricity services going, people providing food to households, people having to go for non COVID related health appointments, emergency gas men/electricians/plumbers, careers...

I don't agree with lockdown long term no
I think the impact on children's lives is not a price worth paying.
Short term yes. But we will need an exit strategy.