Here's an interesting view. Lockdown is actually extremely individualistic and throws the working class under the bus.

[Treesofwood]

twitter.com/Telegraph/status/1309030154837135362?s=09

People all ready to gout how selfish people are for questioning or refusing lockdown, it's all about saving lives, we have to do. It for the good of the vulnerable...

Well here is an opposite view. And I think it is very very true. All the questioning about who is impacted most and why. Those cocooned in their house, incomes protected "its not stuck at home its safe at home" rubbish. Who are lockdowns (local or national) really protecting? Who are actually vulnerable? And vulnerable to covid or destitution?

I do wonder whether the people desperately and very vocally keen to save the maximum lives, at any cost to liberty, freedom, social occasions, enjoyment or basically “living” (why wouldn’t you “just” wear a mask, queue, socially distance, isolate repeatedly, shut schools etc....) and call everyone else selfish for hoarding toilet paper or having eight friends round or not strictly isolating would be so keen to put their money where their mouth is. Because imagine the lives we could save if everyone stopped being selfish and hoarding money and instead gave it all to government or good causes, if we all did the right thing by the NHS and lost weight/stopped smoking, if we all thought of others before selfishly driving a car polluting the air we all breathe, if we all gave up consumer frivolities that cause environmental degradation, sweatshop labour abroad.....

I 100% agree OP. This ‘all in this together’ is bullshit. For a lot of people the implications of lockdown far far far outweigh the risk to covid and labelling them ‘selfish’ after months of huge sacrifice is a farce.

Whether you agree that lockdown is the best/only way to reduce transmission and/or save lives or not, I do think this is a topic that doesn't get enough airtime. Lockdown essentially relies on a number of workforces running around making life at home possible for those who work in professions that allow them to wfh, which is surely weighted towards more highly paid roles. It is all very well sitting at home 'safely' waiting for your waitrose delivery, but what if the waitrose staff did that too??

YANBU. Mumsnet is very middle class skewed, full of people who are able to work from home with no issues, savings to fall back on and the knowledge and facilities to home educate their DC. Anyone who can't "hunker down" for the winter and is worried about schools closing is selfish.

I read a quote on here the other day...

"We are not all in the same boat. We are in the same storm, but we are in different boats".

Appropriate for life in general, but particularly apt for the present.

I think letting the virus run riot is throwing many working class people under the bus, precisely because they can't just hole up at home. Take a look at the States where people on low incomes are forced to go out to work and catch it - then lose their jobs (and health insurance) whilst they are sick.

If you had a choice between your life and finances what would you choose?

@Deliaskis

Whether you agree that lockdown is the best/only way to reduce transmission and/or save lives or not, I do think this is a topic that doesn't get enough airtime. Lockdown essentially relies on a number of workforces running around making life at home possible for those who work in professions that allow them to wfh, which is surely weighted towards more highly paid roles. It is all very well sitting at home 'safely' waiting for your waitrose delivery, but what if the waitrose staff did that too??

Yep, that's a completely reasonable point. There us is the argument that the Waitrose delivery staff are still better off if more people stay at home out of the way, but it's still really telling how many people don't even get to this point in their thinking. Lockdown is a great deal more doable for some people than others.

But surely as many people as possible working from home/remaining at home during lockdown directly benefits those who can't stay at home, because they are coming into contact with fewer people?

I think the delivery people who bring my goods to my door, as I sit comfortably and safely in my home doing my MC wfh, are exposed to a shitload more people in the course of their day than I am. Covid has absolutely revealed the social inequality in the UK and it's a fucking disgrace.

If you work in the public sector or secure professional job your biggest fear is the tiny chance of severe illness. You work from home and it's an annoyance not being able to do some activities/holidays etc

For many in the private sector or self-employed the threat of losing your job and house is far far more worrying than the tiny chance of severe illness.

@Pixxie7

If you had a choice between your life and finances what would you choose?

for many people two are inseparable

But surely as many people as possible working from home/remaining at home during lockdown directly benefits those who can't stay at home, because they are coming into contact with fewer people?

Noooooo, you should show solidarity with the less well off by racing as fast as you can to the bottom! How dare you do your best according to your own individual circumstances?

"We are not all in the same boat. We are in the same storm, but we are in different boats".*

This with bells on. I kept saying this when the schools were closed and people kept saying how all the children were in the same boat.

No, no they're not.

@HMSSophie

I think the delivery people who bring my goods to my door, as I sit comfortably and safely in my home doing my MC wfh, are exposed to a shitload more people in the course of their day than I am. Covid has absolutely revealed the social inequality in the UK and it's a fucking disgrace.

i agree - and i have a reasonably well-paid, pretty secure job that i can do from home

I think that the WFH mantra is being pursued by two main groups- those with young children and those nearer the end of their career than the start of it and are settled in a 'comfortable' place

I'm one of the privileged in that my job is secure and I can wfh. My mum is 70 and is in the highest risk category for several reasons, but thankfully she's not frail. She works part time in a low wage job, lives alone and in a place with the shops won't deliver. She has to be out in it. She caught cv19. Thankfully she sailed through it, but of the two of us it should have been me. This pandemic is not fair.

If you had a choice between your life and finances what would you choose

OP’s point nicely illustrated by this comment.

I think the point is that those who are able to safely be at home because of the labour of others ought to acknowledge what a fortunate position that is. There are far too many posts that eg criticise people for sending symptomatic kids into school or continue working themselves, without any recognition that some workers require school to function as childcare in order to keep working, and in all likelihood some of them are engaged in the labour that enables the people criticising them to stay safely at home.

A lot of the public sector cant work from home and are customer facing but yes there is a certain amount of job security.

I think that those who can work from home, should as it does mean there are less people about on public transport .

@Pixxie7 that is incredibly simplistic. The odds of me dying of Covid as a healthy 30 year old white female are minuscule. It's not "life or finances" for me, it's being asked to potentially lose my job, lose my house, ruin life for my DS, to protect people that I don't know. And I'm not willing to do it much longer.

I’m so I’m on both positions, I am working class with a very very vulnerable child.
We completely get both sides I do not believe in a complete second lock down but I do believe we all have to take some restrictions to protect the vulnerable.

@Waxonwaxoff0 I agree and I think many people have had enough, and we haven't even seen the fallout yet from job losses because it's mostly been cushioned by furlough.

Wait until new year, after businesses have lost out from all the usual Christmas activities.

People were scared first time round, people are now getting more scared of losing their livelihoods than of Covid.

There are so many people, especially on here but also in real life, who are so judgemental. Almost holier than thou in their attitude and assertion that they are the ones acting morally, whilst those agonising over whether to send their child with a cold into school or forfeit dinner for the next week are berated for not protecting "the vulnerable". Which is an emotive term and means what exactly?

WaxonwaxoffO@ at least your honest.

Oh and we would be very happy to shield vulnerable daughter and allow everyone to go on their jolly way if they
Protected our jobs to, made sure we had private places for health care so that when the virus is rife there is covid free hospitals that can treat the shielding group with their usuals health issues.
That we were fully paid wages to cover the losses if everyone else is able to stay in work at all times even symptomatic.