What is reasonable for the government to impose on people in the fight against coronavirus.

[Treesofwood]

Most people seem to agree it is reasonable to

1. Prevent people from seeing people they love.
2. Prevent people from going to school.
3. Prevent people from going to the theatre.
4. Force people to wear cloth over most of their face even if they don't want to in public.
5. Stop people from hugging.
6. Stop people from working.
7. Stop children from playing with their friends in the park.
8. Force people who are well into self isolation for two weeks.
9. Ban people from having sex with people they don't live with.

10. Stop (just) adult children from going back to their family home from university.

I would have never believed someone who told me a year ago that these laws/"guidance" would be in place.

There are some things that it is not seen as reasonable for the government to do, despite the fact it would save lives.

But I would argue that most of the things above would have been laughed off as ridiculous in 2019. After all we don't live in a police state.

Where will it end? How much further down the line will we go. How many more things will we lose? Bodily autonomy? It will definitely head that way if some MPs have their way.

@larrygrylls

Getoff,

People will not accept that in times of national emergency, we need to lose some of our freedoms. I don't see why they don't get it. It has happened before and it will happen again.

It is only if the emergency passes and our freedoms are not quickly returned that I will worry.

These days people would be upset that they could not turn on their houselights during a bombing raid. I would love to see a parody of MN, had it existed in WW2.....

You state we have a national emergency like it is a fact.

We may have had a national emergency, but it is not a fact that we have one now. And therefore the justification for all these limits to our liberty are questionable too.

@GetOffYourHighHorse tested positive does not mean affected.

It's a virus, it's gonna spread, that's what they do, no matter what nonsensical rules you implement (don't tell that to the govt tho), the ones who are affected are the ones who catch it AND die from it.

I hope your level of hysteria lowers when those 50 year old survive just fine, like many other 50 year olds already did.

I'm with you, OP. It's depressing.

Of course, it is. But it's better than thousands and thousands more people dying or becoming sick long term. And it won't be forever.

Larrygrylls Do you really believe that everyone bought into the Blackout/airraid shelters/evacuation without question? People are still people.

'We may have had a national emergency, but it is not a fact that we have one now. And therefore the justification for all these limits to our liberty are questionable too.'

It is being kept under control by these 'limits to your liberty'.

Limits to your liberty . Well, it isn't funny at all really. It's pathetic.

@GetOffYourHighHorse

'These days people would be upset that they could not turn on their houselights during a bombing raid. I would love to see a parody of MN, had it existed in WW2.....'

I know! It's just disappointing to read all the handwringing, self centred twaddle and constant referrals to civil liberties. Look how numbers are steadying slightly but oh no fuck that I can't go to a nightclub or have 10 people round for a dinner party. It's not fair waaaah.

'I am correcting your fear mongering "over 40 year olds will die from this virus" bs'

Oh I think if you ever read a paper or watch the news you'll find it is older people disproportionately affected. Guess what, there's a couple of 50yr olds in our nearest ICU with it! HTH.

Do you not see a government legislating who you can see, where you can go and what you have to wear as infringing on civil liberties.

I would recommend a book called Ordinary Men, by Christopher Browning for a stark reminder as to how ordinary people can get caught up in the drip drip drip erosion of civil liberties

Another quote worth bearing in mind is

"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty or safety"

Benjamin Franklin

Quite frankly I don't think you have any understanding of the importance of civil liberties and the potential power of governments with that comment.

@GetOffYourHighHorse

'We may have had a national emergency, but it is not a fact that we have one now. And therefore the justification for all these limits to our liberty are questionable too.'

It is being kept under control by these 'limits to your liberty'.

Limits to your liberty . Well, it isn't funny at all really. It's pathetic.

You really are incredibly naive

You think civil liberties are some sort of flippant thing that just exist

I would suggest doing a bit of research and history lessons before you so easily give them up

'hope your level of hysteria lowers when those 50 year old survive just fine, like many other 50 year olds already did.'

Oh no you misunderstand. I'm quite calm. See I can cope with these very moderate restrictions because I'm not a snowflake and can see the point of them.

'would suggest doing a bit of research and history lessons before you so easily give them up'

Having to leave the pub by 10 and not mix households to reduce the sperad is not living in a dictatorship. Perhaps you need to to 'do a bit of research'.

@GetOffYourHighHorse

'would suggest doing a bit of research and history lessons before you so easily give them up'

Having to leave the pub by 10 and not mix households to reduce the sperad is not living in a dictatorship. Perhaps you need to to 'do a bit of research'.

Again, your naivety shines through

What would you describe laws that are passed with no scrutiny in parliament? A democracy?

GetOffYourHighHorse - moderate restrictions? Tell that to cancer patients who can't get the treatment they need.

And actually you sound like a proper snowflake. If people like you want to hide behind the sofa then do so by all means. Let the rest of us crack on or there will be be no economy or NHS to help anyone.

I can cope with the current restrictions. I will not support the closing of schools and businesses again. People deserve to be allowed to earn a living and have their children educated alongside their peers.

The other day I suggested that the government could fine people for not losing weight as it has been proven that this would save lives. Covid deaths and indirect deaths avoided. Multiple lives saved. If you follow what's happened so far I don't think it's actually a million miles from where we are.
All this we are doing this because we are "saving lives" stuff is crap. Like that God awful video.

We could save hundreds of thousands of lives with all the money stashed offshore, in this country and abroad. We could save lives by banning non essential travel, (thus avoiding RTAs) cigarettes, alcohol and by forcing or coercing people to lose weight but we don't.
I think banning well people from leaving the house, seeing their family in their own house and children playing with friends in the park is questionable when compared to the actual risk. Forcing people not to work, and therefore not be able to pay the mortgage is a BIG Deal. We could have minimised our flu deaths every year by similar actions as now. But haven't. Why not?

Waxon Businesses are closed. Many many of them
Theatre companies, nightclubs, restaurants in lock down areas like Bolton.

www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.politico.com/amp/news/magazine/2020/03/17/spanish-flu-lessons-coronavirus-133888

This is a good read.

@Treesofwood yes, that's a good point. I'm not in a lockdown area so things are relatively normal where I am. It is unfair.

@larrygrylls

www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.politico.com/amp/news/magazine/2020/03/17/spanish-flu-lessons-coronavirus-133888

This is a good read.

God help the snowflakes if we ever get a virus that is actually as deadly as Spanish Flu

Japan, possibly the most successful democracy in dealing with Cv, has done so with the consent of the its people, few laws and regulations.

Even Sweden, which is looking like it may have after all, done the right thing, limited cohesion.

Unless people believe in what they are doing trust the Govt, laws alone won't help us contain CV.

No country in the west has the means to enforce the rules.

coercion

What would you describe laws that are passed with no scrutiny in parliament? A democracy?

This is the part that I find frightening, the fact the government can push through laws without them going before parliament.

It’s important to remember the WHY about these restrictions. It’s not just for the sake of it. I agree that this year has been awful, don’t think that just because people support the restrictions that they find it easy to live like this.

What is your plausible alternative op?

@TheSeedsOfADream

Only on MN could being asked to wear a mask to protect the vulnerable in your society be compared to the Holocaust. But the Godwin prize was snapped up pretty quickly there. Arguably we could say the mask refusers' and Covid denier's attitude is more akin to what the Nazis proposed though. Get rid of the elderly and clinically vulnerable so we can get on with our lives.

Exactly @TheSeedsOfADream

Hamster,

I did not know that we excluded the older section of the population when calculating the IFR. That is a new definition! Most virologists believe the IFR of Covid to be similar or higher to Spanish flu.

Thecat,

Japan and Sweden can do it with few laws as they have a communitarian population.

This, at least in part, means doing all the things many hate here like gossiping about and shaming the ‘badly behaved’ (ie non compliant).

Personally I prefer short term laws which are enforced.