Should we submit to the lockdown or fight back?

[pontypridd]

Just this.

I feel scared writing it. I know I'll be flamed.

But how long can people live like this for? I've lost so many family over the years - my mum too when I was young. We all get sick and die.

We can't lock up the whole world because of Covid. Are we just all going to submit? Or do we, should we fight for our freedom?

Do not put pencils up your nose.

The rest is fine

@lazylinguist

What it boils down to is that there seem to be only 3 types of opinion about this situation.

1. People who want more restrictions in order to preserve more lives, and think that those who are anti-restrictions don't give a shit about people dying.
2. People who want fewer restrictions to preserve livelihoods and mental health, and believe that those in favour of restrictions don't give a shit about jobs or mental health.
3. People who understand that actually, pretty much everyone cares about lives, jobs and mental health, that all choices will mean suffering for some, and that we basically have not much choice but to follow the rules anyway, that calling people thick and selfish doesn't help anyone, and that everyone's view is affected by their own circumstances.

It's not rocket science to see which one is the more reasonable opinion.

Exactly. Those fighting the restrictions are fighting the wrong thing imo, at this moment in time this is where we are, the NHS is heading for crisis point and that needs to be the priority right now. Fighting the restrictions will not improve that situation, it will, as far as I can see, make it worse. We also though, shouldn't turn away from why we're in this situation and move forward in the future to remedy that. Fighting the restrictions will not suddenly make the NHS ready to cope, or magically produce more doctors and nurses, but careful thought and analysis as to why and how we got here may prevent it happening again in the future and so many people paying a high price for that. Arguing amongst ourselves and telling others they're granny killers or they don't care about other people's mental health or financial ruin is solving absolutely nothing at all. The people in charge of the country, at any given time, in charge of taxation and distribution of that taxation have done this, not the average person on the street. There are ways we can act to help the situation we find ourselves in, and ways we can act to compound the situation we find ourselves in. This virus uses humans as a vessel to spread, it really is as simple as that, it's it's only agenda. Logic says that if an organisation already under pressure has to deal with that, the best thing to do is limit the spread and the only way to do that is to put distance and barriers between the vessels it uses to spread - us. We already know that those over 65 are at the highest risk, so they are protected the most, followed by those of all ages with conditions that make them vulnerable. From there on it does seem like a bit of a lottery at the moment as to how badly you're affected, whether you have no symptoms at all, right through to death. There's a whole spectrum of how people are affected, it's not one or the other. But we do know that treatment helps, but for it to help, it has to be available in the first place.

@lazylinguist

What it boils down to is that there seem to be only 3 types of opinion about this situation.

1. People who want more restrictions in order to preserve more lives, and think that those who are anti-restrictions don't give a shit about people dying.
2. People who want fewer restrictions to preserve livelihoods and mental health, and believe that those in favour of restrictions don't give a shit about jobs or mental health.
3. People who understand that actually, pretty much everyone cares about lives, jobs and mental health, that all choices will mean suffering for some, and that we basically have not much choice but to follow the rules anyway, that calling people thick and selfish doesn't help anyone, and that everyone's view is affected by their own circumstances.

It's not rocket science to see which one is the more reasonable opinion.

Exactly.

Perhaps those fighting for less restrictions should have focused their energies on “fighting” people who refused to comply with the more lenient guidelines, thus resulting in this lockdown?

How would that look? Break into John Lewis to do our shopping? We're fucked and since the definition of succeeds seems to be no virus, we will be forever.

The hard truth is that those people most affected by lockdown will also be the people most affected by a Covid epidemic. They already are.
It's a Hobson's choice. There is no harmless easy path. You can try to resist lockdown but you can't resist COVID.

People who died in the first wave were working class and BME. Bus drivers, London transport workers, health care assistants.

The people dying in the second wave will be the above plus Northern. Did you see the projection that the North West will run out of hospital beds within a few weeks? Before that happens other NHS services will get cancelled and staff redeployed to Covid. Whatever Boris says it's inevitable. The call has already gone out to staff the Nightingales. That will be by redeployment largely ie by stopping cancer ops etc. Boris might save NHS services in the South but I'd wager it's too late for anyone needing cancer surgery in Manchester unless the South can loan some beds.

So no it is in no way like the miners strike. It is not the elite trying to protect just themselves with lockdown. It will harm them less but they would also be better able to avoid getting it so either way they win. The people hardest hit will suffer either way. Restrictions are killing and harming working class Northern people disproportionately but so will Covid and in my view that will be worse.

If you want to fight back then don't vote for bloody Boris again next time. He's made it very clear who he cares about I'd say and that's London and the South East. The timing says it all. Andy Burnham had the right idea. The North needs lockdown but it needs adequate compensation too. That's the only thing worth fighting here.

And certainly don’t vote for Gavin Williamson

Also

No the virus is not going away
Lockdown doesn't get rid of it but it suppresses it to a low level so that we can get cancer services back and have our freedoms back a bit. Like in the summer when cases were lower. Remember that?

The name of the game was supposed to be
Lockdown to suppress cases
Get decent track and trace
Gradually release restrictions and monitor R
Put them back in if R rises too far

Boris and co failed to get track and trace going so cases started to rise then he failed to put back measures and now here we are.

We could manage this with a fair degree of freedom for most by suppressing back to low levels and being able to track, trace and isolate the few cases we'd then have. Like Aus and NZ and Korea have done.

We need to do this until we get the vaccine. The vaccine is our only way back to real freedom and it's not at all an unrealistic hope. We have a number of great candidates and a supply chain up and ready. Why would vulnerable people not be able to have it? Of course they would.
If you would rather take your chances with the infection than have a perfectly well trialled vaccine then there's more of it for the people with some sense I guess.
If you have to have an immunity certificate for your foreign hols I suspect your resistance will magically evaporate.

Has anyone actually asked the elderly what they wish to do instead of people automatically assuming they all want to be holed away from friends and family with relatives determined to preserve life at " all costs"?

The average age of covid death is above natural life expectancy at 82 years old so the idea that it targets huge numbers of the vulnerable younger people is a myth or the average age of death wouldn't be higher than the lifespan a human can expect to live. Therefore we come to the argument of what is best for an elderly person and whether destroying the lives of millions of people to protect predominantly this age group is sensible.

A human being at 80 has a 5% chance of dying of covid if catching it ( 1 in 20) yet has a 60% chance of dying before their 90th birthday of something else. Is a logical course of action to say to someone in this age group " If you see loved ones, friends , family and retain as normal a life as possible you have a 5% chance of death from catching covid. If you don't you can spend what little time you are likely to have on this earth for many living in social isolation /misery with most hobbies/interests gone and avoid a 5% chance of a covid death.... but you are 60% likely to die before your 90th birthday whatever you do. This doesn't seem a very logical course of action for someone in this age bracket to take. Then you factor in the damage done by missed cancer screenings ,dental abscesses not being treated, loss of houses with jobs being lost and the course of action proposed of lockdowns becomes to look more like insanity with no perspective on the finite lives we all have.

Quality of life is as important as longevity and expecting elderly people in their 80s to be holed away wasting what limited time they have left whilst destroying the lives of the younger generations is insane in my view

Perhaps those fighting for less restrictions should have focused their energies on “fighting” people who refused to comply with the more lenient guidelines, thus resulting in this lockdown?

Yes I agree with that. I'd also like those who 'are perfectly capable of making their own risk assessment' to justify not following the rules assessed the risk of a second lockdown and the financial and mental health implications that will have on a large section of the population?
Or did these risk assessments only include the individual not wanting to follow the rules? Because that's not really how risk assessments work......

If you want to fight back then don't vote for bloody Boris again next time.

This. I'm a Northerner and I could not understand the votes for the Tories. Sure, Labour overlooks the North, but the Tories actively despise the working class (I come from a non-working class Tory background: I've seen these types up close, went to university with them).

The effects of COVID have been amplified in the North and in poor communities & families because of 10 years of Tory austerity.

@trixiebelden77

I’m struggling to believe that the kind of people who can’t bear a mask for a ten minute trip to the shops have the kind of gumption to fight anything at all.

If lockdown’s a serious threat to your wellbeing I fear nationwide organised resistance may not be your thing either.

There's more to lockdown for most than a " 10 minute trip to tescos" I'm afraid

Selfish behaviour has sent us back into lockdown! All those who have made up their own version or feel the rules do not apply to them have caused this

This is such complete bollocks. Trotted out by people who think they've stumbled onto a witty little soundbite.

There's an awful lot of patronising shite on this thread but I think the worst is the people who genuinely believe that it's somehow the fault of "the selfish" that a virus is behaving as a virus behaves. Do you honestly think that if everyone acts in a particular way, one approved by those who like hash tags and typing save lives in caps, that the virus will disappear?

@Dan1980 well said. The elderly people's agency has completed been taken away.

"Here, stare at this wall in a care home for the next several months. Once a month your family members might come to wave at you from the window. We're doing this to save your life, aren't you grateful?"

@MissMarplesGlove

If you want to fight back then don't vote for bloody Boris again next time.

This. I'm a Northerner and I could not understand the votes for the Tories. Sure, Labour overlooks the North, but the Tories actively despise the working class (I come from a non-working class Tory background: I've seen these types up close, went to university with them).

The effects of COVID have been amplified in the North and in poor communities & families because of 10 years of Tory austerity.

I’m not disagreeing with you, but do you really think labour would have done a better job?

That depends on the care home, doesnt it. In a good care home entertainment doesnt just depend on relatives visiting, nice though that is. People have friends and company as well as care.

@RegularHumanBartender

Selfish behaviour has sent us back into lockdown! All those who have made up their own version or feel the rules do not apply to them have caused this

This is such complete bollocks. Trotted out by people who think they've stumbled onto a witty little soundbite.

There's an awful lot of patronising shite on this thread but I think the worst is the people who genuinely believe that it's somehow the fault of "the selfish" that a virus is behaving as a virus behaves. Do you honestly think that if everyone acts in a particular way, one approved by those who like hash tags and typing save lives in caps, that the virus will disappear?

Well, the virus that made its way from Spain wouldn’t have spread in Liverpool (and Bolton) if the infected asymptomatic person quarantined properly would it? And that’s just one example.

@Tootletum

How would that look? Break into John Lewis to do our shopping? We're fucked and since the definition of succeeds seems to be no virus, we will be forever.

Then you really don't get it.

I didn't think anyone actually understood 'succeed' to mean the eradication of the virus. This is NOT about eradication because that is almost impossible. It's about slowing the spread until the health service is past its normal winter pressures. Respiratory illness is common in winter . You can't treat everyone without enough beds and staff. So you need less people to get hospitalised . Therefore you need less people to stop spreading a particularly virulent illness like Covid about and for as many people as possible to get a flu vaccine
'Success' Is about lower numbers. If people stick to the rules the numbers will lower. If schools shut they would lower faster. Not what people want to hear but none the less a fact.

Lockdown will lower the speed of the increase
Closing secondary schools will lower it further
Closing primary schools will slower it even faster.. but that may have the effect of taking frontline workers from the workforce. So is on balance more detrimental. So it's a balance.
It needs to be seen if this initial lockdown works sufficiently to keep hospitals functioning for ALL patients that need urgent care. If it doesn't there will be no choice but to close them.

If we all take this lockdown seriously and go nowhere and meet no one we don't have to - then there is a chance they can stay open. Ignore the rules and we are buggered until late February.

@HogwartsAtChristmas

I love how scientists have been warning us for years that a pandemic is overdue, one hits and impacts many countries in the same way (e.g. lockdowns), there's a genuine threat to the NHS which, again we've known about for years as it struggles even normally, but when the government finally implements measures to prevent the spread, that were advised weeks ago by people who actually know what they are talking about, it's actually all about taking away our human rights and civil liberties. Of course it is. That makes so much sense. Of course it's absolutely nothing to do with a novel, highly contagious virus that is sweeping the globe. It's nothing to do with the lack of resources the NHS has. It's all about making sure YOU stay at home, not spending money and isolating yourselves because that benefits.....who, exactly? And if the government is so desperate to take away our liberties, why did they ease restrictions before in the first lockdown? Why not just make measures tougher and tougher? Why encourage everyone back to some sort of normality? And then why delay when they were advised to implement a lockdown in October?

I know these conspiracy theorists love to assume a smug, superior air and act as if they "know" things us "sheeple" can't see, but honestly, by perpetuating this nonsense all you're doing is publicly showcasing your own lack of understanding and intelligence. None of it stands up to reason. It's a shit time. No one wants a lockdown. There will be repercussions no matter what approach we take. Fact is, the idea of our hospitals being overwhelmed is seriously concerning. Then people will be dying not just from covid but from illnesses and injuries they'd survive with medical care that they won't be able to access. That could be anyone, not "just" people with covid. I would rather not see my parents for a month than risk members of my family dying needlessly. That is more important to me than being allowed to go to the pub or a party.

Don't be a dick. Stay at home.

You say " implemented lockdown measures by people who know what they are talking about". Are these the same people that said earlier this year masks were useless and of no benefit to containing the virus all disagreeing with each other on herd immunity and relying on a flawed death projection model in march from professor pantsdown who is now sacked.

if the experts know what they are doing why do all 4 nations have such different policies and nations such as Sweden who have followed their " experts " with no lockdown thriving in comparison.

This year the number of flu deaths have come down by amazing coincidence that the number of covid 19 deaths have risen and we are expected to believe all the covid deaths are actually covid and not flu.. I think not which is why the " experts " continually revise their death figures with the latest reducing the number of " covid deaths " in the uk by 5000 in one day

* Regularhumanbartender*

*There's an awful lot of patronising shite on this thread but I think the worst is the people who genuinely believe that it's somehow the fault of "the selfish" that a virus is behaving as a virus behaves. Do you honestly think that if everyone acts in a particular way, one approved by those who like hash tags and typing save lives in caps, that the virus will disappear?
*
Do you honestly not understand how a virus spread by droplets works ? I can only assume not if you can write the above . This virus spreads by droplets passed from human contact.

So to answer your question. Yes of course, if people had stuck to the rules , maintained social distances, regularly washed their hands, kept socialising to an absolute minimum and didn't ignore the facts because 'their situation was different' then of course we wouldn't be where we are now.
A virus needs humans in order to spread, it doesn't just go down to the train station by itself and book a ticket to Liverpool..

It isn't just one month. Gove has already said so......

Dan1980 far too sensible . Sadly there are two camps who will never agree.

1. I understand the facts and don't want a lockdown either but will be complying in order to make this as effective as possible.

1. I don't care about the facts because lockdown will make my life harder and I don't intend on complying - I will use every conspiracy theory I can find to justify this. I also don't understand that my decision to do so - will just make this go on longer.

Glad to see we’ve moved from a Wuhan Flu to Spanish Strain

Well, maybe the hundreds of people who attended a rave in Bristol last night were doing it to "fight back". They treated the police like their enemy, and some were injured. I'm sure that's all fine with other like minded rebels, who are treating the lockdown as an unnecessary attack on their personal freedoms.

OP, the title of this thread is quite goady and was bound to result in a bun fight. I understand why people are fed up with the whole situation, but the way the infection numbers are rising I don't think there is any other choice but to lockdown, partly because a sizeable minority of people are just ignoring all the guidelines and refuse to let a pandemic cramp their partying lifestyle.

@Toptotoeunicolour

The virus is what you have to fight, not the government. The government are only making rules because a smallish proportion of people are too stupid to understand how they should fight the virus. Because those people need rules to tell them how to behave, we all have them.

That's one way of looking at it. Another way of looking at it is there are a smallish proportion of people too stupid to incorporate the large numbers of deaths arising from economic fallouts, inability to get a face to face appointments with a GP, loss of job/house, wrecking the education future opportunities of young people for a virus that has a 5% chance of killing a person in their 80s ( maybe much lower if the vast number of asymptomatic people are taken into account) and not putting some perspective on it.

Around 170,000 deaths of cancer occur each year in the Uk of cancer alone- how many screenings for cancer are now being missed due to covid terror and GPs not offering face to face appointments? The argument of hospitals not coping due to covid if no lockdown occurs is countered by the lack of people now accessing their first point of healthcare

www.standard.co.uk/news/health/cancer-checks-three-million-miss-out-coronavirus-a4568771.html

I do have sympathy that if I were in my 80s I might choose to die over more years in a care home

BUT

The poor bloody NHS can't get it right can we.

If we are going to let over 80s die then they'll have to have DNAR orders and die in the care homes to avoid hospital beds being overwhelmed and other services therefore cancelled and people dting of cancer and MIs instead. If they are going to die in hospital it won't help capacity issues.

But only last week the Times had a much lauded article about the alleged NHS conspiracy to not treat old people and kill them all off and deny them oxygen. There was general outrage at people over 80 being denied ICU beds. Mumsnet consensus was they should all at least get oxygen and steroids in hospital. Outrageous awful GPS forcing people into DNAR. Quite quite disgusting and barbaric.

So whaddaya want people???

• DNAR the over 80s. Blanket no admission policy. They die in the care homes and we will be able to treat more in their 70s and with other stuff? Send Dr Shipman round with his morphine syringe.

Are people genuinely OK with that level of carnage.? Do you want to volunteer to work in care homes where half the residents are dying all at once for minimum wage and a chance to jump the queue in Tesco?

• or

lockdown to avoid more infections and deaths in all age ranges. Everyone gets the chance of hospital treatment for Covid and perhaps we have a chance of keeping enough staff and beds to treat other stuff too.

• do nothing. 2/52 to a no beds scenario in Manchester. Cancer services halted again just as they were getting back up and running. It really won't just be old people dying.

The NHS last had a year as bad as this for excess mortality 10yrs ago and winter has not even got started.

Even if we don't mind old people dying it does not solve the capacity issue unless we ensure they all conveniently die away from a hospital. Maybe in Nightingales but where will the staff come from for that?

We can go with the Armageddon let it rip strategy if you like but you had all best let us poor beleaguered NHS staff know who you are OK to have die. In case we get it wrong. Like we apparently did last time.