Genuine question for anti-lockdowners

[LucyLocketsPocket]

What do you think the government's motive for lockdown is?

To protect the NHS or something else?

Fear.

To appear to be doing something to all the whinge bags who have demanded a second lockdown since the last one ended.

Panic - they've neglected the NHS through underfunding for so many years. Pre pandemic, the NHS couldn't cope with the number of people in this country.

I'm not particularly an anti-lockdowner, this polarisation isn't helpful, but I do think it is a very blunt instrument.

Panic that a chronically underfunded NHS that struggles most winters will be exposed and cause a backlash.

Populism.

To look like they're doing something.

It's not for prosperity or wellbeing across the population!

Pretty much what has already been said.

I think they are panicking very badly that if they mess this up and the NHS completely implodes, the Tories won't be voted back in for a generation. It has been run down to nothing over the years and people weren't aware how bad an issue it was, even though doctors and nurses have spent years sounding the alarm.

They think a majority want it and want to be seen to be doing the right thing

They genuinely think it's needed - I am 'anti-lockdown' (there are lots of different views among people holding that position though, I certainly think the virus is real and serious) and I can't honestly say if I was in power I wouldn't be pushing this too. It's much much easier to be sitting at home with a strong opinion about something when your actions won't then be linked to more deaths. I don't like the Tories but I don't envy them having to decide what to do.

Thanks for the responses.

For those who've said it's because our health service has been underfunded, do you think this is also the reason for the lockdowns in France and Germany?

Peer pressure-- other European countries doing it.

Doubling down on previous decisions to not look weak.

Don't want every covid death blamed on them.

One track scientists dripping poison in their ears.

And in Hancock's case, authoritarianism.

I don't think Boris particularly wants to do it for ideology reasons but he's being pressured by the scientists, lockdownistas Labour and hawks in his party like Gove.

Arse-covering.

I think they are frightened of the political consequences of being blamed for people dying. They're between a rock and a hard place there, because lockdown measures also kill but they're hedging their bets that public condemnation would be harsher on COVID deaths than other, more indirect deaths (and they are probably right about that, for now at least). The first wave of measures were introduced in a bit of a panic and it is hard for anyone, especially politicians, to admit to making a mistake.

I'm not 'anti-lockdown' as in opposed to all restrictions, but personally I feel things have gone too far and much more of what has should be voluntary public health advice rather than severe mandatory restrictions. I would also like to see more weight being given to the known harms of restrictions and a little less to the theoretical harms of not introducing restrictions.

I'm worried that the response is locked into a vicious cycle where if the infection rate goes down, it's because restrictions were necessary and are working, but if the infection rate goes up, it's because people aren't following the rules properly / we need harsher restrictions / things would have been even worse without the restrictions. I'm not sure that the efficacy of restrictions can be objectively considered in this kind of 'heads I win, tails you lose' mindset.

I'm also worried about how we get to a point where some people dying from COVID-19 is considered acceptable (from a national policy point of view - of course it is always sad when someone dies but everyone does die) and whether politicians will ever be able to say that without being crucified. The vaccine is dangled in front of us like a carrot, but if we get a vaccine but it doesn't prevent all COVID-19 deaths (which obviously it won't), will that be used to further extend the national state of emergency? I can't see any long-term plan or clear exit criteria.

@IHTC

To appear to be doing something to all the whinge bags who have demanded a second lockdown since the last one ended.

Panic - they've neglected the NHS through underfunding for so many years. Pre pandemic, the NHS couldn't cope with the number of people in this country.

This is what I think 2 years ago there were ambulances outside local hospital queuing up

For those who've said it's because our health service has been underfunded, do you think this is also the reason for the lockdowns in France and Germany?

Germany isn't in lockdown light, though - and I'd say that's because their healthcare is absolutely excellent and there is lots of capacity. They clearly want to control spread for economic reasons and to save lives as much as possible (very sensible, in my view and I would support all sorts of actions which did the same here. You don't necessarily need a lockdown for that). I think it might still be excessive in that things like gyms being aren't linked to outbreaks occurring so closing them seems a shame. The more people are exercising and getting out the home, the healthier most of those people will be.

BoJo has become aware that he looks like a fool when every other part of the UK has done a circuit breaker or lockdown , and he has done nothing.

What was said. To stop healthcare staff having to make even more hard decisions about care. So yes to try and hold back overwhelming NHS

Someone i know keeps saying 'control' but can not specify further. If pushed she sends a David Icke video.

Panic, saving face with other countries, future electoral prospects.

Oh so nothing to do with protecting the nhs, ourselves and others then!!!!!
Is it a joke

I think boris's biggest problem is he has no conviction in what he's trying to do. He was adamant that the Tier approach was the right thing to do, and the data certainly suggests that it was starting to see an impact. But because France, Germany and Ireland all went into Lockdown, along with the welsh firebreak, he's lost his nerve and gone for the lockdown.

This is where I think he's wrong because looking at the covidmessenger table, so many regions are starting to fall now that I think given a couple more weeks, the tiered approach could have seen a sustained difference. Instead, he's now ballsed up the entire country because in my opinion, the cure is worse than the disease. Especially as we know that this won't go away. He can't keep going back into lockdown, we need to find a way to live with it.

@Nonamesavail

Someone i know keeps saying 'control' but can not specify further. If pushed she sends a David Icke video.

I think a lot of us can specify further but choose not to, especially if it's not a face to face conversation.

I don't watch David Icke though.

What I think is that it's quite worrying that there are people more worried about people shopping at the range, than they are our government have made protesting illegal.

@Frostedlantern

What I think is that it's quite worrying that there are people more worried about people shopping at the range, than they are our government have made protesting illegal.

has that come in - the "no more than 2" or even just 1?

I'm pretty sure BJ is doing a presser because of the 5th November.

Because they are more likely to be blamed for covid deaths which are quantifiable and which the public can see ticking up daily than damage caused by lockdown, much of which will be the shortening of people’s lives due to poverty etc in the future. They can always say “if we hadn’t locked down 500k people would have died” and it will be difficult to prove them wrong afterwards. If they lockdown and cases fall they can say that was due to lockdown and if cases don’t fall they can blame the public for non-compliance or argue for more lockdown. If lockdown does turn out to be a mistake they can say they were following the science (and of course if you ask a load of epidemiologists how to reduce spread of an infectious disease they will say reduce social contact between people). Also people mostly still don’t really understand the link between the economy and health so not locking down on the basis that it would do more harm than good isn’t likely to have widespread public support.

I don’t think the chancellor is actually on board with this but has been railroaded into it.

Well after what happened across Essex last night id question whether the infrastructure can cope with a winter lockdown.

@LucyLocketsPocket

What do you think the government's motive for lockdown is?

To protect the NHS or something else?

The main motive is to protect the government.

The first priority for any government anywhere is to remain in power.

And i havent seen a great deal, (if any) concern for those having to lock down in homes that have flammable cladding.