How long will people agree to make these sacrifices for?

[DappledOliveGroves]

Inspired by another thread here.

Let's assume the vaccines don't do what they should - either because the virus mutates so rapidly or because our government can't manage to adhere to Pfizer's protocol and a lone dose does nothing to protect people.

Then what?

For all those champing at the bit for curfews, harsher lockdowns, further restrictions on civil liberties - I'm genuinely curious - how long are you willing to maintain this status quo?

Would you be happy to still be in this lockdown in a year? Two years? Five years? Even if the lockdowns are eased and clamped down again, would you be willing to accept rolling lockdowns as a fact of life with no end in sight? At what point would those wanting tougher restrictions decide they can't live like this anymore?

@Fridget

But perfect not everywhere has locked down, and I don’t think those places have generally seen their whole society overwhelmed have they?

The effect on mortality and the NHS is bad enough to justify this lockdown, but I just haven’t seen yet examples of where societies have broken down if they haven’t locked down. I’m genuinely happy to be corrected, I’ve asked for examples on a few threads of places that haven’t locked down and have experienced this but not received any yet.

What is the country that introduced the least?

Is it Brazil? I haven’t kept track

A lot of posters on here have clearly lost their shit completely!

[quote DappledOliveGroves]@iVampire clearly I am referring to dying from cancer. Though I do question, in today's bizarre atmosphere, quite what anyone is actually supposed to die from? [/quote]
Nobody is going to die of anything, because we were all immortal until Covid came along and spoilt things for us. Now lockdown will make sure that nobody dies at all, ever.

Why aren't all the industries that have stayed open throughout been overwhelmed? Supermarkets, utilities, construction sites for example? Given the current virus rate, by your logic, these industries should have collapsed as those working in them got the virus. But they haven't

Intriguing question which I confess hadn't occurred to me - it'll be interesting to see if you get any coherent answers
After all, the contention was that much of society would collapse without lockdown, and since going to work (or even leaving the house) is said to be a major risk, I'd like to see it proved

I also find it baffling that people don't understand what 'protect the NHS' means. It's not just for Covid, but for pregnancy, cancer, A&E, scans etc etc

Nobody is going to die of anything, because we were all immortal until Covid came along and spoilt things for us. Now lockdown will make sure that nobody dies at all, ever.

I’m honestly starting to suspect some posters believe this.

I also find it baffling that people don't understand what 'protect the NHS' means. It's not just for Covid, but for pregnancy, cancer, A&E, scans etc etc

You do realise it needs to be funded, right?

Or will the consultants work for free do you think?

Fridget "I just haven’t seen yet examples of where societies have broken down if they haven’t locked down."

Sweden might be an example of a place where they had fewer restrictions than a lockdown (though not none, most voluntary) in spring 2020 - and power, water, food supplies etc did not as I understand it break down. Japan might be another example? (I appreciate both might now be introducing more restrictions.) I realise you're asking about cases where those basic services did break down! What happened in Brazil, I wonder?

@sadpapercourtesan

I hate this as much as anyone - but yes, I would continue to follow the guidance for as long as it was necessary to prevent unnecessary deaths and suffering.

I have an elderly father who is clinically vulnerable. He would probably die if he caught the virus. He's already survived cancer, sepsis and a heart attack. I've seen posters on MN and elsewhere refer to people like him as "on his last legs anyway" and wonder why we are bothering to make sacrifices to keep people like him alive. But to me, he's my cherished, fiercely intelligent, witty, musical, creative, endlessly loving Dad, and I would do ANYTHING to keep him alive, for however long he has. I want him to die peacefully of old age when the time comes, not alone and terrified, drowning in infected lung fluid.

It's not a great leap to extend that care and commitment to other people's loved ones as well. So I'll do whatever it takes, for however long it's necessary, and I have zero respect and zero time for anyone who bleats about the cure being worse than the disease because they can't go and sit in a coffee shop or take their toddler to soft play.

I lost my father at a young age, I also have a neighborhood who is the same age my father would have been and he reminds me so much of my father.

He is the reason I'd rather sit in my dining room crying, like really ugly uncontrollable crying about,
•1 my children haven't got a social life anymore
•2 I am failing at homeschooling 3 different aged children all at the same time
•3 I haven't been to a physical shop in nearly a year
•4 I refuse to allow my children anywhere near anyone.

I fully understand how you feel

@Fridget

No, because you are painting a simplistic picture where the only two options are a) do nothing. b) Lockdown.

If other actions were taken sooner, there's a possibility we wouldn't have to be in lockdown at all. These alternative actions weren't taken precisely because the gov. are too afraid of acting and being seen to impact civil liberty, or business, or whatever. The unfortunate and somewhat ironic effect being that we now have to have more severe measures, i.e lockdown.

Aixenprovence no doubt you'll be told that Sweden has less population density and Japan more adherence to the rules, but OP was drawing attention to the lack of the forecast collapse here, among those industries which have remained open

I'm fascinated now to see if anyone will comment on this ...

@luckylavender

I also find it baffling that people don't understand what 'protect the NHS' means. It's not just for Covid, but for pregnancy, cancer, A&E, scans etc etc

I find it baffling that people don't understand that the NHS (and state schools, public services, furlough etc etc) all have to be paid for.

Taxes have to be paid.

Which means I have to go to work.

Which means I cannot stay at home.

Which means my son is alone all day, trying to deal with remote learning, fed up, isolated and struggling.

In Leicester we've not really mixed since March. We've missed funerals, weddings, and spent all our savings because I'm not entitled to help or furlough.

This cannot continue.

We've locked down to protect the nhs and the vulnerable. But we feel forgotten, and the vaccinated older people supposedly preparing to get back to normal and book their holidays is galling.

If they allow foreign travel again then I'm done, I'll be doing what works for me and my broken family.

"Aixenprovence no doubt you'll be told that Sweden has less population density and Japan more adherence to the rules",

Yes, although I have read that Stockholm at least has quite high 'lived population density' - but it didn't break down. As for Japan, I am still not sure what the rules were/are - there is remarkably little discussion about it! I don't really understand why.

In answer to the question - why weren't supermarkets, essential utility workers etc in the UK , overwhelmed, I think one pp has suggested that because of the lockdown, supermarket workers, utility workers were themselves less likely to meet infectious people. It makes sense - if customers are restricting their social contacts they are much less likely to infect supermarket workers. So indirectly the lockdown could have reduced the infections in the unlocked down bits of the UK, iyswim.

Of course we still don't know what would have happened in those sectors with no lockdown at all. Stockholm, Tokyo, etc are not perfect examples of 'no lockdown' because they did have some restrictions, but are interesting cases of big cities which did not break down.

I feel like there is an IQ divide when it comes to this debate. Some people really can't see the obvious.

Arguments are weak and getting weaker.

Of course death is a part of life, of course people die of other things. Did anyone ever claim otherwise?

If we didn't lockdown, or take any measures, the virus would rip through society and have a potentially devastating impact of all areas of life. Are you honestly willing to not only let the NHS fail but also take a gamble on your food supplies/ fresh water/ fire service (I could go on), all so you can see your friends and family?

I can't even describe how angry I am at people who are continuing to just do what they want. Yes, the majority of the blame for this shit situation lies with the ineptitude of the government, but individuals take some of the responsibility. You are directly contributing to this shit continuing, it's selfish beyond belief.

Anti lockdown 'campaigners' seem to think the rest of us are loving this. We aren't. Nobody is enjoying this situation, even the most die hard introverts. PLEASE just follow the rules and stop making this whole situation more difficult.

@Chaotic45

Such a simplistic view of how national economies work...

I mentioned Florida, but Brazil is a good example. In Amazonas, the hospitals are overwhelmed to quite an extreme degree. This is newsworthy as they thought they had herd immunity as previous infection rate so high. This has been all over the news, but I can’t find anything to suggest the lights have gone out and the population is starving because society has broken down. I’d be interested to read about the wider impact there.

No, because you are painting a simplistic picture where the only two options are a) do nothing. b) Lockdown

If other actions were taken sooner, there's a possibility we wouldn't have to be in lockdown at all. These alternative actions weren't taken precisely because the gov. are too afraid of acting and being seen to impact civil liberty, or business, or whatever. The unfortunate and somewhat ironic effect being that we now have to have more severe measures, i.e lockdown

@Perfect28 I totally agree - we should have locked down, at the very latest, the second this variant was discovered.

I haven’t said anything about options have I? I’ve simply said that it isn’t necessarily the case that if we didn’t lock down, the national grid couldn’t be staffed, the food supply chain would implode, schools would all close etc, because as far as I know this has not happened in places that, rightly or wrongly, haven’t locked down and have seen their health service overwhelmed. I was making a discrete point about whether its likely that a failure to lock down, or even to let it rip (which I would never sanction), would have the wider implications suggested. It would have a horrible death toll and that’s enough for me, but I want evidence before believing it means the country would starve.

It really ought to be beneath you to impugn the IQ of those who disagree with you. It’s just childish.I support the lockdown but I’ve asked for some evidence of the wider impacts you claim, when I’ve given examples of where I don’t think it’s played out like you say it would. I don’t think that’s unreasonable or means I’m on the wrong side of an “IQ divide”.

@Perfect28

I feel like there is an IQ divide when it comes to this debate. Some people really can't see the obvious.

Arguments are weak and getting weaker.

Of course death is a part of life, of course people die of other things. Did anyone ever claim otherwise?

If we didn't lockdown, or take any measures, the virus would rip through society and have a potentially devastating impact of all areas of life. Are you honestly willing to not only let the NHS fail but also take a gamble on your food supplies/ fresh water/ fire service (I could go on), all so you can see your friends and family?

I can't even describe how angry I am at people who are continuing to just do what they want. Yes, the majority of the blame for this shit situation lies with the ineptitude of the government, but individuals take some of the responsibility. You are directly contributing to this shit continuing, it's selfish beyond belief.

Anti lockdown 'campaigners' seem to think the rest of us are loving this. We aren't. Nobody is enjoying this situation, even the most die hard introverts. PLEASE just follow the rules and stop making this whole situation more difficult.

🤣🤣🤣

The irony..I just can’t 😂😂😂😂

First part of that was to @Aixenprovence sorry

No one keeps me from my family.
Ever
I refuse to do it
Won’t do it
Never have done it.
0
How many have died
0
How many have had covid

I’m shocked that so many people are still not seeing loved ones.

@chaotic..well said

@Perfect28
You have far more patience for this thread than I do.

Fridget I think you’re right on non collapse. Overwhelmed hospitals yes but not lights out etc

Not to say it’s the way to go but I see what you mean

Both sides of the debate here seem to be high. Seriously hilarious to read really, just glad I'm a bit pissed otherwise it'd be depressing.

It's the level of arguments I just can't get over. They are so weak and simplistic.

@Fridget I wasn't referring to your response. You're right, it's not a given that would have been the outcome, but it's bizarre anyone would want to chance it?