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?

Perfect28 You want get a thought out response because it’s easy to say it’s not working and I’ll do what I like than it is to come up with a satisfactory route out of this pandemic,
It’s like the opposition party finding fault with everything the government do without having to implement nothing themselves

However mumsnetters with their posts about protests and doing wtf they like don't get to decide when it stops.

They do in terms of mixing with family and friends in their own home.

Without getting into the rights or wrongs of that, they do have that agency.

'these sacrifices we are all making are also for the benefit of YOU and YOUR family.'

Yes! This othering about 'the elderly' or even less important apparently 'the vulnerable people'. These are all our loved ones, they are worth the collective effort.

'They do in terms of mixing with family and friends in their own home'
Yes of course and we've seen it on this very grim thread. It isn't OK, people need to stop parroting mental health as if it's a get out clause.

@TheKeatingFive

However mumsnetters with their posts about protests and doing wtf they like don't get to decide when it stops.

They do in terms of mixing with family and friends in their own home.

Without getting into the rights or wrongs of that, they do have that agency.

People can also make some or many non-essential journeys. I do.

@DappledOliveGroves

All I can say is that there are clearly a lot of people with far greater altruism than me. I cannot accept this level of sacrifice 'for the greater good' - an amorphous pool of people I don't know.

I don't care that the NHS is shot to shit - it's been bloody awful for decades. I watched my father die an agonising and painful death in their 'care' over twenty years ago when it was blindingly obvious that the healthcare system was crippled every winter.

I'm sick of people talking about those working for the NHS as 'heroes'. No-one held a gun to their head and forced them into this career.

I'm sick of the hypocrisy - no-one bats an eyelid when millions of children in developing countries die of TB or malaria.

I am so, so angry.

I agree with you. I do not believe that the government should be making anyone sacrifice fundamental rights and freedoms for the benefit of anyone else. If people choose to make those sacrifices then all well and good (and I think many would) but as a basic principle other people’s health is not my problem and I should not be made to.

But you and I are very much in a minority and I got called a sociopath on the AIBU board for having that view!

Someone keeps asking what the alternative is. The US and in fact most of the World are carrying on as normal. The death rate in the US is slightly higher but as we know many people are anti-mask covid deniers. This is the alternative. Life carries on, people use their individual responsibility to decide whether to socialise responsibly or party wildly and take the consequences. The economy recovers. Those who would flaunt the rules already are being t the majority of people behave sensibly and eventually coronavirus burns itself out.

It isn't OK

You’ve no idea what this is doing to people.

And you’re certainly not my moral barometer, very far from it.

That’s such an irresponsible way of describing what’s happening in the US. Restrictions are largely state of county level decisions, not federal. There are plenty of places with curfews and stay at home orders.

All I can say is that there are clearly a lot of people with far greater altruism than me. I cannot accept this level of sacrifice 'for the greater good' - an amorphous pool of people I don't know.

I actually agree too. I find it a really difficult one to square. Obviously I don't do things that could harm others or myself, like driving really fast or dangerously but we're not being asked not to do dangerous things, we're being asked not to do things that are natural and good.

We're also not really doing this for others too, we're doing it for the NHS. I understand the rationale completely but I'm also someone who has very little positive to say about the care I and family have received. I hate how the NHS is and I wish we could have a sensible discussion as a nation about what best to do with it. It's just not working in its current form.

I wouldn't actually mind half as much for myself but I'm not ok with being asked to compromise my small child's life, development and experiences for 'the greater good.' I don't think I'm a naturally terribly selfish person. I don't think others would describe me like that either. But my responsibility is to my DC first and foremost and I'm harming him by doing this. I hate it, really, really hate it.

The US and in fact most of the World are carrying on as normal

I wouldn't say normal exactly, but it's true some are dealing with it using less angst and panic

But then any number of them have better governments ...

we're being asked not to do things that are natural and good

Exactly. And people need to start acknowledging this if they want to keep others on board. Telling people they’re selfish monsters fir wanting to see their parents is totally counterproductive.

But my responsibility is to my DC first and foremost and I'm harming him by doing this. I hate it, really, really hate it.

Yes, plenty of people are reaching the point of refusing to do it anymore.

@QuantumQuality I was trying to explain simply what the alternative is. The US was never going to be a good example- however there are many countries that have carried on and not locked down completely. I am neutral in this, I am just trying to answer the question- What is the alternative to locking down? As to whether trying to state something in simpler terms is irresponsible- we could spend all day going through the list of countries and how they have reacted and what the result has been; the answers vary because it’s not a one size fits all solution. I think the overreaction to anyone doing anything but praise the harsh and restrictive laws which have negatively impacted millions is vastly excessive and smacks of censorship. But we knew that, it’s been mentioned on this thread more than once.

@QuantumQuality

That’s such an irresponsible way of describing what’s happening in the US. Restrictions are largely state of county level decisions, not federal. There are plenty of places with curfews and stay at home orders.

This does interest me. Looking at today's New York Times, large numbers of states require no masks, have not closed businesses and have no stay at home orders. Florida, for example, does not seem to prohibit people from meeting in groups, visiting each other or going out to socialise. I do not believe they have bodies piling up in the streets, nor has their infrastructure collapsed.

'You’ve no idea what this is doing to people. And you’re certainly not my moral barometer, very far from it.'

Of course I know, I'm living it too as are all my family and friends. I really don't want to be your 'moral barometer' you should be able to do that all by yourself.

'We're also not really doing this for others too, we're doing it for the NHS'

Good grief. Yes, so the nhs can actually provide the critical care for those who need it. Might even be you or a relatives one day, you never know.

Currently If you need elective surgery guess what, you won't get it because the wards and operating rooms are full of patients with covid. So it isn't for the 'greater good' it is to keep a lid on it until vaccinations are widespread and numbers of infections then hospitalisations come down. Then normal nhs services will resume.

'it's true some are dealing with it using less angst and panic'

Yes some are managing restrictions better, very true.

@Fr0thandBubble - "other people's health" - I think it is this phrase that confuses me. It is not just for "other" people's benefit. It is for your benefit too, and the benefit of those you love. Both in terms of Covid - but especially in terms of wider access to medical attention should you need it.

Many people who oppose lockdown make an argument that people in favour are "unrealistic" about death. Death happens, and should be accepted and people should be able to live their lives. But this view goes hand in hand, I have seen (based on the posts on here and also of people I know in RL) with a view that Covid and an overwhelmed NHS are someone else's problem and that you have no vulnerability to covid or any other medical issue for which you might need help.

"Other people are the vulnerable who need the help. Not us. Why should we have to suffer just because of other vulnerable people? It is not fair!"

This is a disconnect from reality. You and your family are vulnerable in this situation. You just don't want to know about that (because it is painful to know about).

I'm not saying we should all be cowering in fear and hiding away, far from it. But we are in denial if we think that vulnerability is something that affects others only.

Behind the rather "macho" attitudes of "death happens, accept it everyone and lets get on with life!" there often lies, I have observed, a terror of knowing anything about vulnerability, which is utterly denied and "othered".

you should be able to do that all by yourself.

I am

Good grief. Yes, so the nhs can actually provide the critical care for those who need it. Might even be you or a relatives one day, you never know.

Yes, I know. I appreciate that. That's why I can cope for a little longer, until the NHS isn't overwhelmed. (Still think we need to find a better system)
My issue is that it's getting beyond that now. I will tolerate lockdown until the point at which the NHS can cope because I can understand the rationale. I will not tolerate a lockdown that destroys our economy, culture, children's education, in order to make sure that no one dies of Covid because that's impossible.

Not much longer. Thoroughly pissed off at this point.

Until Easter.

I'll leave you all to your circle jerk. And it really is circular, you all keep coming back round to exactly the same arguments that have been teased out on previous pages whilst ignoring questions you can't answer. It's incredibly childlike actually.

Bye @GetOffYourHighHorse, stay safe and sane!

Also supported LD initially but the balance has tipped and my support has an end date. Emboldened by this thread, I'm calling it.

And the third way is bloody obvious. Care is rationed. Don't be shocked. It is already. If you are obese, you don't get a hip or knee replacement or IVF. If you are a smoker, you don't get a heart transplant. Alcoholic? No new liver for you I'm afraid. Have cancer or a rare disease and need medicine costing £60,000 p.a. ... sorry, nope. Child with learning difficulties needing genetic sequencing to work out the issue ... fight for it. Too expensive.

Percentage of publicly subsidised NHS capacity for covid patients who are under an age limit, weight limit and meet other criteria, the rest of publicly subsidised capacity is for other conditions. Part of the problem is bed blocking. You get X amount of state subsidised treatment, then it's somebody else's turn.

Yeah, not fair, but we already do it and the current situation is outrageous and the rapidly evaporating consent shows many are waking up to it.

@Bumpsadaisie

@Fr0thandBubble - "other people's health" - I think it is this phrase that confuses me. It is not just for "other" people's benefit. It is for your benefit too, and the benefit of those you love. Both in terms of Covid - but especially in terms of wider access to medical attention should you need it.

Many people who oppose lockdown make an argument that people in favour are "unrealistic" about death. Death happens, and should be accepted and people should be able to live their lives. But this view goes hand in hand, I have seen (based on the posts on here and also of people I know in RL) with a view that Covid and an overwhelmed NHS are someone else's problem and that you have no vulnerability to covid or any other medical issue for which you might need help.

"Other people are the vulnerable who need the help. Not us. Why should we have to suffer just because of other vulnerable people? It is not fair!"

This is a disconnect from reality. You and your family are vulnerable in this situation. You just don't want to know about that (because it is painful to know about).

I'm not saying we should all be cowering in fear and hiding away, far from it. But we are in denial if we think that vulnerability is something that affects others only.

Behind the rather "macho" attitudes of "death happens, accept it everyone and lets get on with life!" there often lies, I have observed, a terror of knowing anything about vulnerability, which is utterly denied and "othered".

Honestly, it’s not about fear or a disconnect from reality - it’s more an ethical and political viewpoint that, legally, I shouldn’t be made to sacrifice my fundamental rights and freedoms for anyone else. And DH, who is extremely clinically vulnerable, feels the same - he takes responsibility for himself and doesn’t expect anyone else to make sacrifices for him.

I get the argument about the NHS being overwhelmed and therefore this being an issue for everyone - and that’s a valid argument in principle. But we’ve had so long to get the NHS up to speed and, like the OP, I just don’t think it’s fit for purpose any more. This obsession with keeping everyone alive for as long as possible means that the NHS will only ever be an expensive failure.

I agree with OP that people have become so used to relying on the state for everything that we expect it to save us even from death now. People die, old people especially die from viruses - and we need to accept that and let people get on with their lives.

What if you and your family god forbid have an RTA but we live in an an alternative world where there is no lockdown, the NHS is unable to cope, A and E is full and you can't be treated properly? This may already occur. There was already not enough police to respond to emergencies/critical incidents in our area, and ambulances were taking hours and hours, and yes, some people must have died as a result of that. There seems to be a massive denial about health economics and rationing that already occurs within the system. The very elderly are not even put on ventilators for starters! All care is rationed, social care is rationed and people made to pay for it themselves. The system already was broken, I don't particularly want to live with a broken system and I vote accordingly, but I'm not going to live in a state of fear I may have a RTA or get flu then pneumonia or Long Covid and stay home and avoid social contact for months or years on end.

I agree with the lovelylittlepanda, once the very vulnerable are vaccinated (twice) and the pressure on the NHS which is always intense in winter anyway is over, I'm going back to taking my chances with life. I think my teen's mental health, my feelings about life, I need more social contact than I currently have to feel normal and meaningful, I'll be the first back on campus ready to teach, everyone else can stay home if they like!

@lovelylittlepanda

Also supported LD initially but the balance has tipped and my support has an end date. Emboldened by this thread, I'm calling it.

And the third way is bloody obvious. Care is rationed. Don't be shocked. It is already. If you are obese, you don't get a hip or knee replacement or IVF. If you are a smoker, you don't get a heart transplant. Alcoholic? No new liver for you I'm afraid. Have cancer or a rare disease and need medicine costing £60,000 p.a. ... sorry, nope. Child with learning difficulties needing genetic sequencing to work out the issue ... fight for it. Too expensive.

Percentage of publicly subsidised NHS capacity for covid patients who are under an age limit, weight limit and meet other criteria, the rest of publicly subsidised capacity is for other conditions. Part of the problem is bed blocking. You get X amount of state subsidised treatment, then it's somebody else's turn.

Yeah, not fair, but we already do it and the current situation is outrageous and the rapidly evaporating consent shows many are waking up to it.

I agree.

@TheOtherMaryBerry Hear hear.