How can we show our dissent?

[Downtown36]

Feeling so desperate after the announcement today that essentially has us all in this level of lockdown for another 6 weeks weeks at least.

Rates of infection on a steady decline and already so many vaccinated. I wholly disagree with it continuing at the is level. What can I do about it?

@Userzzz - why would you want to ignore the rules and encourage others to do us? How does that benefit the NHS, schools and the general population?

Yeah, I've reported that post.

[quote Flyonawalk]@RosesAndLemonade I am sad to read of your health difficulties. Perhaps one positive to come out of the reaction to covid might be an increased awareness of and respect for other people’s health [/quote]
I hope so too

I've reported too. I think they should be banned for that post alone.

What about becoming a politician and then PM and then you'll be able to decide what happens.

@RosesAndLemonade don’t presume anything about anyone - I have more experience than I would like with cancer and immunotherapy for chronic disease but my personal circumstance won’t make any difference to your snap judgement will it?

I actually posted too soon because I was interrupted by a phone call but my point was that yes we have always had very vulnerable people in the population but don’t take extreme precautions like we’re doing now because their risk isn’t as high as it is with covid.

There is no inherent immunity against covid within the community to act as firebreaks against outbreaks nor vaccinated population to keep infection rates down or reduce the risk of the severity of illness. That is the support I was referring to, simply the fact that these illnesses aren’t rampant within society without other layers of defence such as vaccinations or viable treatments. We don’t have that for covid (obviously vaccinations are ongoing but it’s early days) so we’ve had to resort to much more basic methods of infection control.

The risks of flu, chicken pox etc. just aren’t comparable to covid.

If covid wasn’t causing the strain it is on hospitals I have no doubt no one without a personal interest would give a shit and we would be years away from a vaccine. We haven’t gone to these extremes as a population for bird or swine flu because we had easily adapted vaccines and there are enough people with cross immunity from other flues.

@wanderings

You're right to talk about this, OP, even if the lockdown zealots are trying to shut you down. I talk about this sort of thing regularly, and I don't care who tries to silence me. The forthcoming carnage to the economy, people's livelihoods and mental health must be talked about, even though the government and much of Mumsnet are trying to shut this discussion down with cries of "VIRUS!!! DEATH!!! VIRUS!!! DEATH!!! VIRUS!!! DEATH!!!".

In the short term, I think the only realistic thing we can do is to keep trying to counter this cult sentiment of "lockdown at all costs", which has been spun by the government, and which many people have bought right into, because the reality of economic destruction hasn't bitten yet, while the government keep throwing money at the problem. Unemployment (now 2.6 million; Thatcher would be proud) is being hushed up. Write to your MP. Get it on their record that there is disapproval of lockdown, and we intend to hold the government to account on how they intend to rebuild lockdown-ravaged Britain. Don't cower at home, use any freedom given. Exercise regularly, and travel to it; it's guidance, not law. Only wear a mask in places where it is mandatory. These things might feel like pissing in the wind, but they are baby steps to bend the statistics more against lockdown. Unless Boris is playing a very clever game (which I doubt he is capable of, even he doesn't want lockdown, and imposed this one under duress.

Much as I would love to see some overt public red-hot fury, because I think the public were much too ready to accept lockdown (turkeys voting for Christmas and all that), even I think that now is not the time. I think the government is very aware of the simmering public anger, they are realising that the game of brainwashing will soon be up, and they are timing announcements carefully to try to quell public unrest. Yesterday and today were perfect examples. As a temporary break from the campaign of fear, we had a token grovel yesterday from Saint Boris about the deaths (which complements the fear campaign), and the merest shred of hope about schools today, even if it's totally meaningless, because we know how Saint Boris likes to U-turn on somebody's whim (not his own).

There are lockdown sceptics out there, but even the most hardened of them are keeping their powder dry for the moment. As Nick Hornby would put it, it's hard being right when the rest of the world is wrong. Even the "Covid recovery group" of MPs are keeping quiet, as is Nigel Farage, who has toyed with "the anti-lockdown party" (I'll believe in that when I see it). Everyone is giving the vaccine the benefit of the doubt, because it just might be the game-changer.

Crunch time will be if the vaccine shows signs of effectiveness; the government are underselling the vaccine, because they don't want people to fight over it. If nothing has changed in March - if Saint Boris delays schools yet again, tells us no roolz will change in spite of rapidly falling infection rates, or tells us that freedoms will only be given to those who have been vaccinated (thus making it compulsory by stealth), then will be the time to start getting angry, and for the overt disobedience, seeing family members regardless, businesses opening anyway.

Probably the most important time to be angry is after the worst of this is over: the next battle will be preventing lockdown becoming a normalised fixture of our lives, ready to be wheeled out every winter whenever the government bleats "alas, the NHS is starting to struggle". Before then, when the shit really hits the fan, furlough stops, unemployment is through the roof, people are losing their homes, suicides are happening regularly, that is when the public red mist will descend. Saint Boris and his merry men are trying not to think about that right now, or they're all planning to resign just before then.

Spot on. You can articulate it so much more eloquent and intelligible than I can.

People are happy to plod on with lockdowns while getting Furloughed and during the summer...now people are beyond demented with boredom and the goverment can only pay people's wages for so long.

There should be restrictions such as face masks social distancing wherever possible but us to live like this is the long run isn't viable. We have risks every day of our lives, people die, NHS is over run and will again in a few years especially with cuts to the NHS.
We have to get to a point where enough is enough.
There is a risk but we must get on with our lives, we can't live like this indefinitely.

Once the end of March comes and 14 million have been vaccinated, the top 4 groups, people will want change and if there isn't, people will surely rebel and not take notice at all. Enough is enough now.

@DuchessofHastings1 I think you are right. When furlough is replaced by unemployment, the population will be less accepting of restrictions. I too feel that the current situation is unsustainable for much longer. Surely when the top groups are vaccinated we will start to return to normal life.

How depressing . One man is getting the blame for the 100000 deaths because he did not lock down long enough or soon enough and wanted to keep schools open because of MH implications and now you all want to lift lockdown .

Just about sums this country up really .

@Unsure33 Actually, some of us on this thread have never supported lockdown and blame nobody in charge for deaths caused by this or any other virus.

It's all very well being anti lockdown - something that no-one except maybe extreme introverts are happy about.

I notice that the most vocal anti lockdowners don't seem to be able to come up with a solution to avoid overwhelming the NHS in the meantime.

What is a sensible way of avoiding overwhelming the NHS while avoiding lockdown?

@Ginfordinner Clearly NHS care would have to be rationed, as was often the case pre-pandemic. We all know that some cancer treatments for example are too costly to be routinely available. This is far from ideal but it is the reality of a world with finite resources.

Who would be prioritised?

@ginfordinner
There were alternatives to lockdown (particularly back in March - maybe the ship has sailed now) and these generally fall into the following camps:

• protect the vulnerable and let others get on with life to some extent;
• more limited restrictions to slow the spread (e.g. limit on large gatherings and self-isolation for people who are covid positive) but not banning household mixing or shutting down education etc.
• bolster NHS capacity.

There is also the view that, although avoiding lockdowns may have resulted in more dying of covid, it would have "saved" more years of life overall because the unemployment and recession inevitably caused by lockdown is likely to shorten the lives of millions of people.

Plus a scepticism as to whether would actually have seen the Armageddon scenes described by some without lockdown. No other country has whatever they have done.

People who support lockdowns don't like any of these suggestions and tend to shout them down as being either immoral or impractical. So for example they will say that it is not possible to protect the vulnerable because they don't live in a vacuum. It is true that the above suggestions have multiple issues and wouldn't save every life but then nor does lockdown. There is a fallacy in criticising the alternatives to lockdown without also looking at the many shortcomings of the strategy we are pursuing, which is both immoral and impractical.

Despite lockdown 100,000 have died. It's estimated that 150,000 will die from covid in total in the UK. The last estimate I saw was that 20% of the population had had covid by December (so probably 25%+ now). There are then the economic and health effects of lockdown to consider plus the fact that we have just basically taken a year away from 66m people. So the alternative only has to be better than that and it's not a high bar.

Also, if we threw the sort of ingenuity, radical thinking and money which we have thrown at lockdown policies at some of the other solutions they could have been quite successful despite the practical difficulties.

E.g. could we have trained thousands of auxiliary health workers to carry out basic and very specific tasks for covid patients under the direction of nurses? We wouldn't consider this in normal times, it's not a perfect solution to lack of NHS capacity but it might have helped.

On protecting the vulnerable, the arguments against this are always about it being unfair to lock people away , and while this is true (and I would never argue for mandatory shielding) it ignores the fact that everyone is now locked away. We have not done a good job of protecting the vulnerable anyway. It has never really been safe for them to live normally this year. Could we have directed most of our test and trace capacity towards testing anyone whom the vulnerable come into contact with including relatives so that people could see loved ones; paid care home staff extra to live in for weeks at a time; separated out hospitals more effectively to reduce spread there (25% of all covid spread is within hospitals!); used healthcare staff who had already had covid to treat the vulnerable so they were less likely to transmit it etc; given more legal protected to CEV workers, priority access to working from home positions if available, maternity leave style job protection etc., mandatory furlough, providing alternative accommodation so that people could isolate away from vulnerable family members if they tested positive etc. . I personally think that a focus on this might have protected the vulnerable better than our current policy which has been completely unsuccessful. I also don't see it as any less moral than lockdowns but rarely mention the "protect the vulnerable" idea on here because people don't like engaging with it and it's unlikely that we will change strategy now.

It is just so cripplingly inefficient and ineffective to lock down everyone when the minority who are badly affected by covid are identifiable. Putting resources into trying to stop everyone getting covid has diverted resources away from trying to stop the vulnerable getting it.

@DuchessofHastings1

That was very interesting to read. Lots of things I'd never thought of. Like government underselling the vaccine so that people don't fight over it. And lockdowns being wheeled out in the future whenever the NHS is struggling ...

I was ready to riot a few months ago - but have turned all passive lately as a way to survive.

It's important to stay awake and keep noticing. Thank you.

So now if I state that I don’t follow the rules and I encourage my friends to do the same, I have my post removed?
Is this North Korea?

Mumsnet has deleted half this thread. The only thing you are allowed to say is “yes it’s hard, but I’ll follow the rules” . How about, no, we are free to see our family. That is now a radical statement that needs censoring?

@Userzzz

So now if I state that I don’t follow the rules and I encourage my friends to do the same, I have my post removed? Is this North Korea?

Lol - I reckon NK is doing better than the UK. Probably because there are less "me me me me twits" about.

Viruses don't give a shiny shit about your rights... were you napping when the clear science was shared (about twenty thousand times)?

Write to your MP, I don’t have a lot of faith that it will change anything but it might help you get things of your chest and get your voice heard.

Ask them what evidence there is for lockdowns working, ask them if this is going to become the norm every time the nhs is overwhelmed (aka. Every winter) ask them to hold the government accountable for the many deaths as a result of delayed cancer screenings, treatment etc. Ask them how is the nhs going to be protected when the economy is destroyed and there is no money for the nhs. Ask them not to do this to the country again

@Chessie678 Your post at 00.01 is excellent, thank you. I hope people read it in full and consider that indeed there may be alternatives to lockdown.

www.covidmessenger.com/hospital-cases/

Perhaps everyone should read this

@Userzzz

So now if I state that I don’t follow the rules and I encourage my friends to do the same, I have my post removed? Is this North Korea?

Yeah, if you encourage behaviour that will get people killed during a global pandemic you will have your post deleted. Shocking ;)

@WunWun, a bit dramatic?

I follow the rules , mostly. I only see my family for childcare but yet I can go to work, in a customer facing role, can go to a packed supermarket for my essentials.
What's the difference between seeing family and social distancing and going to a supermarket in terms of risk? They're rife, no one sticks to 2 metre rule.
A friend of mine works in a care home, she a colleagues work on top of each other practically but yet the police would barge in her house if she had any of them round for a drink.
Makes no sense in terms of risk.

@Sunshine1235

Write to your MP, I don’t have a lot of faith that it will change anything but it might help you get things of your chest and get your voice heard.

Ask them what evidence there is for lockdowns working, ask them if this is going to become the norm every time the nhs is overwhelmed (aka. Every winter) ask them to hold the government accountable for the many deaths as a result of delayed cancer screenings, treatment etc. Ask them how is the nhs going to be protected when the economy is destroyed and there is no money for the nhs. Ask them not to do this to the country again

I am thinking about doing this myself. Not that they will take any notice.