For those who were/are against lockdown

[CarlaH]

I have just sounded off a bit in another thread when I should have started one of my own really.

I would like to ask the vocal critics of lockdown, the ones that state that vulnerable people should just stay at home how they would have handled the complete overload of the NHS.

Even with the lockdowns and restrictions we have had the hospitals have been overwhelmed. The staff must be on their knees with it all.

With no lockdown at all I have to assume that there would have been even greater numbers of very sick people needing hospitalisation.

Would any of the people who are so opposed to the lockdowns been prepared to personally stand at the hospital doors and turn the sick away to possibly/probably die at home?

I follow (most) of the rules, I see my partner "illegally" but apart from that my social life is walks outside. My feelings are mixed- As someone with severe MH issues, the isolation has hit me hard. I am not anti-lockdown, I say I am pro-proportionate covid response, ie, a fineline between "save the NHS" and liberty.

Lockdowns initially were necessary, now I think it's gone on too long. It needs to start to be lessened.

There is a gap between pro lockdown and anti-lockdown. I think that's where I am.

@pinkearedcow

Those who are saying we should have just thrown money at the NHS and social care instead of lockdown - how would that have worked exactly? NHS and social care capacity can't be hugely expanded overnight. It takes years to recruit and train staff and to improve and develop infrastructure, IT systems, buildings etc.

Not to mention it's health and care settings where covid spread the most, so they're not actually "safe" places to be. Even if you could get bigger buildings, better air filtration systems, etc., you'd still have an enormous job to train ALL staff (not just drs and nurses, but caterers, maintenance, cleaners etc) in proper infection control procedures (and enforce it!).

@Flower234

I follow (most) of the rules, I see my partner "illegally" but apart from that my social life is walks outside. My feelings are mixed- As someone with severe MH issues, the isolation has hit me hard. I am not anti-lockdown, I say I am pro-proportionate covid response, ie, a fineline between "save the NHS" and liberty.

Lockdowns initially were necessary, now I think it's gone on too long. It needs to start to be lessened.

There is a gap between pro lockdown and anti-lockdown. I think that's where I am.

I would expect the majority of people to be in that same middle ground. Very few people want a proper lockdown (like we had at the start of last April where roads were quiet and most people stayed at home). Very few people want a full re-opening with no rules at all. As with everything, it's the middle ground where most people sit. But that's an enormous range. Some people will be happy for shops to stay close but for pubs to open, and vice versa. Some want hairdressers open but are happy to stay at home (either on furlough or work from home). Some want schools back but happy for pubs to stay closed. It's all in the middle ground, but very different.

Lockdowns are just a temporary measure though. They form part of a broader strategy, where you either:

1. Flatten the curve with moderate restrictions to prevent healthcare problems (Sweden)
2. Lockdown until vaccine (UK at the moment)
3. Lockdown and eliminate using shut borders (NZ, Isle of Man)

Certain strategies are only possible in some countries.

Now we have a vaccine and a successful rollout, it makes sense to keep with 2). The situation we were originally in, where a vaccine was far from certain, meant locking down until a vaccine was a big gamble. Strategy 3) is also a massive gamble, some have tried and succeeded, some have tried and failed.

Anyone who claims these are simple choices is a charlatan.

The pandemic has highlighted how, unprepared we where when confronted by an existential threat such as a virus.
The populace for all intents and purposes is unbalanced, there is a significant proportion that are entirely dependant on either health, economic or social services to go about their daily lives.

There has always been a tension between general populace suppression or group suppression.
We choose populace suppression.

We'll see what the economic consequences of that will be shortly.