Third wave - do you think we’ll lockdown again? When will this end?!

[Notsure6]

Just that really. Keep seeing that we’re on the cusp of a third wave. What do you all think this will this mean for locking down or our current (limited) freedom?

The science however is not robust, it is at times, flimsy, inconsistent and therefore an unreliable foundation to justify a national lockdown. Science should not be the only factor taken into consideration, when considering risks to people’s health and overall well-being, for example why should it over-ride the right to family life, the ability to earn a living, for children to receive an education and for people to access medical help for non-covid health issues.

@Wildswim

It will only end when enough people stop complying and start resisting.

Let’s agree to disagree as scientifically it will only end when the virus is eradicated or contained by following the science! Ignoring science will prolong the pandemic as viruses do what they do best to beat the vaccination race. However this is a great reset once in a lifetime pandemic impacting health and wealth and everything else! So hands, face, base, trace and fresh air pragmatic blue sky thinking awareness of potential Covid footprint to be a part of the solution and not the cause perpetuating unsustainable short term cycles of more pain and suffering.

@Katyjayne72,

Firstly, you cannot call something 'flimsy' if you have not have a clue about it. I am sure you would take offence if someone with no knowledge or expertise of what you do called your work 'flimsy'.

You are misunderstanding what science IS and what it claims to do.

All scientists can do is explain the outcomes of the pandemic in terms of lives lost, hospitalisations and capacity of our system to cope. It is not a scientists job to make moral judgments, although they should pursue their research within an ethical framework. Their job is to explain the predicted outcome of a political decision based on current best knowledge which, by definition, is amenable to change.

It is politicians making the ethical and political judgments here.

So unless we have a scientific background we have to accept everything they say without questioning. You are right, scientists are not God and should not make moral judgments, however the science appears to have been placed on a very high pedestal by our government and media. Scientific research is also heavily influenced by their funding bodies who often have their own agenda.

@Katyjayne72,

But how can you question what you don't understand. How could I critique a translation of Ovid if I did not know any Latin at all?

Your question, however, is interesting. You need a set of scientifically literate people to communicate to the general community both what the science is saying and the uncertainties around it. Those who we elect to make the moral/ethical judgments can then do with that what they will, and we can unelect them if we disagree with their decisions.

What we cannot do is decide we don't like the decisions they have made based on the science and then decide (with no reason) that we do not believe the science (with all the uncertainties around it).

@savethegrannies

Major march in London on 29 May. The BBC - fresh from revelations its disgusting cover up contributed to Lady Di’s death - won’t be covering it, of course. If people want this fucking nonsense to end, as well as putting digital passports back in the bin where they belong, they need to take to the streets.

Will there be fuckwits wearing yellow stars at this one? If so, nah, I'll pass.

ONS reporting total infections in England up 15% since last week (54,000 from 47,000).

The good news is that they don't report a big jump in the number of Indian variant cases - it's just standard cases.

People won't comply again... yes they can shut gyms shops and pubs etc but realistically what will that do?... it will make people socialise in other people houses which is essentially more dangerous...