Illegal to sit in a park but ok to party on.

[Againstmachine]

I am not sure if timelines align but nonetheless we had a government at beginning of the pandemic Made it illegal to sit in a park. Bubbles for single people were only introduced in may.

But in may it was ok to have a party.

Its sickening.

We had the police chasing people with drones and fining women for daring to drive 5 miles to have a coffee whilst going for a walk. I wonder what the police are going to do about this rule breaking.

@ifonly4

My friend's Mum had her funeral just into lockdown. I say her funeral, the crematorium wouldn't allow anyone to go - my friend broke lockdown rules, non essential travel to car park, where she could see her Mum's coffin carried into crem.

I presume what those posters who are trying to defend Boris are saying in that everyone broke the rules is that your friend should have forced her way into the crem with anyone else who wanted to attend the funeral.

@Wreath21 - you are absolutely right. History will NOT look kindly on those who supported dangerous, fascist and totally unnecessary lockdowns. I've yet to meet a lockdown supporter in real life who isn't middle class, with a lovely garden, living with other people and severely lacking in any empathy or appreciation of the consequences.

[quote applesandoranges221]@Wreath21 - you are absolutely right. History will NOT look kindly on those who supported dangerous, fascist and totally unnecessary lockdowns. I've yet to meet a lockdown supporter in real life who isn't middle class, with a lovely garden, living with other people and severely lacking in any empathy or appreciation of the consequences.[/quote]
Would it be fair to surmise that you don't meet many people?

@Wreath21

No, it really was the wrong thing to do. It was a moral panic, backed by superstition and, in the case of a lot of governments and powerful people, an excellent opportunity to profiteer and seize power. In the case of more benign governments, it was more a matter of buying into the idea that you solve problems by punishment and control, and that if you don't make big pious gestures you don't 'care'... It was never going to do more than defer the problem; it increased inequality and domestic violence... and didn't 'save' the poor and marginalised anyway, as they were still obliged to go out to work (with no PPE, and the general public being actively discouraged from wearing masks.)

@Wreath21
I’m genuinely quite concerned that people like you continue to spout such utter rubbish and have this cure so ingrained in their minds that it’s failing to allow them to have rational opinions.

@jgw I would certainly have had every sympathy for her if she and her friends and family had agreed to meet up in a socially distanced way outside the crematorium and witness her mum being carried in, for instance. There were quite a few people breaking rules in entirely responsible ways ie distinguishing between what was authoritarian malice and what was sensible, health-related caution.

[quote LadyPenelope68]@Wreath21
I’m genuinely quite concerned that people like you continue to spout such utter rubbish and have this cure so ingrained in their minds that it’s failing to allow them to have rational opinions.[/quote]
What cure are you referring to? Are you the one with a thing about the horse-worming pills?

[quote Wreath21]@jgw I would certainly have had every sympathy for her if she and her friends and family had agreed to meet up in a socially distanced way outside the crematorium and witness her mum being carried in, for instance. There were quite a few people breaking rules in entirely responsible ways ie distinguishing between what was authoritarian malice and what was sensible, health-related caution.[/quote]
And if those who work at the crem followed the Home Secretary Priti Patel's advice and reported them to the police you would have argued that the police were wrong?

Was the Home Secretary wrong to say that people should report their neighbours if they suspected they broke the law? Should the Home Secretary resign?

@Wreath21

No, it really was the wrong thing to do. It was a moral panic, backed by superstition and, in the case of a lot of governments and powerful people, an excellent opportunity to profiteer and seize power. In the case of more benign governments, it was more a matter of buying into the idea that you solve problems by punishment and control, and that if you don't make big pious gestures you don't 'care'... It was never going to do more than defer the problem; it increased inequality and domestic violence... and didn't 'save' the poor and marginalised anyway, as they were still obliged to go out to work (with no PPE, and the general public being actively discouraged from wearing masks.)

Agreed.

100% agree wreath.

We are seeing so many issues stemming from the lockdowns (won't even start about masks).

Anecdotally (but seems to be the case with everyone I talk to about it), I know more people severely affected by the fallout than from Covid itself. Suicides, missed diagnoses or refusing treatment for cancer so he could remain with his family :(

If Covid was such a terrifying prospect, why weren't those in the know terrified?

You have to make your own choices. I heard the rules and abided by most of them but in Scotland we were told we couldn't leave our local council area and other such tosh which I completely ignored as I could see what was utter crap. To be honest if friends had been willing to meet indoors during the first lockdown on a 1:1 basis I would have done it. Currently in Scotland we're not meant to mix with more than three households. I haven't broken that 'rule' but purely because that situation hasn't arisen. If it had I wouldn't have given it a single thought.

It’s clear that people don’t want to feel that a lot of our sacrifices were in vain. But a lot of them were completely in vain.

In a way I’m glad all this has come out about what the government were up to because it makes it much harder to ever impose restrictions like that on us again.

@Wreath21

No, it really was the wrong thing to do. It was a moral panic, backed by superstition and, in the case of a lot of governments and powerful people, an excellent opportunity to profiteer and seize power. In the case of more benign governments, it was more a matter of buying into the idea that you solve problems by punishment and control, and that if you don't make big pious gestures you don't 'care'... It was never going to do more than defer the problem; it increased inequality and domestic violence... and didn't 'save' the poor and marginalised anyway, as they were still obliged to go out to work (with no PPE, and the general public being actively discouraged from wearing masks.)

Well, there's different breeds of lockdowns.

We (Denmark) were one of the first to lockdown. And it was horrible, don't get me wrong. But socialising outside in small groups was ok. Nobody was counting how many times you left the house. We weren't told not to see our parents or anything. Schools were open again after five weeks. It was not fun but nothing like I read about, and heard about from family, in the UK which felt so... authoritarian. And despite the lighter touch we were doing 'better' (at least until the UK aced the early vaccine rollout)

I believe that a degree of lockdown made sense but when I saw things like Priti Patel encouraging the reporting of neighbours and stuff like that it felt a it.. chilling.

The government has been shitting in your mouths this entire time with backhanders, lies and corruption… but a party is where people get annoyed.

@Againstmachine

I am not sure if timelines align but nonetheless we had a government at beginning of the pandemic Made it illegal to sit in a park. Bubbles for single people were only introduced in may.

But in may it was ok to have a party.

Its sickening.

Another one that infuriates me is that outdoor playgrounds were shut by law at that time and remain closed until early July. (They were allowed to reopen on the same day as pubs ffs.) So hearing Johnson defend himself by saying they used the garden a lot because they knew how rare outdoor transmission was makes me

But a pp is right, the general public mood at the start was to demand more restrictions and this is a government that bends to public opinion. There was outrage at the photos of people going to NT sites just before the lockdown officially began. So I think there would have been huge criticism for the government if they had adopted a more nuanced set of rules that allowed people to use their judgement, especially as that would have been out of line with other countries' approaches.

With a pandemic involving an unknown infectious disease, speaking very generally, it appears to be an accepted principle of public health medicine that it makes sense to have some sort of restrictions on people getting together in schools and meetings etc.

In 1918, St. Louis introduced these types of restrictions quickly and did much better in the first part of the flu pandemic than Philadelphia, which didn't cancel its parade.

Whether we needed a ban on outdoor picnics or limitation of time spent outdoors to 1 hour is another matter.

@Wreath21
Cute was clearly a typo, no need to be facetious.
It should have been view.

@Wreath21 it was clear to many of us in March 2020 that lockdowns were likely to be cruel and ineffective. People angry that the government broke the rules should really be angry that the government ever imposed those rules on anyone.

@jgw1 Not at all - busy job working with people across two organisations over the past two years, Brownie leader etc etc.

Yet to meet anyone who actually lost things (income/ houses/ jobs) in lockdown who thinks it was worth it. People holed up in nice houses with WFH jobs baking banana bread - more than happy to lockdown again and again.

@Wreath21

It's not that the virus wasn't/isn't dangerous. It's that so much of the rules imposed in the spring of 2020 were ridiculous puritan bullshit and the government knew this. They knew that socialising outdoors was very low-risk, but they encouraged the police to harass and threaten people for sitting down in parks. They knew that mask-wearing was a simple and reasonably effective way of reducing transmission, yet they told the public masks were useless and should not be worn (up until the point where they decided to order masks to be worn, knowing full well that this would become another divisive flashpoint).

They knew the old and frail were at much higher risk of serious illness and death from Covid... so they sent any sick old, frail people into the care homes so they could give it to other old, frail people (and care workers, underpaid and denied PPE...) while encouraging the police to harass and intimidate young people for stopping to speak to each other on street corners.

Lockdowns were never about public health in the UK. They were a power grab and a mass moral panic to distract people from what the Tories were up to.

Well said. Lockdowns were the middle class safe at home while the working classes fetched them stuff, with no PPE, no vaccines., and not even decent treatments to protect them. It became pretty apparent in Autumn 2020 when cases started building again that all we’d managed to do was kick the wave down the road to winter with much worse consequences.

You know, the more time goes on, the more I agree with Wreath21

The 'not allowed to sit on a bench' thing was ridiculous.
And the mask was a complete 180 degree turn.

Not saying measures were not needed - but it was knee jerk and probably could have been done better. Easy to say in hindsight - but does need thinking about so we can do it better next time (though hoping there's no next time in my lifetime!!).

(triple vaxxed, if you need to know!!)

[quote applesandoranges221]@jgw1 Not at all - busy job working with people across two organisations over the past two years, Brownie leader etc etc.

Yet to meet anyone who actually lost things (income/ houses/ jobs) in lockdown who thinks it was worth it. People holed up in nice houses with WFH jobs baking banana bread - more than happy to lockdown again and again.[/quote]
There is also, of course, the point that any attempt to deal with a public health matter through criminal law was always, always going to disproportionately penalise black, Asian and working class people. The easier targets and those against whom the state disproportionately exercises power. There was never any way round that.

Where are all the posters who were calling on the army to be on the streets to force people to stay at home? That thought fining people and giving them criminal record was a proportional thing to do. Why aren't they here demanding heads on a plate?

[quote Flyonawalk]@Wreath21 it was clear to many of us in March 2020 that lockdowns were likely to be cruel and ineffective. People angry that the government broke the rules should really be angry that the government ever imposed those rules on anyone.[/quote]

@Flyonawalk this is the point for me. I don't care there was an outside party in Spring, the farce is that it wasn't allowed. Get mad at that and be glad we're past it. I'm no fan of his but am wary of the "get Boris out" calls, now that he finally seems to be holding his nerve on restrictions.