Anyone want a perpetual lockdown

[beentoldcomputersaysno]

I often see posters accused of wanting continual lockdowns, despite their post not suggesting it. I often assume it's done to deflect or antagonise posters who suggest a health measure(s) to adapt to life post-2019. However, is there anyone who posts on this board that does want perpetual lockdowns?

"WFH being allowed but not mandated" has always been the case.

@VikingOnTheFridge

Is proof that big an ask when there are other European countries who've implemented something similar? And if it were genuinely the case that there were no evidence at all, that begs the question of why they'd be called sensible.

Proof of one measure is hard when, understandably, we introduced 10 at the same time. You have no control group, no way to say what each one did on its own.

I think a degree of “balance of probability” needs to be used here, alongside what we do know.

Do masks. Definitely stop particles spreading. Probably help infections stop spreading to some degree. Not a big ask of people (allowing exceptions). Worth carrying on.

Something like spreading tables in pubs out. Probably helps but less proven. Much more impactful to the hospitality industry, don’t carry that on right now

I think asking for proof can be used as a “gotcha” to say nothing is proven to work so why bother

Keeping distances in supermarkets, queues etc

This involves reduced numbers in venues. It is not cost free as people have pointed out. Why do we need this measure when cases are going down?

@HarrietteNightingale

"WFH being allowed but not mandated" has always been the case.

Not for a period of time in 2020. I know some can’t work from home but what I see as sensible would be an ongoing acceptance that people can choose to have more time wfh and not feel forced back into an office (via a commute, public transport etc).

@HarrietteNightingale

Keeping distances in supermarkets, queues etc

This involves reduced numbers in venues. It is not cost free as people have pointed out. Why do we need this measure when cases are going down?

Not convinced it reduces numbers in shops much tbh but I guess neither of us could cite studies proving that

Why do we need it? Well why not? Cases are declining but why remove the parachute too soon. Like I say, probable benefit coupled with low cost/impact. Why so keen to remove even the smaller measures?

My OP was referring to threads in the last few weeks, where I've seen people told they want lockdown if they suggest measures. I have also seen confusion (?) on threads when someone suggests a measure to reduce risk effectively being told it's pointless as it doesn't reduce all risk. I haven't seen anyone suggesting they think eradicating covid is possible or their aim. Do people who suggest measures want zero covid?
So, from what I can see, from this thread, nobody is (now) asking for perpetual lockdowns. By lockdown, I mean a lockdown as in March 2020 or Jan 2021 style, accepting they were different and accepting tiers meant some areas were affected for longer. Maybe some posters refer to any restrictions as lockdown and that's the confusion?

A move towards more WFH where possible is good, yes but it isn't suitable for everyone and it isn't suitable for every business. Some are barely scraping by.

I think asking for proof can be used as a “gotcha” to say nothing is proven to work so why bother

Not when there are countries in Europe who've done similar to this and we can see what's happened with them and with us it can't. The argument you're making here is clearly one that could be used by people who can't explain why they want to do what they want to do and don't like admitting that it isn't so sensible after all, though.

Except we are doing things to reduce the harms. Reducing pollution by making people buy cleaner cars, minimum pricing for alcohol, encouraging a healthier diet and I noticed you left it out because it didn’t suit your narrative but we did ban smoking in indoor public places. Nobody whined that we just have to live with lung cancer and if anyone wanted to avoid it they should just stay at home.

There are many things we did do, yes, well spotted. What I am saying is there are a whole lot of other things we could have done and didn’t, because - once again! - there are costs and benefits and not everyone agrees on how to weigh them.

That’s my point. That we could do X and Y and Z things for cancer, and we have decided to do X and entourage people to do a bit of Y and not do Z. Likewise for covid, there are a whole lot of things we could do in the long term, and we’re probably going to do some of them and not do others. You’re going to say “but some people want us to do NOTHING about covid!” but that is an extreme view - making vaccines freely available is one thing that I think almost everyone agrees js very far from ‘nothing’, eg.

I really don’t think the idea of weighing costs and benefits and different people’s different views is that new an idea? There is no one voice of ‘The Science’ that’s going to boom down from heaven and dictate to us, there is no one definite set of things that the sensible people all want and the selfish people all don’t for no reason other than silly selfishness. We have to accept it’s complicated.

@VikingOnTheFridge

I think asking for proof can be used as a “gotcha” to say nothing is proven to work so why bother

Not when there are countries in Europe who've done similar to this and we can see what's happened with them and with us it can't. The argument you're making here is clearly one that could be used by people who can't explain why they want to do what they want to do and don't like admitting that it isn't so sensible after all, though.

Which country in Europe had masks but no other Covid measures? Which had 2m distance in supermarkets but nothing else?

No country or even region anywhere had only one measure so we can see the impact of that measure alone. We have to go with broader evidence of what probably works or we’d do nothing.

Are you saying not to have any measures in place at all?

There is some merit in discussing the effectiveness of masks, specifically types of masks, against Omicron (though to do so tends to get the hard-of-thinking panickers to start branding you an anti-vaxxing murderous libertarian). There should perhaps be more information available as to whether fabric masks and the flimsier paper ones (rather than the N95 type) do much more than virtue-signal. It would seem likely that they are better than nothing, but, if you need higher-grade ones for effective protection, that message needs to be put out there sooner rather than later.

I mean, I don’t want to live with lung cancer and I don’t personally need a car, so I presume everybody else will be ditching theirs? No? How SELFISH and UNSCIENTIFIC!

I really don’t think the idea of weighing costs and benefits and different people’s different views is that new an idea? There is no one voice of ‘The Science’ that’s going to boom down from heaven and dictate to us, there is no one definite set of things that the sensible people all want and the selfish people all don’t for no reason other than silly selfishness. We have to accept it’s complicated

There seem to be quite a few people who don't get this yet. We hear mention of 'The Science' most days.

@GoldenOmber spot on
Cost/benefit. Even if benefit is small and probable, if cost is low we should continue.

I do disagree that there aren’t people saying do nothing. Unfortunately there are

Maybe some posters refer to any restrictions as lockdown and that's the confusion?

Some people definitely refer to social distancing measures in particular and restrictions on hospitality and shops etc as this, yes. I just don't see that it's helpful to take the phrase "perpetual lockdown" to mean that posters genuinely think some people literally want everyone walled into their houses indefinitely. They are just using exaggerated rhetoric to make a point, that they are frustrated by the vagueness around when restrictions which don't seem to be having much effect can be stopped. Or they are saying that some expectations of stopping most transmission of Covid are unrealistic and unfair to business owners etc.

[quote BillMasen]@GoldenOmber spot on
Cost/benefit. Even if benefit is small and probable, if cost is low we should continue.

I do disagree that there aren’t people saying do nothing. Unfortunately there are[/quote]
Well, we also need to look at where the cost is falling. Like I said, the cost to me of banning cars would be low and the benefit would be greater - but obviously it would have a much more negative impact on others. Ditto distancing, masks, whatever.

I haven’t yet heard anyone suggest we scrap all free vaccines but there are extremists everywhere so maybe they exist.

@Wreath21

There is some merit in discussing the effectiveness of masks, specifically types of masks, against Omicron (though to do so tends to get the hard-of-thinking panickers to start branding you an anti-vaxxing murderous libertarian). There should perhaps be more information available as to whether fabric masks and the flimsier paper ones (rather than the N95 type) do much more than virtue-signal. It would seem likely that they are better than nothing, but, if you need higher-grade ones for effective protection, that message needs to be put out there sooner rather than later.

That’s fair. I understand the evidence is yes, that even basic ones are better than nothing and mandating those is easier than trying to mandate better ones

Take the small benefit you can get rather than nothing at all (or push for the big one that’s unrealistic)

The trouble is, this government is still refusing to introduce one genuinely effective measure, the lack of which is genuinely harmful, and that is sick pay. People are still avoiding tests, crossing their fingers and hoping their little cough or little sniffle is 'just a cold' because they cannot afford to lose two weeks' pay if they have to stay at home. Most of these low-paid people work in client-facing industries, doing jobs that cannot be done from home.

Yet too many would prefer to whine and scold about how 'unnecessary' it is to socialise in person, and how it's essential to forcibly vaccinate everyone else, etc.

[quote BillMasen]@GoldenOmber spot on
Cost/benefit. Even if benefit is small and probable, if cost is low we should continue.

I do disagree that there aren’t people saying do nothing. Unfortunately there are[/quote]
What do you want to keep?

Well, we also need to look at where the cost is falling. Like I said, the cost to me of banning cars would be low and the benefit would be greater - but obviously it would have a much more negative impact on others. Ditto distancing, masks, whatever.

Exactly, it's a matter of perspective. I agree, I don't drive. Let's get rid of most private cars, they pollute and burn finite fossil fuels, they kill people on the road. It doesn't affect me so I think that's totally a low cost/high benefit thing to do. Who wouldn't want to do that, that's really selfish.

The point about where the cost falls is a good one. Yep some measures (say ban cars) are very high for some, zero for others.

I’m not advocating those. I was asked what I mean by “sensible” and those to me are not

@HarrietteNightingale

Well, we also need to look at where the cost is falling. Like I said, the cost to me of banning cars would be low and the benefit would be greater - but obviously it would have a much more negative impact on others. Ditto distancing, masks, whatever.

Exactly, it's a matter of perspective. I agree, I don't drive. Let's get rid of most private cars, they pollute and burn finite fossil fuels, they kill people on the road. It doesn't affect me so I think that's totally a low cost/high benefit thing to do. Who wouldn't want to do that, that's really selfish.

Well, that would be people with mobility issues, people who live in remote areas with shit public transport, people who need to transport small children or adults with mobility issues... etc.

Also anyone who needs to transport a lot of heavy or bulky objects on a regular basis.
(Yes, I manage to shift a lot of heavy kit around on a regular basis via trains and buses, but I am a tough old sod and, more importantly, live in - and travel to and from - areas with adequte public transport.)

This is what I mean. No one has advocated banning cars but people are now saying how daft and unfair it would be.

Which country in Europe had masks but no other Covid measures? Which had 2m distance in supermarkets but nothing else?

You suggested a suite of measures, rather than any one in isolation. Thus this is not the appropriate evidential approach.

No country or even region anywhere had only one measure so we can see the impact of that measure alone. We have to go with broader evidence of what probably works or we’d do nothing.

Again though, where's this 'probably' coming from? If you just want to take a punt as you're more comfortable with the idea of doing something than nothing and you think the downsides are worth the chance of improvement, say that. It's understandable.

Are you saying not to have any measures in place at all

I actually think in an English context at least, measures become increasingly moot with time because the population aren't having it. This is liable to get worse not better as the Partygate situation progresses. It simply wouldn't be possible to implement new restrictions now, for example, even if the evidence that they'd actually bring down cases existed. And governments having laws they can't enforce is damaging in the long term, so because of this plus the lack of proof it's achieving anything I've no objection to Plan B going now.

What we need to look at is appropriate support. I'd like to be able to beef up sick pay and employment rights so people who are ill can take time off, provide free high quality masks to all ECV people who want them and better target the vaccination programme so people who want the jabs but face barriers we could tackle with resources (travel difficulties, phobias, access to appointments etc) can get them. The requirement to isolate continuing to exist with no corresponding right to support is disgusting and certainly leads to covid positive people disguising their status to employers.