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?

@MarshaBradyo I threw a list out there in a previous post. As did another poster.

@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.

Absolutely, and that message was never properly transmitted for a variety of reasons. For pre Omicron strains, there was decent evidence that proper mask wearing could reduce transmission by 10%, but people needed to be better enabled to be aware of this.

[quote Thinkbiglittleone]@WinterGold I think using teachers in that is extremely unfair, lots were still working through this when we didn't know what is was and people were dying in vast numbers.

They are the ones now still trying to navigate educating our children while half their staff are off ill, not because of "stupid restrictions" but actually ill with flu like symptoms that shouldn't be passed on no matter what you call it.

Our teachers have done a great job IMO.[/quote]
I do take your point - and indeed, my DD is a secondary school teacher. Don’t forget, the schools closed down pretty early in the pandemic too except for children of key workers.

I'd like there to be less focus on returning to the office. I understand some jobs can't be done from home, but we're currently being told to go back for no other reason than the government says we should, because city centres are struggling.

This pandemic is going to have lasting impacts, we might not even be aware of what they are yet. Not every business is going to survive, its inevitable. Propping up the high Street might just be throwing money away - money that could be better spent investing in local communities. Move the money.

People around here might not be spending as much in Starbucks on their commute to work, but there's a lovely little coffee shop around the corner that opened last year and it's busy every day.

There are obviously costs and benefits to all measures from do nothing, through to vaccinating a proportion of population, to full on lockdown.

My in laws advocate for more lockdowns too. Despite having all of their vaccines they are vulnerable through age and other health conditions. They are very scared and very worried.

They are frightened by pictures or reports of people going clubbing or to the theatre or even browsing the shops because they perceive that behaviour as really risky. They worry that they might come into contact with one of those people at the supermarket or GPs and then get covid.

So they’d prefer nobody to be able to do any of that sort of thing because they are so fearful. They know they have no control over other people but the government do and they would like them to use it. They don’t think other factors like the economy or kids education is as important.

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.

Yes, I agree. It's a matter of perspective. It might seem cost free to a non driver without these issues, but it clearly isn't for others.

The fact of the matter is that we live in a liberal democracy with a populist government. It's always going to favour a less authoritarian society. Which I think is very much a good thing, in the long run.

@beentoldcomputersaysno

There are obviously costs and benefits to all measures from do nothing, through to vaccinating a proportion of population, to full on lockdown.

Indeed. Nothing is completely impact-free, there are drawbacks and pitfalls to any course of action.

It's called Reductio Ad Absurdum.

@HarrietteNightingale

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.

Yes, I agree. It's a matter of perspective. It might seem cost free to a non driver without these issues, but it clearly isn't for others.

Yes, and I think much of the disagreements about what is and isn’t low-cost/minor/sensible comes from a general failure of people to realise that these aren’t objective descriptors.

“Well, I don’t ever want to go to nightclubs so it’s a low-cost measure to keep those… and my only interest in pubs is going in for a nice meal, so it seems fine to me if the pub has to limit numbers and do table service, I prefer that… so those things are sensible. Giving up my car, this would hugely inconvenience me so it’s obviously silly and we shouldn’t do that. Also I want to go on holiday abroad, but I can easily afford to WFH if isolating and pay for travel PCRs so let’s keep those, it’s sensible… but I don’t like the household mixing limits because I have a big extended family, so that should go.”

[much yelling later]

“why is everyone making such a FUSS, I’m only advocating we keep the easy low-cost things!”

argh, that should be “a low-cost measure to CLOSE those”

There's also a disagreement about whether these measures are temporary short term emergency measures imposed in a surge situation or medium to long term (the so called "zero Covid" approach). Many people see them as emergency measures that should only apply if the NHS is at risk of being overwhelmed.

Not actually seriously suggesting we take away anybody’s cars or nightclubs or booze or McDonalds food or whatever else, just to clarify

@HarrietteNightingale

There's also a disagreement about whether these measures are temporary short term emergency measures imposed in a surge situation or medium to long term (the so called "zero Covid" approach). Many people see them as emergency measures that should only apply if the NHS is at risk of being overwhelmed.

True plus the legal basis most likely won’t be renewed, as it was for the crisis

I mean no one is going to say they want them, are they? Ought, or need, is more to the point.

And usually it's not perpetual, but they want rolling lockdowns so long as covid is around. Or they think by having a long, strict one covid will be defeated. Though I think few people still believe that.

@SantaClawsServiette

I mean no one is going to say they want them, are they? Ought, or need, is more to the point.

And usually it's not perpetual, but they want rolling lockdowns so long as covid is around. Or they think by having a long, strict one covid will be defeated. Though I think few people still believe that.

There is still some harking back to "if we'd closed the borders sooner and locked down faster/ harder" Thankfully less than there was. There were non-travel, community cases traced back retrospectively to January 2020, but that relied on the preservation of appropriate samples and at that point China had only just declared the Wuhan situation. In reality it is probable that there was a lot more in the community concealed by the usual winter ailments.

The most supportive person I know who doesn't understand opposition to restrictions is of course, the type who's barely affected. The change to WFH and not having a short, busy commute to the city suits him very nicely. Wife is a SAHM, and children are mature enough to handle home learning (and not at critical exam stages). His hobby is going down the allotment which was authorised throughout. Doesn't do foreign travel. No health issues in the family. Few elderly relatives left, just the one who he sees on an annual long-distance trip. Never really did socialising and I doubt ever set foot in a nightclub. Can't understand other peoples' lack of enthusiasm for ongoing restrictions in the name of safety.

There is still a strong element of "stay safe" and people expecting a false binary of "safe"/ not safe. There is also still a strong element denial of seeing social and economic costs of measures, weakening, but as we've seen with the recent Plan B phase, still dismissing a multitude of difficulties with masks as "just a little thing".

Prior to Christmas there were lots of pleas to lockdown beyond MN. Discussion shows like Jeremy Vine (radio) are never short of this soundbite. Thank goodness the lamenting that we didn't have a "proper lockdown" with the army on the streets and forms to leave your house have faded.

Ultimately if people want a false state of remaining Covid "safe" and think that can be achieved through keeping rates down with masks/ social distancing/ restrictions on social/ employment contact/ Covid passes/ testing/ vaccination status then there is a strong chance that they are advocating permanent measures. Less likely to be lockdown than it was a couple of months ago, but only because we've managed the winter without going that far with little difference in outcome to European countries that did have stronger measures.

I do take your point - and indeed, my DD is a secondary school teacher. Don’t forget, the schools closed down pretty early in the pandemic too except for children of key workers.

Yes and a lot of those teachers then had to homeschool, a nightmare of its own, but there were those who still remained in classrooms, when it was an unknown and I do think they need a little recognition for this especially when the key worker title got truly stretched, (and thank you to your DD for trying to keep our kids educated and safe at the same time )

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?

I think you were clear enough OP and everyone seemed to know the difference between lockdown and restrictions, I've never know anyone to use lockdown to mean wear a mask, or socially distance, it means lockdown like 2020, it was horrible I don't think you can confuse that, and I think you are right, No one now is really even talking about lockdowns as an option but looking at ways that we may still need restrictions to help areas that are being hit badly with understaffing and unable to operate effectively, due to people actually ill.

or socially distance

Again, "socially distance" can mean different things. The lockdown was a social distancing measure in itself. The idea that people shouldn't see their friends and family apart from those they live with is "social distancing" and yes many people do see that as a "lockdown". What do you specifically mean when you advocate social distancing as a reasonable Covid measure?

Again, "socially distance" can mean different things. The lockdown was a social distancing measure in itself. The idea that people shouldn't see their friends and family apart from those they live with is "social distancing" and yes many people do see that as a "lockdown". What do you specifically mean when you advocate social distancing as a reasonable Covid measure?

I said it's different to lockdown and I have never know one person to confuse the 2 after the horrendous time people had, lockdown is very different to socially distance, very different. To try and say otherwise is ludicrous.

Where did I say I condoned it .

I was blocked on Twitter for asking someone why they thought the mask mandate should be extended to outdoors. I also challenged someone who said they were going to 'hunker down' and do everything online until it's safe. They didn't answer when I pointed out that for them to 'hunker down' other people actually have to go out. Twitter is a real hotbed of nutjobs - as long as they're ok never mind everyone else.

lockdown is very different to socially distance

Fine. What do you personally mean when you say "socially distance" then?

I mean when you need to remain socially distance (about 1 or 2 metres) apart.

Yes, and I think much of the disagreements about what is and isn’t low-cost/minor/sensible comes from a general failure of people to realise that these aren’t objective descriptors.

Definitely! And I think that might explain why requests to explain why they're sensible or where the cost should lie are sometimes met with accusations of bad faith.

I'm another one who wishes people would say what they mean by social distancing. It really does have a range of meanings.