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?

@VikingOnTheFridge what would you like to see and who should bear the costs/impacts?

My post at 16.13 explains. For the things I want to focus on like sick pay I'm happy for the taxpayer to bear the cost.

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

Ok, but that isn't all people understand when they hear the words "social distancing". It often means restrictions on meeting people.

Plus it really isn't a cost free measure, as it means ensuring that venues don't operate at full capacity.

@Thinkbiglittleone

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

This is a pretty big problem in some sectors financially.

Ok, but that isn't all people understand when they hear the words "social distancing". It often means restrictions on meeting people

I've never seen that or heard that, it has always been described as the same, distancing from the people you meet socially and when explained during the changes in the restrictions it was clear what that meant, not much else was clear at times, it that was, they even did nice little diagrams to help.

Plus it really isn't a cost free measure, as it means ensuring that venues don't operate at full capacity.
I never stated it was, you must be getting me confused or misquoting me again.

This is a pretty big problem in some sectors financially.

Yes it is.

I've never seen that or heard that

"Social distancing" is a range of measures designed to reduce contact, not just drawing 2m lines on the floor to space people out. That isn't what it means, it's a minor aspect of it. If you want "social distancing" to be mandatory (which is the only way it will happen to any great extent) this can mean imposing quite severe restrictions on people meeting others. Otherwise, if you don't mean that, don't be surprised when people misunderstand you and maybe try to be less vague.

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

It does. It's unhelpful.

"Social distancing" is a range of measures designed to reduce contact, not just drawing 2m lines on the floor to space people out. That isn't what it means, it's a minor aspect of it. If you want "social distancing" to be mandatory (which is the only way it will happen to any great extent) this can mean imposing quite severe restrictions on people meeting others. Otherwise, if you don't mean that, don't be surprised when people misunderstand you and maybe try to be less vague.

It means you are distanced from others when socialising ?? They give many examples of what that covers in different settings at the time.

It was very clear what it meant, maybe people were unclear of what was in place at what time, but the definition was Crystal, it really wasn't very difficult to understand at the time.
Maybe that was part of the problem, people not taking note of the explanations given at the time and then getting confused when people use the term in its correct meaning.

Again I never said I wanted it to be mandatory

I don't want any more lockdowns but I do think it would be sensible to accept that it would be beneficial to make changes for the short/medium term because covid isn't going anywhere in the next year or so. And to keep cases lower, it means a multi-layered approach of protections that give us the ability to do the things that are important to us, whilst staying as safe as we can.
For me, that does mean masks in shops, on public transport, health settings etc. People who are vulnerable should feel safe to access essential services. Obviously I appreciate that some people are exempt.
I do think we should keep the requirement to isolate and that should be financially supported by the state.
I think we need to look at air quality/ventilation/filtration in public spaces, and especially schools, and again that should be paid for by the state. If it reduces spread, and consequent sickness for children and their families it should have both economic and health benefits as a payback anyway. Our priorities are wrong. A HEPA filter in every classroom would cost half what the Royal Yacht is costing the taxpayer.

I don't have a problem with vaccine passports for non essential services, especially if there's an alternative choice to have a negative test too (although there are issues with this as vaccines only reduce spread not stop it completely; lateral flow tests aren't entirely accurate; and of course if it's being done on trust we can't always trust the general population to do them properly anyway. But still I think as a public health measure it would have an impact on reducing spread so I would support it).
I think the discussion is often very binary - total lockdown vs total 'freedom' - there's an area between those where we will need to be for a little while. Probably for another year or so. Unfortunately the government messaging has been poor and their behaviour despicable so people are not inclined to listen, and the mixed messages and yo-yo changing of the rules doesn't help. They should never have got rid of masks in July 2021 for a start. Boris Johnson seems to be getting rid of them now to save his job rather than because it's safe from a public health perspective to get rid of them.
Other countries seem to have managed it so much better than us and are watching us with horror. It makes me very sad, and frustrated, and to not want to live in England anymore :-(

It means you are distanced from others when socialising ?? They give many examples of what that covers in different settings at the time.

You're moving the goalposts, aren't you? You only mentioned people spacing themselves out when you were asked to clarify. This is the problem with these threads.

Obviously "social distancing" can mean a range of different things, as you have now acknowledged. Thanks for eventually clarifying. It would help if you could specify what you think are reasonable measures more clearly in future so everyone is on the same page. Then we can have the necessary grown up conversation about what is and isn't a reasonable measure at any given time.

You're moving the goalposts, aren't you? You only mentioned people spacing themselves out when you were asked to clarify. This is the problem with these threads.

No I am not, I haven't changed my definition!!
Show me where ?..

You have misquoted me twice, made assumptions,put words in my mouth, now trying to make out im moving the goalposts because you have no response.... this is what's wrong with these threads.

Obviously "social distancing" can mean a range of different things, as you have now acknowledged. Thanks for eventually clarifying. It would help if you could specify what you think are reasonable measures more clearly in future so everyone is on the same page. Then we can have the necessary grown up conversation about what is and isn't a reasonable measure at any given time.

No I haven't !!!!! it means the same thing and they clearly shown how that is applied in different settings, the same thing in different settings.

My god, some people just can't understand the basics, no wonder we struggle so much during this. Can't understand clear guidance !

I have not misquoted you @Thinkbiglittleone

I asked you what you personally meant by "socially distance" when you said "lockdown is very different to social distance"

You said:

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

Social distancing means a lot more than that. As I clearly pointed out. And you said "you had never heard that". You seem incapable of making a clear point and either don't realise how confused you are or are just on the wind up, so I'll disengage there.

@HarrietteNightingale you even said fine, when I highlighted you misquoted me. (Instead of an apology, which well, let's just let that go)

I think it's clear I am not the one confused.
I have made my point very clearly, you just fail/want to not see it.
This must have been the same for the social distancing definitions at the time, can interpret simply information.

So yes, best to disengage when you have no response.

** That should say

You cant interpret simple information correctly.

But does social distancing mean things like you can't sit right next to your friend in your kitchen, you have to stay 2 metres apart? What about in a cafe, can you sit at the same table as your brother masks off eating cake even though you don't live together? Can you hug your sister, can your children have a friend round to play after school?

Or is it just keeping 2 metres apart from strangers in some limited public settings? It's actually not always clear to me how far people extend the idea of social distancing when they are talking about it, even when it is explained as staying 2 metres apart. At the extreme extent where you're not allowed to get within 2 metres of anyone you don't live with, that's actually got a fair few similarities to lockdown, though not all aspects. At the most relaxed end, where it's only spacing out queues and limiting venue capacities and so forth, I do wonder what it's achieving, assuming people are in normal contact with friends and family and children playing normally etc.

But does social distancing mean things like you can't sit right next to your friend in your kitchen, you have to stay 2 metres apart? What about in a cafe, can you sit at the same table as your brother masks off eating cake even though you don't live together? Can you hug your sister, can your children have a friend round to play after school?

But these all fall understand same rule, different setting.
Socially distance from members not in your household, unless any of those people above live with you, you socially distance from them ?
You could meet socially distanced outside first, so meet people at a social distance still, but outdoors rather than in your home, the socially distanced aspect remained the same, the setting just changed.
when all that was in place

Or is it just keeping 2 metres apart from strangers in some limited public settings?

Until they moved it to the "rule of 6" which you could then meet with 6 people outside of your household, then 6 people indoors at pubs etc

At the extreme extent where you're not allowed to get within 2 metres of anyone you don't live with, that's actually got a fair few similarities to lockdown, though not all aspects.

Lockdown you couldn't see anyone, not at any distance, you had to stay home, you were locked down as were many venues. Then they gradually lifted that to put in restrictions, as advised along the way.

At the most relaxed end, where it's only spacing out queues and limiting venue capacities and so forth, I do wonder what it's achieving, assuming people are in normal contact with friends and family and children playing normally etc.

Yes I think thats what a lot of people were thinking, if we can mix with everyone, why not in a shop. I can understand people being a bit confused with the reasoning behind the restrictions. I think they did it under the thing to minimise contact , so you may meet up with your friends but still minimise unnecessary contact.

@HarrietteNightingale

I agree, Wreath and I think many people have struggled mentally with the government being able to control their lives to that extent.

I did find it very strange that it was actually illegal to visit my own dad or my gran in their private properties. I look back and think “what the fuck?” and I’m angry and sad.

I did find it very strange that it was actually illegal to visit my own dad or my gran in their private properties. I look back and think “what the fuck?” and I’m angry and sad.

Yes. They won't get that level of compliance again with this.

But it seems like you're just describing past restrictions rather than what you would envision social distancing to mean in the short or long term if it was used as a 'sensible measure' going forward? Full disclosure, I didn't live through the pandemic in the UK, just visited and heard about it from friends and family, but I did keep up with the official laws and guidance and I know what has happened (on paper at least), but isn't this thread about what people want to happen in the future?

Where I live physical distancing rules are theoretically still in place but only in a very few public spaces and everyone fully ignores it anyway, which has been the case for a long time. So here it's really an obsolete thing anyway and when they remove the rule nothing will actually change in terms of behaviour and infection risk, although it will affect some businesses.

I cannot believe Harriet didn't know about social distancing. The concept has been in our faces (and ears) for the last two years! It's now second nature to me at the supermarket

@VikingOnTheFridge

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

It really doesn't in the context of this pandemic, and to claim so is simply being vexatious. You know what others mean by saying it. You would be nit-picking to ask them explain further - eg. 'What country does this and to what effect?' 'Show me the studies that prove it makes a difference,' or 'How far is enough? 1m? 5? 10? Would a field be enough for you?'

This sort of hectoring is frustrating, and I find it difficult to understand what you (not just you, but others too) would get out of it.

[quote PandorasBex]@VikingOnTheFridge

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

It really doesn't in the context of this pandemic, and to claim so is simply being vexatious. You know what others mean by saying it. You would be nit-picking to ask them explain further - eg. 'What country does this and to what effect?' 'Show me the studies that prove it makes a difference,' or 'How far is enough? 1m? 5? 10? Would a field be enough for you?'

This sort of hectoring is frustrating, and I find it difficult to understand what you (not just you, but others too) would get out of it.[/quote]
It really does, though. I, in my turn, find it equally odd and frustrating that some of you claim it doesn't and then complain, even imply bad faith when people entirely reasonably ask you what you mean by it. I don't think most people who are vague about what measures they want and what they mean by them are being deliberately disingenuous but some of you just do not help. If you mean 2m in shop queues, limited numbers in venues so tables can be 2m apart, you can just say that so your meaning is quite clear.