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?

It can also be helpful to others what SD means in other countries;

"Social distancing" is an international public health term that it seems many people don't understand all that well, which is very clear from this thread. It does not just mean what you've personally decided it means. It is a wide ranging group of measures aimed at reducing social contact in multiple ways. How is it helpful to use vague terms that people have different understanding of without clarifying what you mean, and then getting aggressive and evasive when that's pointed out?

As I said, it's like "support bubbles" all over again.

As for the toxicity and division - you may wish to look in the mirror.

Yet more projection of your own behaviour

Here's a reminder (I've bolded some important bits):

What is social distancing?
The practice of social distancing means staying home and away from others as much as possible to help prevent spread of COVID-19. The practice of social distancing encourages the use of things such as online video and phone communication instead of in-person contact.
As communities reopen and people are more often in public, the term “physical distancing” (instead of social distancing) is being used to reinforce the need to stay at least 6 feet from others, as well as wearing face masks. Historically, social distancing was also used interchangeably to indicate physical distancing which is defined below. However, social distancing is a strategy distinct from the physical distancing behavior.

https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/conditions-and-diseases/coronavirus/coronavirus-social-distancing-and-self-quarantine

Stop misrepresenting my posts please, and move on. It's petty, toxic and spiteful, and all the snide uses of "these people" by you and other posters are uncalled for. I'm not "these people". I haven't come just to stir. I have opinions which are every bit as valid as anyone's. This whole thread is basically just an excuse to sneer at people anyway.

I'm not an antivaxxer. I followed all the roolz. I just disagree with you. I'm very happy not to engage with you as I think it's a waste of time anyway, but I'm politely requesting that you and others here stop lying about what I've said and trying to claim I'm twisting things which again is pretty laughable projection.

I'll own up. I want a selective lockdown where my DC can still go to Uni and have a social life, but i don't ever have to go back to the office

I'm sure many people can sympathise with that version

Could it be possible, even, that a country might simplify health guidance for their citizens for making the term 'social distancing' refer just to monitoring the personal space around you in public areas and keeping a distance of 1.5m between yourself and others? Because that is how it is in my country. I appreciate it is different in yours.

Yes it is, but the term social distancing has a wider public health meaning which predates this particular coronavirus. Your simplified regional definition doesn't apply in other areas. That's why several people have requested more clarity when people are a bit vague. It's that simple. No need for unpleasantness from anyone.

There are absolutely people who crave perpetual lockdown.

Source: www.economist.com/img/b/640/336/90/sites/default/files/images/print-edition/20210710_BRC798.png

I haven't seen anyone saying they want a perpetual lockdown (except a couple of now-banned posters, who I'll assume were trolls).

However, in the summer, several posters who wanted restrictions to continue shared this Ipsos Mori poll . They were using it to show that the majority of the population wanted some restrictions to continue for at least a month. However, the poll also said 43% wanted night clubs closed "until covid-19 is under control worldwide" (so for several years, at least?) and 19% of the population want a 10pm curfew "permanently, regardless of the risk from Covid-19"

When I pointed that out on a thread about the survey, a poster argued that a permanent 10pm curfew is necessary to reduce crime I don't know whether other MNers agreed with her, and I haven't seen anyone arguing for it since.

@HarrietteNightingale

It can also be helpful to others what SD means in other countries;

"Social distancing" is an international public health term that it seems many people don't understand all that well, which is very clear from this thread. It does not just mean what you've personally decided it means. It is a wide ranging group of measures aimed at reducing social contact in multiple ways. How is it helpful to use vague terms that people have different understanding of without clarifying what you mean, and then getting aggressive and evasive when that's pointed out?

I haven't "personally decided" anything. I stated that. I told you what my government's guidelines were. Nothing vague or evasive about that.

I also don't need PA reminders about what social distancing is. I am very well aware.

Stop misrepresenting my posts please, and move on. It's petty, toxic and spiteful, and all the snide uses of "these people" by you and other posters are uncalled for. I'm not "these people". I haven't come just to stir. I have opinions which are every bit as valid as anyone's. This whole thread is basically just an excuse to sneer at people anyway.

I'm not an antivaxxer. I followed all the roolz. I just disagree with you. I'm very happy not to engage with you as I think it's a waste of time anyway, but I'm politely requesting that you and others here stop lying about what I've said and trying to claim I'm twisting things which again is pretty laughable projection.

All of this equally applies to you. You are trying to shut my opinion down and say it isn't valid for for a number of reasons - I don't live in the UK, I'm not using the proper definitions, I'm being vague (I'm not), I twist your words, etc.

I'm more than happy to not respond to you any further as you don't seem to read past the first few words.

Absolutely not. Lockdowns scuppered my DC’s mental health. Even DS who has really rallied after an awful time in winter ‘21, told me yesterday he is much more anxious now than he was before lockdown 2. Nothing I didn’t really know, but him vocalising it makes it more real.
Obviously lockdowns were necessary pre-vaccine but even though I hate Boris, I think not going further into restrictions was the right call (although I don’t agree with coming out of Plan B yet in England, there’s not much hardship in mask wearing/covid pass).

Probably like many others, I am quite pro-mask, especially in settings such as the doctor’s surgery. In fact I’ll take a 10-metre rule there, please! Masks on public transport in the winter isn’t such a bad idea, either.

However, those surveys showing what restrictions people would prefer indicates a level of bitterness and mealy-mouthedness. A lot of older people dislike young people per se. I’m sure some would support full lockdown for anyone under 25…. I remember after restrictions had lifted there were posts on the local neighbours’ group moaning about why there were kids playing football in the park and why couldn’t they stay at home. (Probably same joyful individual who made request for no Christmas lights on houses…)

As for the toxicity and division - you may wish to look in the mirror.

That’s a bit ott, a pp discussing isn’t a term doing that.

On SD I get the 1m or 2m definition but when people include it in lists sometimes they mean standing apart at the supermarket rather than half capacity at theatres, on planes or in schools etc. One is much easier and cheaper than the other. The latter requires financial support and has huge impact on many sectors.

I think that a lot of people (round here, at any rate) are naturally socially distancing now. Breathing down someone’s neck in a queue or jostling at the bananas in the supermarket are unacceptable. So is social kissing (yay!!) as people seem to greet with a little wave now.

It’s only the stupid who believe that a theatre can survive if there are only two people per row. I think all the “lives before the economy!” people should be rounded up and forced to watch an instructional video (on zoom of course) on finance and where money comes from.

@PandorasBex

*@VikingOnTheFridge*

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.

Okay. What I mean by 'social distancing' is the practice of keeping a distance between yourself and others (who you don't know) of 1.5m in public spaces. Where I live, that's always been the definition and nothing else. The practice of keeping tables apart, etc. is termed 'physical distancing' here and is quite separate.

Right. It's useful and positive to have this clarification now. As you don't live in the UK, and you're presumably aware that you're talking to a forum where the majority do, best in future not to assume people are acting in bad faith when they state that a term you only understand to have one meaning actually has had multiple uses where they are.

@Siepie

I haven't seen anyone saying they want a perpetual lockdown (except a couple of now-banned posters, who I'll assume were trolls).

However, in the summer, several posters who wanted restrictions to continue shared this Ipsos Mori poll . They were using it to show that the majority of the population wanted some restrictions to continue for at least a month. However, the poll also said 43% wanted night clubs closed "until covid-19 is under control worldwide" (so for several years, at least?) and 19% of the population want a 10pm curfew "permanently, regardless of the risk from Covid-19"

When I pointed that out on a thread about the survey, a poster argued that a permanent 10pm curfew is necessary to reduce crime I don't know whether other MNers agreed with her, and I haven't seen anyone arguing for it since.

Another unfortunate side effect of Covid was how much it encouraged and enabled tiresome cunts like the poster described - pre-Covid they had to content themselves with things like moving into a flat near a popular live music venue and then complaining endlessly about the noise and trying to get the place shut down, or spreading rumours that a neighbour is a sex worker/drug dealer because the person has too many visitors...

There was a poster arguing people to go into 'hibernation' in Jan/Feb for the next few years or until the threat had passed. Those posts were just before Christmas IIRC. Interesting choice of words.

Those are extreme examples, I hope. But it does speak to a wider trend.

There were definitely people who craved perpetual lockdown for the vulnerable .
Seen numerous posts of people saying we should have shielded the vulnerable abd everyone else crack on.
One person even suggested that the EC vulnerable give up their jobs and give them to hospitality workers.
Another wanted the vulnerable ti to stay at home temporarily ti,avoid the rest of us being locked up. We weren't even in Lockdown at that point.

@TheKeatingFive I found this post really interesting word choice
The vulnerable should stay at home temporarily to avoid everyone else being locked up.
We weren't even in Lockdown at that point.

I often assume it's done to deflect or antagonise posters who suggest a health measure(s) to adapt to life post-2019.

I'd love to know what 'measures' you mean by this. Because lots of people call for 'measures until it's safe' but their definition of safe is 0 covid which is unrealistic and impossible. As often their definition of measures is shutting things down without calling it lockdown. There's plenty of people not actually calling for lockdown but asking for a situation that could only occur with a perpetual lockdown and can you really say these are different things?

The “safe” crew have no idea. Eliminating covid would involve a lockdown of gargantuan proportions: two months of everyone worldwide staying inside for two months. No healthcare, no utilities, no food deliveries, no food production, no police….

Yes, I remember the suggestion of an annual Jan/Feb hibernation, and the suggestion we should move Christmas to July

@goawaystormy

I often assume it's done to deflect or antagonise posters who suggest a health measure(s) to adapt to life post-2019.

I'd love to know what 'measures' you mean by this. Because lots of people call for 'measures until it's safe' but their definition of safe is 0 covid which is unrealistic and impossible. As often their definition of measures is shutting things down without calling it lockdown. There's plenty of people not actually calling for lockdown but asking for a situation that could only occur with a perpetual lockdown and can you really say these are different things?

Which brings us back to the point about needing clear terminology. The thread as a whole has really demonstrated that.

Another reason that most pro-lockdown/pro-restrictions people are always comfortably off, with secure jobs, nice homes and amenable families to share them with, is because these fuckers have nothing else to worry about so WAAA VIRUS WAA defines their lives - because it's something that could actually affect and hurt them.
They've been telling themselves for years that young people can't buy homes because they eat too many avocados, that benefit claimants just don't want to work, that the police will protect and serve you as long as you're submissive and obedient and don't talk back... even that women will be safe from assault as long as they dress modestly and don't drink too much.
This is also why such people were shitting their beds and bawling incessantly about 'covidiots' rather than question arbitrary and harmful rules.

In real life - I’m actually pretty impressed with the way people had responded. Most people are considerate, seem to understand etc.
It is only on social media that I hear things like ‘ring fence the vulnerable’. Or that they are ‘written off’, deemed expendable, or that that are not a valuable part of our society - that they don’t have families, children, that they don’t have important jobs to carry out etc.
It absolutely sickens me that there is a sector of society who think that way, clearly out to find ‘comrades in arms’ on social media.

What horrifies me more is the same sector of people are equally happy to think they ‘speak’ for working class people - or are more than happy to use the mental health of others, children - or suddenly show concern for the needs of the vulnerable if they can use this as ammunition to get what they want.
And what do they want? Personal freedom. Their self interests satisfied. To feel like they are different, better, have superior knowledge. It’s rampant individualism and greed.

@Emergency73

In real life - I’m actually pretty impressed with the way people had responded. Most people are considerate, seem to understand etc. It is only on social media that I hear things like ‘ring fence the vulnerable’. Or that they are ‘written off’, deemed expendable, or that that are not a valuable part of our society - that they don’t have families, children, that they don’t have important jobs to carry out etc. It absolutely sickens me that there is a sector of society who think that way, clearly out to find ‘comrades in arms’ on social media. What horrifies me more is the same sector of people are equally happy to think they ‘speak’ for working class people - or are more than happy to use the mental health of others, children - or suddenly show concern for the needs of the vulnerable if they can use this as ammunition to get what they want. And what do they want? Personal freedom. Their self interests satisfied. To feel like they are different, better, have superior knowledge. It’s rampant individualism and greed.

Ah, another post moralising whilst failing to even acknowledge the existence of any of those vulnerable people who you find inconvenient to your argument. Standard.

I did have a particular giggle though at the complete failure to consider the possibility that anyone you disagree with might be working class themselves. Says a lot.

It’s rampant individualism and greed.

I find it utterly mind blowing that you're describing people's desire to lead ordinary lives in these terms. Wanting to spend time with their friends and family, for their children to be educated, to occasionally have a drink/meal with friends.

Are you actually for real?

goawaystormy
I often assume it's done to deflect or antagonise posters who suggest a health measure(s) to adapt to life post-2019.

I'd love to know what 'measures' you mean by this. Because lots of people call for 'measures until it's safe' but their definition of safe is 0 covid which is unrealistic and impossible. As often their definition of measures is shutting things down without calling it lockdown. There's plenty of people not actually calling for lockdown but asking for a situation that could only occur with a perpetual lockdown and can you really say these are different things?

@Goawaystormy, I've seen it said for varying suggestions from posters, ranging from timings of opening things up, concerns raised from CEV, use of hepa filters etc. The types of posts I'm referring to have not mentioned zero covid. Is zero covid an assumption you're making or do the posters you're referring to state that? I stated my definition of lockdown on an earlier post. Restrictions (to me) are more like different size pieces of a pie (lockdown). How do you see it?

I'm severely immunosuppressed, the vaccine don't work for me. I don't want lockdowns at all.
I do want pre infection (not post infection) protection like others get from the vaccine. There are drugs available in other countries that work to protect the immunosuppressed but our gov doesn't seem bothered to let us have them. It would avoid hospitalisation and death for my group.
In the meantime I do worry about catching covid from my school age child, or from my partner who will be working more outside the home now that restrictions are lifted. I had to give up work due to risk, and can't live in public without a serious risk, especially when self isolation goes in March it will be even worse.
I will wear a mask if I am in public and I do feel that people will be more likely to verbally abuse me for that now that restrictions have ended, as I look healthy so will be branded as a hypochondriac or lockdown enthusiast. People call it virtue signalling or nappy wearers, bed wetters, 'you don't need to wear one love, etc'.
I just hope the government will let us have the protection we need pre infection and I'll be back to normal life like a shot, although my job has gone.