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?

Remember many of these threads, there was all the ones about panic buying things. One of which was toilet paper and people saying that covid didn’t cause any toileting issues. Article in the daily mail yesterday might offer some insight…

www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-10093137/Brits-masturbated-25-lockdown-study-suggests.html

Yes of course "cheese in coffee" is a myth. Nobody cares.

A lot of things were actually real though:
Curtain twitchers threatening to report their neighbors for going out too many times
A poster being slagged off for letting her children touch stones and twigs in the park
People telling posters to leave small children alone in the car or house while shopping

Just before I gave up on MN for a bit back then it was thread after thread of ‘Can I do this’ , ‘can I do that’ and it always seemed to be a resounding no.
As if no minor decision could be made without starting a thread on MN about it first.

The whole thread is here and makes for both hilarious and horrifying reading in equal measure. www.mumsnet.com/Talk/coronavirus/a3871017-People-demanding-a-full-lock-down?msgid=95373300#95373300

The number of posts on there in fecking April 2020 saying “we need a PROPER lockdown, this isn’t enough” is mind-boggling.

I am convinced that there is no degree of lockdown harsh enough that some people will consider a ‘proper lockdown’. None at all. Everything is too soft.

@Wreath21

No - I think we do have to be accountable, but positively accountable. Individualism is deeply ingrained in our Western culture, and we have a very individualistic government currently representing us. I don’t think a defeatist, it’s not our problem, they are so corrupt that there is no point in voting attitude will change things for the better.
One factor that I think - potentially - has cause this pandemic, but could absolutely cause future pandemics is mass consumerism.
With lockdowns - and a global pandemic, both cause harm. A virus that is out of control causes harm, lockdowns cause harm. Faced with two harmful scenarios - which is likely to cause less harm - and that needs to be considered not just a personal, local level, not just for the UK, Europe - but globally. 2020 saw over one hundred countries worldwide, the majority of Europe and half of humanity on lockdown. Lockdown put the world on halt until the vaccine was created. So was it necessary then? Yes. Many, many millions more would have died. Now that we have a way to control, no - I don’t think more lockdowns are needed. In terms of harm - I think a lockdown would be more harmful than the virus. Unless things get out of control.
But I hate the suggestion of ‘ring fence the vulnerable’ - and I don’t think even our woeful government have gone THAT far. To assume that the vulnerable can be somehow segregated from the rest of society, to place no value on the effect this would have on the vulnerable/their mental health, their families - to suggest that the vulnerable are not a very, very valuable part of our society offends me greatly.

The Tories show signs of that kind of attitude, but to outwardly think that is a viable option screams of extreme individualism to me. And if we think the Tories are bad - that is a far, far worse ideal - and YES we do need to accountable for such a suggestion.

Don’t let the pandemic and rubbish government push us to a ‘survival of the fittest’ way of thinking.

Those who wanted ever more draconian lockdown at the start are probably the same as those who delight at strict and inflexible adherence to the rules that remain.

The ones moaning on FB about a mum driving to a recreation ground with her kids are now the ones who insist you must not drive your child 1/2 mile to school if you have Covid despite the fact that you won't get out of the car, just in case you had a serious accident - no matter that the child misses out on yet more education.

They probably live miserable and restricted lives, and like to feel others are doing the same.

@GoldenOmber That is really interesting, thanks for linking.

The people who shouted for huge restrictions will probably soon claim they didn’t. It will be like finding people who claimed to resist invasions and oppression - everyone likes to think they stood up for human rights instead of just rolling over.

No more lockdowns surely. The harm inflicted on the most vulnerable has been dismal. And the people who insisted on it dare to think that they care about human life.

[quote Emergency73]@Wreath21

No - I think we do have to be accountable, but positively accountable. Individualism is deeply ingrained in our Western culture, and we have a very individualistic government currently representing us. I don’t think a defeatist, it’s not our problem, they are so corrupt that there is no point in voting attitude will change things for the better.
One factor that I think - potentially - has cause this pandemic, but could absolutely cause future pandemics is mass consumerism.
With lockdowns - and a global pandemic, both cause harm. A virus that is out of control causes harm, lockdowns cause harm. Faced with two harmful scenarios - which is likely to cause less harm - and that needs to be considered not just a personal, local level, not just for the UK, Europe - but globally. 2020 saw over one hundred countries worldwide, the majority of Europe and half of humanity on lockdown. Lockdown put the world on halt until the vaccine was created. So was it necessary then? Yes. Many, many millions more would have died. Now that we have a way to control, no - I don’t think more lockdowns are needed. In terms of harm - I think a lockdown would be more harmful than the virus. Unless things get out of control.
But I hate the suggestion of ‘ring fence the vulnerable’ - and I don’t think even our woeful government have gone THAT far. To assume that the vulnerable can be somehow segregated from the rest of society, to place no value on the effect this would have on the vulnerable/their mental health, their families - to suggest that the vulnerable are not a very, very valuable part of our society offends me greatly.

The Tories show signs of that kind of attitude, but to outwardly think that is a viable option screams of extreme individualism to me. And if we think the Tories are bad - that is a far, far worse ideal - and YES we do need to accountable for such a suggestion.

Don’t let the pandemic and rubbish government push us to a ‘survival of the fittest’ way of thinking.[/quote]
The Tories, like you, were happy to enact policies that made life actively more dangerous for lots of vulnerable people. Basically if your vulnerability was due to covid restrictions rather than covid itself, or actually even if it was due a combination of the two given the way many elderly and disabled people suffered and died for lack of the usual routine and companionship, tough shit on you.

It was never survival of the fittest, it was survival of those most politically expedient to prioritise. There's a big fuckoff distinction.

@GoldenOmber I bow to your superior search skills

Bloody hell, very first response on that thread is 'Milk and bread do not need to be purchased every few days. They are not essentials.' I was also surprised to see one poster calling for moderation who later adopted a more extreme view.

Looking back really does bring back what a horrible time it was. I try to be forgiving though - for most people, I don't think they were delighting in finally being able to unleash their secret inner nastiness. I think they were just terrified and coping with it really badly.

@LyricalBlowToTheJaw

At no point to I say I was happy, I said lockdowns cause harm, and that an out of control virus causes millions of deaths.
Are you saying millions of additional deaths are acceptable? It is those that are vulnerable to Covid that die. Are you saying they are expendable, and their deaths don’t matter?

The people who shouted for huge restrictions will probably soon claim they didn’t. It will be like finding people who claimed to resist invasions and oppression - everyone likes to think they stood up for human rights instead of just rolling over.

Firmly down the April 2020 rabbit hole now. I just did a paranoid search on my own username, and on 3 April 2020 I was shouting at someone that their lockdown date night cheeseboard was lacking olives phew.

[quote Emergency73]@LyricalBlowToTheJaw

At no point to I say I was happy, I said lockdowns cause harm, and that an out of control virus causes millions of deaths.
Are you saying millions of additional deaths are acceptable? It is those that are vulnerable to Covid that die. Are you saying they are expendable, and their deaths don’t matter?[/quote]
Ok, let's not say happy then, let's say willing and advocating for.

You say you understand that lockdown causes harm. For example, a raise in both adult and childhood obesity in the UK, the latter being particularly concerning. Obesity robs years from life, just as sure as covid does, and it affects millions of people too. Are you saying that's acceptable? If so, how is that not the survival of the fittest you decry here?

Definitely children shopping! That pinged my memory and I found this:

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/coronavirus/3924623-DD-shopping-and-2-meters?pg=1

@LyricalBlowToTheJaw

No, and like I said lockdowns cause harm. But I also don’t want millions of people to die from something that is out of control. Half of humanity globally were in lockdown so it wasn’t just some crazy Tory policy. It was to control the infection rate globally, to stop people dying globally until a global solution was found.

I don’t want perpetual lockdowns, but all three national lockdowns came too late. Perhaps if they had come earlier, schools (and possibly businesses) might have reopened more quickly. I also wonder if the Tiers system was actually more counterproductive than effective, but that’s partly because being in Tier 3 within walking distance of open pubs and cafes, but not allowed to go in them seemed more depressing than any other stage of the pandemic. Certainly that was when numbers took off on the Isle of Wight, and it is quite expensive to get there, so presumably there was the same effect elsewhere in places that bordered tier 3. It certainly should have been obvious when we went into Tier 4 that a national lockdown was necessary.
One aspect of the first lockdown I actually liked was only going to the supermarket once a week. My husband is the sort of person who thinks we need to shop if we only have one type of cheese. It didn’t really compensate for the shock of making every damn meal at home, but it helped.
Early on I decided that I just couldn’t afford to worry about hand washing or touching my face or I would go mad. Masks, on the other hand, always seemed a no-brainer. Perhaps I was influenced by Stephen Bush in the New Statesman, who reckoned the evidence for masks was never any weaker than for hand washing: there was just a shortage of masks. Perhaps I just associate hand washing with OCD but had no preconceived objections to masks.
Anyway, I think compulsory masks on public transport are a good thing, and encouraging masks that protect the wearer is a good ideas.
I hope we are past lockdowns. We should be unless something really terrible happens.

Credit for finding that thread goes to CornishYarg not me!

It was absolutely bonkers though. I do try and view it through the lens of people being very scared and latching onto The Rules as the only way to save us all. But FFS there are people there calling for armed soldiers on the streets! What the actual fuck would that have achieved?

[quote Emergency73]@LyricalBlowToTheJaw

No, and like I said lockdowns cause harm. But I also don’t want millions of people to die from something that is out of control. Half of humanity globally were in lockdown so it wasn’t just some crazy Tory policy. It was to control the infection rate globally, to stop people dying globally until a global solution was found.[/quote]
Again though, how is you saying that lockdowns cause harm but you think they're preferable to the harm caused by not locking down anything different to the survival of the fittest you're decrying here? The only difference is which group of vulnerable people you think should be prioritised.

@LyricalBlowToTheJaw

Because both are evil situations, but a lockdown is the lesser of the two evils.

Life comes first. Surely. Life comes before freedom. You can’t have freedom if you are dead.

[quote Emergency73]@LyricalBlowToTheJaw

Because both are evil situations, but a lockdown is the lesser of the two evils.

Life comes first. Surely. Life comes before freedom. You can’t have freedom if you are dead.[/quote]
If you think this is a point about freedom you have grossly misunderstood. Lockdown increased obesity, domestic violence, social inequality. These things all kill too.

I've no actual objection to people who understand that, and say they still think it was better to protect the vulnerable who'd benefit from lockdown over the vulnerable who'd suffer because of it. But don't delude yourself it's anything other than the exact same mentality you decry in others.

Credit for finding that thread goes to CornishYarg not me!

Yep some proper crazy on that thread.

Non essentials and essentials.

@LyricalBlowToTheJaw

Ok - so without a lockdown, and without any method to control viral spread - what would have happened globally?

[quote Emergency73]@LyricalBlowToTheJaw

Ok - so without a lockdown, and without any method to control viral spread - what would have happened globally?[/quote]
I notice you're not trying to address the point about you being morally exactly the same as the people you decry!

[quote Emergency73]@Wreath21

No - I think we do have to be accountable, but positively accountable. Individualism is deeply ingrained in our Western culture, and we have a very individualistic government currently representing us. I don’t think a defeatist, it’s not our problem, they are so corrupt that there is no point in voting attitude will change things for the better.
One factor that I think - potentially - has cause this pandemic, but could absolutely cause future pandemics is mass consumerism.
With lockdowns - and a global pandemic, both cause harm. A virus that is out of control causes harm, lockdowns cause harm. Faced with two harmful scenarios - which is likely to cause less harm - and that needs to be considered not just a personal, local level, not just for the UK, Europe - but globally. 2020 saw over one hundred countries worldwide, the majority of Europe and half of humanity on lockdown. Lockdown put the world on halt until the vaccine was created. So was it necessary then? Yes. Many, many millions more would have died. Now that we have a way to control, no - I don’t think more lockdowns are needed. In terms of harm - I think a lockdown would be more harmful than the virus. Unless things get out of control.
But I hate the suggestion of ‘ring fence the vulnerable’ - and I don’t think even our woeful government have gone THAT far. To assume that the vulnerable can be somehow segregated from the rest of society, to place no value on the effect this would have on the vulnerable/their mental health, their families - to suggest that the vulnerable are not a very, very valuable part of our society offends me greatly.

The Tories show signs of that kind of attitude, but to outwardly think that is a viable option screams of extreme individualism to me. And if we think the Tories are bad - that is a far, far worse ideal - and YES we do need to accountable for such a suggestion.

Don’t let the pandemic and rubbish government push us to a ‘survival of the fittest’ way of thinking.[/quote]
I'm not wholly convinced that lockdowns ever did all that much good. What good they might have done (pre vaccines) certainly wasn't equally distributed - as many said, then and since, 'lockdowns' were mainly a matter of the comfortably off sitting in their comfortable homes - whining, curtain-twitching and grassing up the neighbours - while the poor brought them things and kept the lights on etc. It was never going to be possible to cage everyone, simply because any society that doesn't consist entirely of subsistence farmers needs people to be able to move around and have some physical contact with one another.
What we have had is an enormous moral panic with superstitious undertones - all the fucking endless whining about what was or was not essential. In the first half of 2020 even the less awful governments imposed restrictions because they weren't sure what else to do, but most if not all of them got rather fond of having emergency powers that they could deploy exactly as they pleased.
But there are an awful lot of people who enjoy forms of authoritarianism - a combination of not wanting to have to think for themselves and relishing the fact that those they disapprove of will suffer and be punished.

@Sloughsabigplace

There are a few members of my husbands family like this.

They won’t be fully happy until you have to update a government app every time you take a shit.

They are fearful. In their heads, they were going to die, and so they won’t be happy until the rest of the worlds protects them by the last unvaccinated person being forcibly held down an injected and no one being able to live a ‘normal’ life again. Because if people do, they will die. Because covid is the only boogy man that will kill them.

It’s sad. And they aren’t old, or at at any real risk either. Just very, very afraid. It’s sad.

Here is an excellent explanation of how a normally strong minded society can be persuaded to accept authoritarianism in exactly the way many have over the last 18 months.

@Wreath21

So why were half of humanity across the globe in lockdown in 2020, and practically every country in Europe?

I agree with what you are saying, and the whole pandemic has brought out some of the worst in human behaviour. But at the very least we still have life. We can still breath, think, feel - and have - if not now, but in some years time - opportunity. I lost my better paid job during the pandemic and am one of the delivery drivers that you speak of, and I deliver to the wealthy houses that you speak of. But I’m alive, my family are alive and I am bloody grateful for that. And I hope to continue with my profession in the future.

If you look at Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs - there are certain building blocks that need to be in place before you can achieve fulfilment. At the very basic level you need a life, you need access to healthcare, safety, food, shelter, warmth before you can achieve a quality of life.

If the whole globe had carried on as normal, no intervention - where would we be?

And on a personal level here, someone very, very close to me needed urgent hospital care during the pandemic and just got there in time as the Covid cases in their hospital subsided. She would have died had Covid been allowed to spread unchecked.