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 that godawful ‘And The People Stayed Home’ poem, about how lockdowns would help us all dance and do yoga and learn to live in better ways to help the earth and everyone on it heal?

@GoldenOmber

Remember that godawful ‘And The People Stayed Home’ poem, about how lockdowns would help us all dance and do yoga and learn to live in better ways to help the earth and everyone on it heal?

I'd completely forgotten that. I'm now going to try to forget again, frankly. I hope the author cringes every time they think of it.

The author published it as a children’s book. 😬

@GoldenOmber

Remember that godawful ‘And The People Stayed Home’ poem, about how lockdowns would help us all dance and do yoga and learn to live in better ways to help the earth and everyone on it heal?

Oh holy shit yes! I remember ranting at the time about how you just knew that prick was the sort of Good Guy who reads his kids a bedtime story or poem (invariably shit like that viral one, wot he wrote all by himself) while his DW has cooked dinner, done bathtime and is now downstairs washing up...

Though I did quite like it being repurposed for DIversity's BLM performance that got all the Little Englanders pooing with rage...

@MarshaBradyo

Yep!

Tbh as a woman who works in private sector who needs childcare the left and pro lockdown views worry me more, but probably against majority of mn in saying that

I'm the same. Hate the Tories and the government but their Covid stance is the one I need on a personal level.

Lockdowns cause harm and Covid causes harm. Yes the first lockdown was needed, subsequent lockdowns - no, as we had a way to control the infection rate. Was Covid out of control in the first lockdown? Yes. Could hospitals cope? No. Were millions and millions of people dying across the globe? Yes. Could the infrastructure that supported our schools and hospitals, the adults that teach them, the mums wanting to give birth safely in hospitals, the cancer patients awaiting treatment due to lack of hospital space - were they at risk? Yes.

Really offensive is the notion that every person who supported the first lockdown was a curtain twitcher living in a cushy home. In my case I supported because of a life or death situation, and I could see how critical things were in my family member’s local hospital.

I see it happening on this thread. Had I said I was AGAINST lockdown due to my family members situation - there would be bucketloads of sympathy, and another weapon in the arsenal . To support what? individualism. I’ve seen it throughout the pandemic on here - children used as ammunition, the vulnerable used as ammunition, mental health used as ammunition, reverse snobbery being used as ammunition.

That’s not to deny that children and the mental health of others hasn’t been impacted - it has hugely. But to use that as a weapon against others in a quest for personal gain. No.

What it boils down to is personal freedom, and a reactance to being ‘told what to do’ even if it could potentially save the life of another.
Thankfully, IRL I don’t know one single person who thinks that way.

Two new papers published in the journal Nature say that lockdowns put in place to slow the spread of the coronavirus were highly effective, prevented tens of millions of infections and saved millions of lives.

"Our estimates show that lockdowns had a really dramatic effect in reducing transmission," says Samir Bhatt, a senior lecturer at the Imperial College London's School of Public Health, who worked on one of the papers published in Nature.

Bhatt's team analyzed infection and death rates in 11 European nations through May 4. They estimate that an additional 3.1 million people in those countries would have died if lockdowns had not been put in place.

"Without them we believe the toll would have been huge," Bhatt says.

In addition to the paper from Bhatt and his colleagues, Nature also published a separate study from the Global Policy Lab at the University of California, Berkeley. That study analyzed lockdowns in China, South Korea, Iran, France, Italy and the United States.

It found that the lockdowns in those six countries averted 62 million confirmed cases.

I'm sure the Chinese and Iranian governments both provided full transparency.

As for how you're treated, you get back what you give out I'm afraid. You've accused people who have mental health difficulties of basically weaponising them, and you clearly care so little about the welfare of the children who suffered as a consequence of lockdown that you're unable to conceive of anyone actually thinking they deserved to be prioritised. And so there are consequences.

But mental health and concerns about children’s education were my reasons for being concerned about lockdown I do t get how that is a weapon. If I had just stayed at home with my partner thibgs may have seemed fine as I stayed at home abs had to watch my eight year old fall apart I wasn’t so convinced it was great! How is that a weapon it’s simply forming opinions based on your own experience if you lived with and saw the nagatuve impacts on lockdown on someone you live abs care deeply for then of course you will be more skeptical. I actually think that a lot of pro lockdowners get that more than they care to admi since the standard response is to deny the negative impacts or minimise them as a lack of resliance because clearly many were a bit uncomfortable that the policy they advocated for so loudly ever could cause any significant harm

@Dghgcotcitc

But mental health and concerns about children’s education were my reasons for being concerned about lockdown I do t get how that is a weapon. If I had just stayed at home with my partner thibgs may have seemed fine as I stayed at home abs had to watch my eight year old fall apart I wasn’t so convinced it was great! How is that a weapon it’s simply forming opinions based on your own experience if you lived with and saw the nagatuve impacts on lockdown on someone you live abs care deeply for then of course you will be more skeptical. I actually think that a lot of pro lockdowners get that more than they care to admi since the standard response is to deny the negative impacts or minimise them as a lack of resliance because clearly many were a bit uncomfortable that the policy they advocated for so loudly ever could cause any significant harm

Yes I agree

@Dghgcotcitc

But mental health and concerns about children’s education were my reasons for being concerned about lockdown I do t get how that is a weapon. If I had just stayed at home with my partner thibgs may have seemed fine as I stayed at home abs had to watch my eight year old fall apart I wasn’t so convinced it was great! How is that a weapon it’s simply forming opinions based on your own experience if you lived with and saw the nagatuve impacts on lockdown on someone you live abs care deeply for then of course you will be more skeptical. I actually think that a lot of pro lockdowners get that more than they care to admi since the standard response is to deny the negative impacts or minimise them as a lack of resliance because clearly many were a bit uncomfortable that the policy they advocated for so loudly ever could cause any significant harm

Basically, it's ok for them to put their loved ones and priorities first, and to form opinions based on their own experiences. But because you disagree with them, when you do the identical thing it's inherently suspect.

@Dghgcotcitc
I stated that both scenarios cause harm and I do recognise that.

I have a 2 year old awaiting an ASD diagnosis, and a 10 year old that I home schooled. It was bloody hard.

What was even harder was what my family member was going through. She was in pain every day. She finally got her op when the case numbers dropped at her hospital.

And my family members situation was not anywhere near as bad as 5 and a half million people who died worldwide, and many many millions of other people worldwide who have needed hospital care.

@Emergency73 I think you have shown more empathy and awareness of various views than any of the posters accusing you otherwise. It is astounding. This thread has become pointless, so I'm off.

@BeenToldComputerSaysNo

Thank you x

[quote BeenToldComputerSaysNo]@Emergency73 I think you have shown more empathy and awareness of various views than any of the posters accusing you otherwise. It is astounding. This thread has become pointless, so I'm off. [/quote]
You've probably missed a fair few of her deleted efforts.

[quote Emergency73]@Dghgcotcitc
I stated that both scenarios cause harm and I do recognise that.

I have a 2 year old awaiting an ASD diagnosis, and a 10 year old that I home schooled. It was bloody hard.

What was even harder was what my family member was going through. She was in pain every day. She finally got her op when the case numbers dropped at her hospital.

And my family members situation was not anywhere near as bad as 5 and a half million people who died worldwide, and many many millions of other people worldwide who have needed hospital care.[/quote]
The thing you don't seem to get, all along, is that the suffering of some people caused by lockdowns was severe and much of it was unnecessary because there was so much moral panic and so little consideration given to the impact on, you know, poor people, those inadequately housed or those subject to abuse. And the suffering of those people was compounded by the comfortably off curtain twitchers scolding them, spying on them and not infrequently grassing them up. None of that 'saved lives'.
And many of those who died, died because they couldn't take time off their low-paid jobs; their health was already poor because of low pay/poverty, and because the government was too busy handing public money to their mates to ensure that there was enough PPE - or even regulations regarding the use of PPE - for low-paid people in public-facing jobs.

I had a post deleted because I believe ‘ring fence the vulnerable’ or indeed any scenario that would lead to millions of vulnerable people world wide dying/viewed as expendable is a politically extreme ideal - and I stand by that.

@Wreath21
Yes I do recognise that, and I completely agree with you. Suffering was made worse by lockdown, the government didn’t handle lockdown well at all. The issues you speak of, many of those issues were also issues prior to lockdown, and were amplified by lockdown.

But - I’ll keep coming back to my point. If you LOSE your life - whether that’s due to the virus itself OR because you cannot access healthcare due to the knock on effect of an out of control virus - you don’t have anything. Your quality and any opportunity is gone.

So I can’t understand why the 5.4 million death toll world wide is not being addressed by you, and the projected death toll, had we not had the 2020 lockdown - plus the health/deaths of those who have been unable to access adequate healthcare due to hospitals being overwhelmed (which I would say is millions and millions globally).

If you look at one of the worst hit countries globally :
HIV also likely plays a role in the heavy toll of COVID-19 in Eswatini. Recent research indicates that people living with HIV are at a higher risk of dying from COVID-19. In Africa, the countries that are projected to be hit hardest by COVID-19 are those with the highest prevalence of HIV, including Eswatini, Lesotho, and South Africa.
So here - I’d say the primary concern is HAVING a life, having access to healthcare in order to have QUALITY of life.

Lockdown wasn’t just a UK Tory policy - I wholehearted agree that it could have been handled better, but lockdowns were being used all over the world.

WHO were saying this:
“The only time we believe a lockdown is justified is to buy you time to reorganize, regroup, rebalance your resources, protect your health workers who are exhausted, but by and large, we’d rather not do it.”

So in a critical situation - in 2020, I believe it lockdown in itself was justified - but absolutely could and should have been handled better.

This is why the empathy level isn’t as high as you’re after..

Re children being used as a weapon against others in a quest for personal gain

It’s incorrect, old hat and used on here to minimise and dismiss.

Many people had a hard time let them relate that without above

I'm referring to the deleted posts where you responded to someone who talked about their own mental health problems during lockdown Emergency73, I think actually it wasn't on this thread. Difficult to keep track, considering your deletion ratio. It's a shame in a way it didn't stay up, because it was very, very telling.

@Emergency73

I had a post deleted because I believe ‘ring fence the vulnerable’ or indeed any scenario that would lead to millions of vulnerable people world wide dying/viewed as expendable is a politically extreme ideal - and I stand by that.

@Wreath21
Yes I do recognise that, and I completely agree with you. Suffering was made worse by lockdown, the government didn’t handle lockdown well at all. The issues you speak of, many of those issues were also issues prior to lockdown, and were amplified by lockdown.

But - I’ll keep coming back to my point. If you LOSE your life - whether that’s due to the virus itself OR because you cannot access healthcare due to the knock on effect of an out of control virus - you don’t have anything. Your quality and any opportunity is gone.

So I can’t understand why the 5.4 million death toll world wide is not being addressed by you, and the projected death toll, had we not had the 2020 lockdown - plus the health/deaths of those who have been unable to access adequate healthcare due to hospitals being overwhelmed (which I would say is millions and millions globally).

If you look at one of the worst hit countries globally :
HIV also likely plays a role in the heavy toll of COVID-19 in Eswatini. Recent research indicates that people living with HIV are at a higher risk of dying from COVID-19. In Africa, the countries that are projected to be hit hardest by COVID-19 are those with the highest prevalence of HIV, including Eswatini, Lesotho, and South Africa.
So here - I’d say the primary concern is HAVING a life, having access to healthcare in order to have QUALITY of life.

Lockdown wasn’t just a UK Tory policy - I wholehearted agree that it could have been handled better, but lockdowns were being used all over the world.

WHO were saying this:
“The only time we believe a lockdown is justified is to buy you time to reorganize, regroup, rebalance your resources, protect your health workers who are exhausted, but by and large, we’d rather not do it.”

So in a critical situation - in 2020, I believe it lockdown in itself was justified - but absolutely could and should have been handled better.

Some people lost their lives because of the moral panic. People previously living with abusers who had been able to manage/tolerate the abuse were suddenly trapped 24/7 with those abusers and in some cases it proved fatal. While statistics don't show a 'significant' jump in people ending their own lives during the lockdowns, there were incidents of this. Also a lot of people with dementia seem to have suffered, deteriorated and died during this time but not from Covid. It was much harder for them to understand what was happening and it appears that in many cases, they thought they had been abandoned by their loved ones and the distress and bewilderment hastened their deaths.

The anti-lockdown brigade = "lockdowns are not kind or fair on mental health, they cause mental distress"

Also the anti-lockdown brigade = "you're a dementor, stop frothing, shaking and living in fear"

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10466995/New-study-says-lockdowns-reduced-COVID-mortality-2-percent.html

Would seem that lockdowns not particularly effective.

Its a report by economists 2X4B523P

"The researchers — who deal in the field of economics, rather than medicine or public health"

I hope more continue to look at it

They warned that lockdowns caused 'enormous economic and social costs' and concluded they were 'ill-founded and should be rejected as a pandemic policy instrument' going forward.

The review concluded that lockdowns 'marginal at best' benefits needed to be compared with their 'devastating effects' on the economy and society.

'They have contributed to reducing economic activity, raising unemployment, reducing schooling, causing political unrest, contributing to domestic violence, and undermining liberal democracy,' they wrote.

I understand if people reject this paper as it’s just one but we’ve not looked at the harms v benefit enough. In addition I hope we never go back to using lockdowns.

We need expertise from across multiple disciplines, that much is clear. Hopefully the pro lockdown brigade will be as willing to make that argument in response to research whose conclusions they happen to agree with.

@Flaxmeadow

The anti-lockdown brigade = "lockdowns are not kind or fair on mental health, they cause mental distress"

Also the anti-lockdown brigade = "you're a dementor, stop frothing, shaking and living in fear"

Absolutely - only some types of mental health issues are acceptable here