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?

@HarrietteNightingale

Public health is not politics. Decisions about measures to protect the health of the public living are not political IMO.

They are when they restrict people's lives and the functioning of society.

Our society was restricted by the decisions made by politicians. Decisions which were made too late hence needing a harsh lockdown.

How is it political? Deciding what would be the safest course of action to protect the health of others should be decided by those who know what they’re doing

Because there is much, much more to it than that. That isn't even a description of good public health policy, let alone of anything a government can do.

When governments make policy, they have to consider what the population will actually do. Otherwise it's pointless. Having laws people won't obey, and can't on a population level be made to, is actively harmful. This is why such an important part of pandemic management in the early days in particular related to behaviours and messaging.

In the UK at the moment, the political situation means we have a government that cannot, for example, implement more restrictions (or really enforce the ones we have) because of public attitudes and also the views of some of the legislature. That's politics. It means that even if 'the science' actually existed in some indisputable way, which it doesn't, it still couldn't be determinative because people's behaviour matters.

Put simply, it's shit public health policy to ignore what people actually think and are going to do. That's not to say you can't work to try and change those things (though our current government can't, because politics) but what you definitely cannot do is ignore them. Or you'll fail.

@HarrietteNightingale

I think some posters on the thread have argued themselves into a frankly bizarre position, which does nothing to contradict the idea that there are people who want restrictions to exist in perpetuity.

When covid first came about, experts were talking about the need to identify and isolate cases quickly. Track contacts and minimise spread.

Politicians couldn’t believe it necessary and then left it too late.

And oh look where we ended up. Lockdowns! Schools closed! Testing a mess.

Fucking shambles.

Our society was restricted by the decisions made by politicians. Decisions which were made too late hence needing a harsh lockdown.

Yes. All these decisions are political. This isn't exclusive to Boris or the UK.

@HarrietteNightingale

I think some posters on the thread have argued themselves into a frankly bizarre position, which does nothing to contradict the idea that there are people who want restrictions to exist in perpetuity.

Mmmmm....

So if you appoint your committee of public health advisers who can overrun the government, and they say “great thanks! Ok we’re good on covid right now, but what we also want is a ban on alcohol, legally mandated exercise of 150 minutes a week, scrap 90% of personal cars to reduce air pollution and sedentary lifestyle harms and we will fine you if you don’t eat your 5 fruit and veg a day”, then… we all shrug and go along with that? I guess we’d have to since we can’t vote them out?

@HarrietteNightingale

Our society was restricted by the decisions made by politicians. Decisions which were made too late hence needing a harsh lockdown.

Yes. All these decisions are political. This isn't exclusive to Boris or the UK.

My point is that because they were politically driven, we were absolutely fucked as a result.

My point is that because they were politically driven, we were absolutely fucked as a result.

The decisions everywhere were "politically driven" because that's how a democracy functions.

So if you appoint your committee of public health advisers who can overrun the government, and they say “great thanks! Ok we’re good on covid right now, but what we also want is a ban on alcohol, legally mandated exercise of 150 minutes a week, scrap 90% of personal cars to reduce air pollution and sedentary lifestyle harms and we will fine you if you don’t eat your 5 fruit and veg a day”, then… we all shrug and go along with that? I guess we’d have to since we can’t vote them out?

Yes I'd like to know too.

Even if our government did choose to introduce the horrifying concept of unelected experts making these decisions, this too would be political.

Who's on and who isn't is political. Which areas of expertise you want is political. The idea that this shouldn't be political is political.

And lastly, because we live in a democracy, any government would be acutely aware that the next election is always looming. Voters would punish or reward them for the performance of these appointed committees, and so naturally the politicians would start trying to interfere. Making it, you guessed it, politicised.

@HarrietteNightingale

My point is that because they were politically driven, we were absolutely fucked as a result.

The decisions everywhere were "politically driven" because that's how a democracy functions.

We have a terrible model for democracy in this country actually.

And not every decision should be based on politics.

I want more decisions based on science, evidence etc. and politicians to be held accountable when they don’t.

Which isn’t happening at all in the UK. What is the democratic process for having a Prime Minister who makes public health decisions which go against the scientific advice?

He can get away with it.

We're getting off-topic here.

Perpetual lockdowns, anyone?

What is the democratic process for having a Prime Minister who makes public health decisions which go against the scientific advice?

Where they’re embedded in law, as a lot of the coronavirus restrictions were, the democratic process is that Parliament votes on it.

@HarrietteNightingale

I think some posters on the thread have argued themselves into a frankly bizarre position, which does nothing to contradict the idea that there are people who want restrictions to exist in perpetuity.

I'm not seeing that at all. What I am seeing is some posters desperately trying to up though.

I want more decisions based on science, evidence etc. and politicians to be held accountable when they don’t.

Who do you think could possibly bring this policy in?

The only way you get governments not to worry about the political impact of any decision is to abolish elections.

As others have said it's when there is nothing else to say or a shut down to the conversation. I always assume the people who spout that reply have nothing more intelligent to give to the conversation.

Ive never seen anyone suggest a perpetual lockdown, I have seen many people misinterpret (deliberately) what a poster is saying, but never seen anyone say this.

Not lockdowns but there is a poster who regularly advocates face masks on what seems a permanent basis. Because apparently that’s what they’ve done in Japan for many years and we need to do the same and be less western centric.

Yes it was brilliant petrol prices were low the roads were empty no need to leave the house we had snow we had sunshine I didn't need to speak to ANYONE AT ALL

I mean realistically no we couldn't actually drive anywhere so it was a bit shit I still miss not "having" to talk to people and having "Internet issues" was a genuine reason not to partake

We can't do it really but I'm antisocial by nature so it was really good for me and my antisocial children to decompress from dealing with humans on a regular basis

I'm not seeing that at all.

Well no, of course you aren't, judging by your posts.

Personally, I have really enjoyed the restrictions, putting many meetings on Zoom and my social life consisting of long walks and picnics with friends. I think it is horrible for young people though and would not want it for their sake.

A lot of people don't want perpetual lockdowns as such but don't seem able to understand that Covid will still be here at the end of a lockdown. So their goals would mean perpetual lockdown, they just don't realise it.

I think what is possibly being missed at times is that most the posts i see are people at that time supporting lockdowns to bring down tramsmittion at that time, to reduce deaths at that time and to take the pressure off the nhs at that time, like a break to reduce numbers, not saying keep us locked up forever.
Alot of the time, that point is purposefully missed to misquoted.

Well, people have different ideas for what ‘learn to live with it’ means. You might disagree with the idea that ‘learn to live with it’ should mean ‘learn to accept the remaining covid risk as we go back to normal’, rather than ‘learn to change things about how we live’, but that doesn’t make it inherently wrong.

Except it is inherently wrong because the remaining covid risk without any of those interventions is like saying we need to learn to live with cancer without the treatments and preventions we have against it. It shows a deep misunderstanding of the science.

I think what is possibly being missed at times is that most the posts i see are people at that time supporting lockdowns to bring down tramsmittion at that time, to reduce deaths at that time and to take the pressure off the nhs at that time, like a break to reduce numbers, not saying keep us locked up forever.

Exactly.

Alot of the time, that point is purposefully missed to misquoted.

Yep. Usually to exaggerate the point to make it sound ridiculous.

A lot of people don't want perpetual lockdowns as such but don't seem able to understand that Covid will still be here at the end of a lockdown. So their goals would mean perpetual lockdown, they just don't realise it.

Except they wouldn’t because I haven’t seen a single person suggest covid will disappear after a lockdown. That’s an assumption/ judgement you have made.