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?

Except it is inherently wrong

No, you think it’s wrong. It’s not inherently wrong. You think the harms would outweigh the benefits. Other people disagree with you. People disagree on stuff, it doesn’t make them hysterics or murderers either way round.

We don’t say “we can’t live with cancer! We immediately need to ban things we know are risk factors for cancer, like cars and alcohol and being overweight”, because as a society we don’t think that tradeoff would be worth it.

We don’t say “we can’t live with cancer! We immediately need to ban things we know are risk factors for cancer, like cars and alcohol and being overweight”, because as a society we don’t think that tradeoff would be worth it.

Yes, I notice no one has attempted to answer your earlier post about this approach, @GoldenOmber

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?

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 see what you're saying and up to a point you're right. But we do have medical interventions for covid now -- vaccines. Not to mention treatments, which are improving all the time, for people who get severely ill.

Except for a small number of people who don't believe in vaccines, I think learning to live with covid is about a debate we have as a society about what societal measures if any we're prepared to accept beyond widespread vaccination.

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.

But we don't have many preventative measures for cancer (beyond screening) and certainly none that impact people's lives in a significant way.

There's lots we could do though. Banning red meat, alcohol, processed foods, unnecessary car travel would all reduce cancer deaths. We could also double the tax load to fund the more expensive treatments and more research.

But as it stands, given the efficacy of the covid vaccines, we have more preventative measures for covid than cancer.

Just popped on quickly - wasn't expecting so many responses! I'll have a read through when I get a bit more time later.

Sorry, forgot smoking, the most obvious one

The problem with cancer vs covid, is that cancer (as the disease) affects the one person, so if you choose to eat red meat, that effects you not possible people who opt not to eat red meat.

The smoking element has been made law so one persons choice is not acceptable if it is in a public space where it could cause others harm.
We are protecting those from others negative choices.

so if you choose to eat red meat, that effects you not possible people who opt not to eat red meat.

However if we wanted to take significant action to prevent cancer deaths as a society, we could. Whether it's infectious or not doesn't actually impact that.

Lifestyle related conditions cause a massive burden on the NHS annually. So we are all affected.

Also the air pollution point isn't just an individual thing.

@HarrietteNightingale

Lifestyle related conditions cause a massive burden on the NHS annually. So we are all affected.

Yes, and protecting the NHS was the justification given for lockdown.

But this all goes back to the point about how the response to covid is unavoidably political. Imposition of restrictions, removal, who you prioritise when- all politics.

But this all goes back to the point about how the response to covid is unavoidably political. Imposition of restrictions, removal, who you prioritise when- all politics.

Yes, exactly.

In reality, omicron is so transmissible that there are few non-pharmaceutical interventions that can control it, bar a lockdown. I’ve never accused anyone of desperately wanting a lockdown, but perhaps that’s where the comments are coming from?

I’ve never really been able to understand the ‘let’s just have a few restrictions’ crowd. There’s never been good evidence that cloth masks, or one-way signs in supermarkets, or vaccine passports, etc etc… do any good.

The only places that have been able to control omicron (China, parts of Australia) have been draconian. There are certainly some people who would prefer that approach.

No I don't want a perpetual lockdown.

I think we stopped wearing masks a few weeks too early though (it's still winter)

Lifestyle related conditions cause a massive burden on the NHS annually. So we are all affected.

Yes they are a burden, but they were not threatening to topple the NHS, those cases are not stopping other treatments being carried out, it was not spreading so fast that we nearly couldn't keep up.

Yes of course the bigger picture is that these effect everyone but in the manor of actual putting something into someone elses body, passing something on to someone, they dont.

I’ve never really been able to understand the ‘let’s just have a few restrictions’ crowd. There’s never been good evidence that cloth masks, or one-way signs in supermarkets, or vaccine passports, etc etc… do any good.

I think so much of this is motivated by the desire to feel something is being done.

Yes they are a burden, but they were not threatening to topple the NHS

Neither is covid at this point in time.

Yes they are a burden, but they were not threatening to topple the NHS, those cases are not stopping other treatments being carried out, it was not spreading so fast that we nearly couldn't keep up.

No one has said there should not have been any Covid measures at all. But now we have vaccines and it looks like it is manageable at the moment, so what now?

Some appear to want permanent restrictions to be imposed on other people - the closing of pubs, clubs, live events of any kind etc, because these are noisy, immoral, unnecessary, contribute to litter, waa, baa; stop the lower orders travelling by plane for their nasty, alcohol-drenched, unsophisticated holidays; fewer cars on the roads (though I ME AND MINE are allowed to travel)...
Some would be quite happy to stay shut in and live virtually forever 'for the sake of their own safety' but want the low-paid to carry on delivering food and services to them.

I just think that many solutions/options are uncomfortable. I read a letter in the paper yesterday from a doctor who said that conversations need to be had about life-prolonging treatment. One patient’s treatment which had extended their life by three months had cost £47k. That was taking time and resources from patients who could actually be cured or given a longer life.

Similarly with covid - constant draconian restrictions might suit some people, but the cost (mental as well as financial) to everyone else would be too heavy.

@TheKeatingFive

I’ve never really been able to understand the ‘let’s just have a few restrictions’ crowd. There’s never been good evidence that cloth masks, or one-way signs in supermarkets, or vaccine passports, etc etc… do any good.

I think so much of this is motivated by the desire to feel something is being done.

I think so. It was one thing pre-Omicron, particularly with masks where we did have decent evidence that proper use could reduce transmission by up to 10%. It looks increasingly ridiculous when we have a number of European countries who did the same thing and still saw cases rocket. And that does beg the question, what would you do next? Accept the rate or go to the next level up?

No one has said there should not have been any Covid measures at all. But now we have vaccines and it looks like it is manageable at the moment, so what now?

As the discussion was about previous comment about lockdown, thats what was being discussed.So we agree then, previous measures were needed, thats all that was being discussed ??

The what now?? Im not quite sure what you mean, we are not in a lockdown now ?

As the discussion was about previous comment about lockdown, thats what was being discussed.So we agree then, previous measures were needed, thats all that was being discussed ??

The discussion was about much more than that. It's about people who want measures to continue even when cases are dropping.

The discussion was about much more than that. It's about people who want measures to continue even when cases are dropping.

It was about people who wanted perpetual lockdown, im still to see anyone on this thread who wants that at all, infact i think everyone agrees, they dont want that ?

Our DC's school sent an email yesterday saying that 4 year groups (containing about 700 children) are very badly affected by covid and they are in talks with the D of E as to what to do. They are asking nicely that masks are worn in all communal areas.

We want cases to continue dropping, not to plateau at a high level and/or rise again. That's why continuing with some measures like masks (not lockdown) would be reasonable till be are out of this bit of the winter.