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?

we not be

@herecomesthsun

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.

Where is the evidence that these measures will achieve that against Omicron?

@IncompleteSenten

No. Nobody does. It's just used to attack people who are concerned. What's that thing called where you take something to its most ridiculous point and present it as what's being said in an attempt to discredit what's actually being said?

Reduction ad absurdum. Misrepresent your opponents views to make them look ridiculous, and therefore easily rebutted.

It’s a very simplistic level of debate but unfortunately effective on the internet as a whole raft of posters don’t read the thread (properly, or at all), see the accusation of an absurd argument and pile in.

It’s usually used when someone doesn’t want an actual sensible conversation (I.e on most Covid threads)

@tiggergoesbounce

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 ?

Agree there are not many people who actually explicitly want endless lockdown.

But as others have said there are definitely:

• people who would like really onerous restrictions kept in place endlessly;
• people who want things that could only realistically be achieved by staying in lockdown endlessly,

which is a problem in itself, albeit not the same problem as people saying “yes I want us all to stay in lockdown forever”.

It was about people who wanted perpetual lockdown

Not just that, no. That's the OP but it's been unpacked quite a lot on both sides of the argument. Haven't you read most of the posts on the thread?

It was also established that there were posters who may or may not have been trolling, who said that there would have to be restrictions for the rest of our lives and that Christmas would have to take place on zoom with anyone outside your household. So you can split hairs about the definition of "lockdown" but yes some people were pushing a pretty bleak future.

I'm one of the most introverted people going but I still hated lockdown as the choice to go out and socialise was taken away from me. Are some people genuinely happy to have their freedom taken away ?

Not just that, no. That's the OP but it's been unpacked quite a lot on both sides of the argument. Haven't you read most of the posts on the thread?

Oh yes, i have been following and read this whole thread. Im still yet to see anyone who wants or has "argued the side" of endless lockdowns

It was also established that there were posters who may or may not have been trolling, who said that there would have to be restrictions for the rest of our lives and that Christmas would have to take place on zoom with anyone outside your household. So you can split hairs about the definition of "lockdown" but yes some people were pushing a pretty bleak future

People have said for personal reasons they liked lockdown, but noone has said that lockdowns should perpetually continue, it is not splitting hairs by dealing with an actual term in its correct way.
If you mean lockdown say lockdown, if you mean restrictions use the term restructions, most others do on here.

A "bleak future" is a conclusion by you, not anything i can see others have said ?

Also COVID has been awful and premature deaths awful but with the milder variant. It's like some people have forgotten we are mortal we are all going to die one day the flu killed 10,000s of people per year before COVID , pneumonia kills. I know it's not nice to think about but when someone says a 95 year old died of COVID what a tragedy. I think that's sad but 95 is a very good age it's like people are denying mortality and only since the pandemic .

^But as others have said there are definitely:

• people who would like really onerous restrictions kept in place endlessly;^

- people who want things that could only realistically be achieved by staying in lockdown endlessly

Yes. To which I'd add, there's at least one proposal on this thread already, that of expert committees deciding covid policy, that potentially takes us into long term rolling on and off lockdowns given that the scientific expertise wanted appears only to be that relating to covid and that cases generally rise when restrictions loosen. I'm not saying the poster specifically wants that but it does raise the possibility. And there is always the question, for those wanting ongoing restrictions short of lockdown, what they think should be done as and when those don't stop cases rising.

I doubt anyone on this thread does want long term lockdown, those posters got banned, but there is at minimum some ambiguity about what the consequences and next steps for some policies are.

It was about people who wanted perpetual lockdown

Nobody thinks anyone wants perpetual "lockdown" meaning you can't ever leave your house again except to do essential shopping and essential work. They are using it as a shorthand for restrictions such as social distancing, WFH and masks. This is all quite a dishonest way of presenting it, to be honest. It's a straw man of a straw man.

A "bleak future" is a conclusion by you, not anything i can see others have said ?

You don't think only being able to see family via Zoom every Christmas is a bleak prospect?

There’s also a lot of suspicion directed at people who say things like “I don’t want lockdown forever, of course not, but a few sensible measures should be kept”. In reality that could mean anything from ‘free annual boosters for elderly/vulnerable if needed’ to ‘masks and distancing forever and you will never be allowed to have more than 3 households round for a party again’.

I think a lot of people assume that anyone talking about ‘sensible measures’ without specifying what is they’re talking about is deliberately being vague about things they know won’t be popular. Which may well be unfair, for a lot of the people who are saying it.

tigger sounds like you missed an earlier season of this show when Zoom Christmas and the Ever-Shifting 100,000 was a thing. It was really quite eyebrow-raising at times.

Despite that, I think it's always been clear that the perpetual lockdown folk were in the extreme minority. And probably more so when we were more in the teeth of this thing than we are now.

‘Sensible measures’ is vague, usually better to specify what and for how long.

All the costly restrictions etc we had were for healthcare capacity, even though the ‘safe’ messaging was used a lot, so when that threat passes they’ll reduce and things will change a fair bit.

You don't think only being able to see family via Zoom every Christmas is a bleak prospect?

Of course it would be grim, BUT I havent seen anyone say that though ??

I have seen someone, claiming to have seen that on another thread somewhere that someone has said "something to that effect" ??

I would need to see what was actually said and in what context before i used that statement to form an opinion.

And there is always the question, for those wanting ongoing restrictions short of lockdown, what they think should be done as and when those don't stop cases rising.

It seems that some posters would rather avoid that sensible and reasonable question in favour of pedantry and semantic hair splitting about what consititutes a "lockdown", when most people this is referring to didn't actually use the word lockdown themselves, except in deliberate exaggeration to make a rhetorical point about restrictions, much as other posters exaggerate for their own part that posters who don't follow the "rules" (whether actual or made up) are responsible for deaths etc.

In fact hospitalisation going down which is why there are changes already

‘Sensible measures’ is a very subjective term too, of course. Distancing between tables and table service only in pubs was really popular with a lot of people and probably seemed to many like a sensible measure that also made things nicer. But if that’s your business, and you’re the one footing the cost for the reduced customers & extra staffing, not so great.

I would need to see what was actually said and in what context before i used that statement to form an opinion.

It was as I said. If you haven't seen it, you're not really in a position to say much about it, are you? You can search for it, I'm not the only person to mention it. No offence, but you don't seem to have much to add to this discussion because you don't know what people are talking about, so for my part I'll leave it there.

tigger sounds like you missed an earlier season of this show when Zoom Christmas and the Ever-Shifting 100,000 was a thing. It was really quite eyebrow-raising at times.

Oh no, ive been here far preceeding covid, lockdowns and christmas zooms came about.

Sensible measures’ is a very subjective term too, of course. Distancing between tables and table service only in pubs was really popular with a lot of people and probably seemed to many like a sensible measure that also made things nicer. But if that’s your business, and you’re the one footing the cost for the reduced customers & extra staffing, not so great.

That's a very important point. I've heard people on MN say "social distancing and reduced numbers in venues" is something we can do in the long term which isn't onerous. Depends on your circumstances really.

Yep we spent a fair amount the other day to go to a musical. It was full house. Half the seats empty by design and who would pay the difference?

@HarrietteNightingale

Sensible measures’ is a very subjective term too, of course. Distancing between tables and table service only in pubs was really popular with a lot of people and probably seemed to many like a sensible measure that also made things nicer. But if that’s your business, and you’re the one footing the cost for the reduced customers & extra staffing, not so great.

That's a very important point. I've heard people on MN say "social distancing and reduced numbers in venues" is something we can do in the long term which isn't onerous. Depends on your circumstances really.

Yeah that one comes up all the time. I've never yet seen anyone volunteer a view on where the costs of that should fall, or come out and admit that they think large parts of that sector failing is an acceptable price. And if they did that, it would at least be a coherent and informed stance: one might disagree with their moral position but at least it would be clear they knew what the implications would be. It seems like most of them don't though.

It was as I said. If you haven't seen it, you're not really in a position to say much about it, are you? You can search for it, I'm not the only person to mention it. No offence, but you don't seem to have much to add to this discussion because you don't know what people are talking about, so for my part I'll leave it there.

Haha, a classic nonsense comeback when they want to "leave it there"

i absolutely do know what people are saying.
I can clearly see on this thread the difference in people saying lockdown, restrictions, masks etc, so don't just change to suit you.
Others actually use the correct terms for what they mean, no hair splitting

I may not have anything to say that you like hearing, but ive had things to say.

And if they did that, it would at least be a coherent and informed stance: one might disagree with their moral position but at least it would be clear they knew what the implications would be. It seems like most of them don't though.

I agree. I think a lot of people don't consider the implications of this, because it doesn't affect them directly.