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

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.

True. Plus the costs pile up and we’ll see it in cost of living going up even if not a direct impact.

The general demographic of those who were begging for ongoing lockdowns were those whose lives who are minimally affected by them. They’ve either got cast iron jobs; teachers, bankers, the military ,civil servants, scientists or they’re retired with a guaranteed income or receiving benefits. The rest of the (real) world realise that we can’t live like this forever and if a large proportion of the work force is unemployed and not generating income tax, funding for the NHS will eventually dry up and everyone, regardless, will be in the doo doos.

The health of the country depends on the health of the economy. You can’t separate the two.

@WinterGold I think using teachers in that is extremely unfair, lots were still working through this when we didn't know what is was and people were dying in vast numbers.

They are the ones now still trying to navigate educating our children while half their staff are off ill, not because of "stupid restrictions" but actually ill with flu like symptoms that shouldn't be passed on no matter what you call it.

Our teachers have done a great job IMO.

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

No one has said it on this thread and a MN thing is normally if you can't prove it, it didn't happen

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.

No, I think the science supports the approach that the mitigations being suggested have very little harm for a whole lot of benefit. When people complain it has little to do with harms it is because they just don’t want to

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.

Except we are doing things to reduce the harms. Reducing pollution by making people buy cleaner cars, minimum pricing for alcohol, encouraging a healthier diet and I noticed you left it out because it didn’t suit your narrative but we did ban smoking in indoor public places. Nobody whined that we just have to live with lung cancer and if anyone wanted to avoid it they should just stay at home.

In any case none of the covid mitigations ban anything so I’m not sure why you are talking about bans.

@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.

Most of the pro-restrictions people don't work in heavily-hit industries, nor do they have much fondness or even tolerance for the type of social activities they consider less than respectable (such as drinking at the bar rather than with a meal, nightclubs, live music etc).

It's important to remember how much of the regulation was driven by puritanism rather than public health.

The general demographic of those who were begging for ongoing lockdowns were those whose lives who are minimally affected by them.

The general demographic was that they were actually invisible. The only reference to lots of folk clamouring for perpetual lockdowns I have ever seen in any type of number is of people claiming the phenomenon exists.

Except we are doing things to reduce the harms. Reducing pollution by making people buy cleaner cars, minimum pricing for alcohol, encouraging a healthier diet and I noticed you left it out because it didn’t suit your narrative but we did ban smoking in indoor public places. Nobody whined that we just have to live with lung cancer and if anyone wanted to avoid it they should just stay at home.

They are also using clean space areas were most polluting cars need to pay a tax to help tackle air pollution.

@WinterGold

The general demographic of those who were begging for ongoing lockdowns were those whose lives who are minimally affected by them. They’ve either got cast iron jobs; teachers, bankers, the military ,civil servants, scientists or they’re retired with a guaranteed income or receiving benefits. The rest of the (real) world realise that we can’t live like this forever and if a large proportion of the work force is unemployed and not generating income tax, funding for the NHS will eventually dry up and everyone, regardless, will be in the doo doos.

The health of the country depends on the health of the economy. You can’t separate the two.

They were also those who have partners (or genuinely have no interest in dating/sex if single) who didn't want to acknowledge the terrible loneliness of some single people or, if they did, would go on a scolding attack about how revoltingly selfish it was to be unhappy about the fact that you couldn't date or have sex for an unspecified amount of time. Remember that anyone who didn't live with their regular/relatively new partner couldn't meet up with them for sex, for quite some time.

@BoredZelda

The general demographic of those who were begging for ongoing lockdowns were those whose lives who are minimally affected by them.

The general demographic was that they were actually invisible. The only reference to lots of folk clamouring for perpetual lockdowns I have ever seen in any type of number is of people claiming the phenomenon exists.

Not in rl ime but a fair bit of it pre Christmas on mn

There is also a wider debate about just how much right 'society' or 'government' has to control the behaviours of the general public, even when it's allegedly for their own good (the idea of the 'common good' is a bit more complicated as it so often translates as 'for the good of the ruling class'). We are not the state's (or the queen's) *property, after all.

I agree, Wreath and I think many people have struggled mentally with the government being able to control their lives to that extent.

The idea of perpetual lockdown is as stupid as pretending the virus is gone and no longer an issue. Neither are correct no matter how much each camp think they are.

If we are imposing permanent rules though, can we have the 2M stickers back in the supermarket? There is never a justifiable reason strangers need to breath on my neck.

@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?

@IncompleteSenten It’s a straw man. I agree it is.

@lunar1

The idea of perpetual lockdown is as stupid as pretending the virus is gone and no longer an issue. Neither are correct no matter how much each camp think they are.

If we are imposing permanent rules though, can we have the 2M stickers back in the supermarket? There is never a justifiable reason strangers need to breath on my neck.

The point is that the “permanent lockdown” camp doesn’t exist. It’s made up by the “I’m done and want to carry on as normal” camp to use in arguments

I think the camp is “let’s just carry on with some sensible things for a while eh”

Clearly “sensible things” differ from person to person though…

Yup, as PP have said, one person's 'sensible' restriction is severe and lasting harm for other people in different circumstances.

It's a straw man that people genuinely mean a "perpetual lockdown" in the sense of not ever being able to leave the house except for essential reasons. They mean perpetual restrictions such as social distancing and masks.

What point do people think they are making here exactly? That people use the word "lockdown" incorrectly?

Clearly “sensible things” differ from person to person though…

They do, yes. So that's a problem and means it isn't as easy as you make out.

@HarrietteNightingale

Clearly “sensible things” differ from person to person though…

They do, yes. So that's a problem and means it isn't as easy as you make out.

Well, it’s quite easy to discuss what’s meant by “sensible things” and not to just shout “you want permanent lockdown, you’re loving this!” Which is what tends to happen.

On the “done” thread there are posters railing against any restrictions at all. Masks, distancing in the supermarket, booster jabs, anything. They seem to be the ones assuming “sensible” is code for “restrictive”

That’s the point of this thread. That reducto ad absurdum is used in these debates and it’s a lazy simplistic way to argue. I’d be happy to share my views of “sensible” things and hope there would be a lot of common ground

I'd settle for the people who want these sensible things telling us what they are and where's the proof of effectiveness against Omicron.

@VikingOnTheFridge

I'd settle for the people who want these sensible things telling us what they are and where's the proof of effectiveness against Omicron.

If you are obedient, respectable and pious, and believe in the necessity of great sacrifice for a greater good, you won't get a dose. Basically.

All of these 'sensible things' carry some degree of cost for society. So it needs to be demonstrated that the benefits are worth the costs.

I don't want a lockdown and I don't know anyone who does.

I do despair of some of the takes (and media manipulation) that suggests that if you're not wanting to 'let it rip' you must be in favour of onerous restrictions. Or if you don't think masks on buses is a big deal, you're in favour of government control.

I disagreed with many lockdown rules & the manner in which they were enforced. Nonetheless I've been accused by the 'back to normal at all costs' camp of 'being afraid' or 'wanting a lockdown' for things such as:

• Thinking we shouldn't be marching everyone back to the office when 300+ people are dying every day AND it's frankly not necessary.
• Wanting to offer vaccines to children like every other developed country.
• Thinking that actually, a cultural shift whereby we try to avoid marching respiratory infections into workplaces or onto public transport wouldn't be a bad thing.
• Think actually we should invest in ventilation where it would help.

No these things are not cost neutral, but they're quite a distance from desiring lockdowns.

Incidentally, while I've truly yet to meet someone who wants lockdowns. I have met many who will openly state the want life back to 2019, zero mitigations, no vaccines for kids and fuck everyone who might suffer because of it.

@VikingOnTheFridge

I'd settle for the people who want these sensible things telling us what they are and where's the proof of effectiveness against Omicron.

Proof is a big ask when a lot of things have been done, overall they’ve worked but it’s hard to attribute specific benefits to individual ones.

I guess where I’m at is that if the balance of likelihood is that a measure probably helps, and it’s imposition isn’t too onerous, then it should probably stay and be adhered to for a while.

For example

Masks in supermarkets, public transport, public indoor spaces unless exempt
Keeping distances in supermarkets, queues etc
Carry on the hand washing, open window messages
Schedule of ongoing boosters
Wfh being allowed, but not mandated

I’m sure there are more but that’s what I’m thinking

Is proof that big an ask when there are other European countries who've implemented something similar? And if it were genuinely the case that there were no evidence at all, that begs the question of why they'd be called sensible.