Have people's opinions changed?

[MassiveOverthinker]

Just wondering really, if the last few months have changed people's opinion on how we managed covid in this country.

Anyone wondering if maybe fewer restrictions would've been better and if more draconian ones (often called for) were unnecessary. Anyone wondering if we needed to close schools, swab and isolate our kids, test and trace etc etc.

Or do people generally feel we did what was necessary at the time and are only okayish now because of weaker variants and higher vaccination levels?

Anyone feel less angry at the rule breakers, those who don't want to be vaccinated etc?

If it all happened again, do you think your response to restrictions would be the same, or would you be a bit more inclined to think "sod that for a laugh".

(Asking for a friend).

As do all the people who were fucked over by the restrictions you feel were justified. Well, not all of them, some of them died because of it. But most of them. Obviously your selfishness is ok and better than other people's though.

@HesterShaw1 thanks for trying. Just found it online by Googling 'petition against WHO'

This is what always puzzled me. The people who thought that children (or other vulnerable people) who didn't know them should put their wellbeing above their own weren't called selfish

I'd vaguely heard of the petition before this thread but haven't actually looked into the proposals. Don't think the WHO's actions at the start of the pandemic did a great deal to burnish their credibility though, so the reaction doesn't surprise me.

It's hypocrisy, but tbf people whose selfishness makes/made them more inclined to support restrictions have been encouraged in the idea that they're more moral than the people whose selfishness made/makes them less inclined. The state had a part to play there.

It's hypocrisy, but tbf people whose selfishness makes/made them more inclined to support restrictions have been encouraged in the idea that they're more moral than the people whose selfishness made/makes them less inclined. The state had a part to play there.

@AppleandRhubarbTart thank you. That is the best description I've read of the whole, tedious 'selfish' debate and it sums it up perfectly.

Yes, excellent point

@AppleandRhubarbTart It's a totally dishonest and bad faith comparison; I would say 'and you know it', but what frightens me is that I'm genuinely not certain that you do.

There are certain, very specific details of how restrictions were implemented where I disagree profoundly and feel the impact on individuals was exceedingly cruel, and almost totally avoidable. I have from time to time on these threads mentioned some examples of where I disagree with restrictions: for example I think no young child should have had to be in hospital alone, and no one should have had to receive news of a terminal diagnosis alone. I also think more children could have had at least some time back in school, sooner, and I think fewer mothers should have had to give birth alone (ideally as few as possible). The vast majority of these specific views of mine are the antithesis of selfish since there are no young children in my close family and no one close to me gave birth over the pandemic (so far).

Similarly, many of my views which you would class as pro restriction are not 'selfish' per se. Because I am not only CEV but also was seriously unwell before the pandemic, I already had a high level of home support in place. So a number of my concerns are actually regarding other vulnerable people (especially older people), rather than directly myself. It's such a shallow response to just say, in essence, 'nanananana, you're the selfish one!'

@AppleandRhubarbTart It's hypocrisy, but tbf people whose selfishness makes/made them more inclined to support restrictions have been encouraged in the idea that they're more moral than the people whose selfishness made/makes them less inclined. The state had a part to play there.

Let's actually be frank about what each side is talking about. I was (and still retrospectively am) largely pro restrictions because I want a lower pandemic death toll. You have decided that this is 'selfish' - I'm not quite sure how you arrive at that conclusion, but if that's what you want to label it, okay.

You and your little gang want no restrictions. That would absolutely have meant a higher pandemic death toll. It is 100% anti scientific to say it would not. You're trying to get around it by waffling about all kinds of other things, but this is the core of the issue: you wanted fewer restrictions and you don't mind that the price would have been paid in deaths.

And before you start making specious claims about there being a competing or larger number of lockdown suicides... inflating suicide numbers is deeply irresponsible. During any period of turmoil and trauma, people's mental health is at risk, no question, and there should have been more support for everyone struggling. (Hardly surprising, though, that there wasn't, looking at our government.) It is still a rank falsehood to claim that even with restrictions (let alone without) the number of suicides comes near the number of Covid deaths. The latter number would soar in the absence of restrictions, and with no guarantee that the former would drop.

A lot of the time ‘selfish’ applied less to what you did or didn’t do, and more to what your attitude was about that.

So saying “I don’t mind wearing a mask to play my part” was unselfish and saying “God I hate wearing this mask” was selfish, even though in both cases the mask was still there. Thinking the one-way system in supermarkets was fucking ridiculous and pointless was selfish, even if you were still obediently trudging through it. For a while on here, talking about how hard you were finding lockdown was ‘selfish’, like the virus could only be carried by people with the wrong thoughts.

I had a miserable lockdown, and at one point during it I was working from home, ill with covid (admittedly not dangerously ill but I still felt pretty shit), trying to look after nursery-aged DC and homeschool primary DC, while also doing urgent covid response work for my paid job. Literally at the same time - I remember answering work emails while following a baby round the living room while ‘supervising’ phonics worksheets, while feeling ill. But when people talk about behaviour during the pandemic, they don’t mean that, they mean did you say the right things and did you tut at the right people and did you feel the right feelings, and if you didn’t you were selfish selfish selfish.

@GoldenOmber I agree that calling the mere fact of struggling or finding it hard selfish is really mean, unnecessary and hurtful. Tbh I'm glad I wasn't on MN then, as from everything people say it sounds very intense and stressful.

Do you know me? I'm fairly sure you don't. Based on that fact you can't toss your "CEV" grenade i'm afraid.

You've no idea about my personal circumstances, nor those of my disabled husband.

Get back in your box.

It was bonkers. I think a lot of it came from fear, but fear itself can make people act very unpleasantly.

The fact that you view this as a disingenuous and bad faith point is in itself rather troubling.

I accept that you have a nuanced position on some restrictions and aren't a blanket everything was justified person, we've discussed that, but as I understand it, you were and continue to be in favour of the lockdowns we had. Please correct me if that's wrong. And the reason for this was because you felt the potential benefits to a group you're part of justified the detriment elsewhere, which I'd remind you has included people who died because of the impact of those restrictions too. Your own preferences and moral code led you to want to prioritise the group who you think should be prioritised, at the expense of others. That's selfishness. I don't think there's anything particularly surprising or terrible about it, but I'm calling it what it is.

Now, most people aren't completely selfish either. That's true. It would be an unusual position for a person with low vulnerability to covid to think literally everything that was done to try and suppress the pandemic was wrong, and equally even those most likely to die of covid don't usually take the view that every single thing that has been done or could be done to tackle covid would be acceptable. Those are extremes and most of us have at least some shades of grey. There are also people whose take an opposite view to what might be objectively seen as in their best interests when it comes to covid, although that's still coming from their own moral and ethical decisions and they're making a choice there too.

It is, however, the case that any views on the value of restrictions involve essentially prioritising some groups over others. That's the nature of the situation. Nobody is being innately better than anyone else when they express a view about which group should be prioritised over others.

As do all the people who were fucked over by the restrictions you feel were justified. Well, not all of them, some of them died because of it. But most of them. Obviously your selfishness is ok and better than other people's though

Quite. The unnecessary restrictions caused my husband to lose his job in September. His various health conditions mean he hasn't found another job yet, not that he can whilst he's waiting for a life-saving operation that has been put back and back and back..... I'm working two low-paid jobs to make ends meet but yes, selfish, blah blah blah. Just fuck off with it. It means nothing.

@SexyLittleNosferatu lol, 'grenade'? That says it all. You have no idea what it's like to actually live with this reality. (Which was my reality before Covid, actually, as someone who already had to wear a mask, avoid crowds, etc.)

Yeah, you have no idea what level of disability I am living with. That's why it's possible for you to be so callous and dismissive of others' lives.

@AppleandRhubarbTart I reject the notion that wanting a lower death toll in a pandemic caused by a novel pathogen can be a selfish position to take. It doesn't matter where my own risk level stands - that view is de facto not selfish.

This post is based on something that's completely incorrect. My view, stated on the first page of this thread, is that the jury's still out on whether the lockdowns were the correct approach. That we can obviously pick out certain examples of things that were just plain wrong (Sturgeon's batshit Greater Manchester travel ban, primary aged children being functionally excluded from the rules about meeting a friend in the 2021 lockdown etc) but that we don't know yet whether the broad principle was correct. You may of course disagree with this, but it's my very clearly stated opinion.

It follows from this that the rest of your post is also wrong.

I've literally just told you that I do live with it. Can't you read?

@AppleandRhubarbTart This post is based on something that's completely incorrect. My view, stated on the first page of this thread, is that the jury's still out on whether the lockdowns were the correct approach. That we can obviously pick out certain examples of things that were just plain wrong (Sturgeon's batshit Greater Manchester travel ban, primary aged children being functionally excluded from the rules about meeting a friend in the 2021 lockdown etc) but that we don't know yet whether the broad principle was correct. You may of course disagree with this, but it's my very clearly stated opinion.

It follows from this that the rest of your post is also wrong.

Ah, I was basing my interpretation on your recent posts on the thread! In that case I am wrong about your overall stance on restrictions per se, my apologies. It might be interesting for you to know that you come across as entirely anti restriction when some posts are taken as a group, though.

@SexyLittleNosferatu What you have said makes it clear that you don't.

You can reject it all you like. Deaths caused by the covid pathogen are not the only deaths that matter or that should be taken into consideration. The fact that you were at risk from something doesn't mean it supercedes all other considerations. Your selfish interests are no more or less important than those of other people.

@AppleandRhubarbTart I don't think that makes the rest of my post wrong at all, though! Just that I'm addressing it to you, when you aren't actually in the group of people to whom it's addressed. It still applies to everyone who is anti restrictions.

It's not. I don't really care whether people come to a particular conclusion because they've only read some of my posts, it's no bother to me to correct them. Apology accepted though as you have been gracious enough to offer it, I accept that the mistake was genuine.