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).

people began to use it (and still do) as an excuse to not provide service, see people, go to work and so on.

Absolutely. "Because of Covid" was used to excuse piss-poor customer service which could and should have been better managed. I would put good money on Covid being a convenient money-saving exercise in certain quarters.

But one of the worst things I saw was people saying they were glad of lockdowns because it meant they didn't need to socialise. They didn't have the balls to say "no" or admit they didn't like socialising, so they were happy to see normal human interaction taken away from everyone. Those people can get to fuck.

One thing that definitely was Government mandated and which I meant to add to my list above, was that fucking app.

@GrannyWeatherwaxsHatpin
I agree with what you're saying but I'm pretty sure no app was mandated, not in England anyway. I didn't download anything and when I went anywhere that wanted me to 'check in' I just wrote down my details on a piece of paper.

We have these things anyway. We have them now, and it's nothing to do with Covid.

You're right, it's a warning, but not about Covid.

I agree with what you're saying but I'm pretty sure no app was mandated, not in England anyway. I didn't download anything and when I went anywhere that wanted me to 'check in' I just wrote down my details on a piece of paper

Yes, you're right that the app itself wasn't mandated, the sign in was. Although several times I went to sign in and there was an air of ""Why can't you just have the app?" so I ended up having to get it and deleted it afterwards. It was certainly pushed hard by the government.

I know a lot of it stemmed from fear but I do hope the 'you're so selfish' poster's look back and realise how ridiculous they were being now

Judging by some of the earlier contributions in this thread, probably not.

I never checked in anywhere, I just took a photo of the code thing, I downloaded the app and it looked crap so I deleted it, I think a lot of people probably just took a photo. If they had asked I would have just said I thought that was what you were meant to do - I'm old so perfectly probable as we know what everyone thinks of old people and tech.

'We have these things anyway. We have them now, and it's nothing to do with Covid.

You're right, it's a warning, but not about Covid.'

It's not all to do with covid, but it's not nothing to do with covid surely?

Oh yeah loads of people did that. Or gave fake details. I never had the app, and also didn't give my real information.

Oh yeah loads of people did that. Or gave fake details.

I suspect it's one of the reasons why they didn't resurrect the signing-in requirement when they brought in Plan B at Christmas. They spoke a lot about how many millions of times the app had been downloaded but I'd have been much more interested to see the statistics on the number of unique users and the number of repeat downloads per user. Because I'd bet there were a lot of people who installed it, scanned in and deleted it. Rinse and repeat for every pub/cafe/restaurant visit.

Could well be. By that point I think it would've been clear that a lot of people were just not going to adhere to any of it.

I did the same, I just held up my phone and pretended to do it.

A huge thank you to everyone who has responded to my post. I really appreciate every response.

I thought I'd post an article describing a change of mind in the hope that it contributes to our discussion. www.thetimes.co.uk/article/i-totally-backed-the-lockdown-and-quite-enjoyed-it-but-was-i-just-a-mug-03nhzbqnq (it's behind a paywall but you are allowed a few articles a week for free and they don't pester you if you unsubscribe).

Some will probably appreciate it, and others probably won't - perhaps one to avoid if it's obvious from the title that it will rile you.

Well it's Rod Liddle, with everything that implies, and he's got some of the details wrong too, but I think it's a sentiment we're going to see a lot more of given the Partygate situation.

Whatever one thinks about the rights and wrongs of the report, whether Johnson should stay, the restrictions themselves etc, one thing that's crystal clear is that the people who were making the rules and telling the rest of us to colossally restrict our lives weren't scared enough to adhere to it themselves. The potential impact on trust in government potentially goes well past just this particular shower and this particular set of circumstances.

@AppleandRhubarbTart

It looks to me
like they locked us all down so THEY would have more chance of a hospital bed if they caught Covid while carrying on as normal.

I think they were well aware they were unlikely to need a hospital bed, hence no fear, hence ignore the rules

Speaking of fear A State of Fear won Peoples Book of the Year

I think that's the more likely explanation and the one that people will more commonly hold. Because the political class would be likely to get the best treatment regardless, really.

So what was the point then?

What was the reason behind getting millions of people to lockdown, ruining businesses, ruining lives... for what?

Because there would have been an almighty uproar if some old people that were probably near the end of life anyway died, obviously none of the partying civil servants and politicians were in that demographic so partied on

People in the media, and on here, we’re screeching to be locked down.

im certain it was public pressure to flow the failed models of China, then Italy

No, it was the reality of the impact on health services. Small percentages are large numbers from a population perspective.

There’s still threads on here from people who were ill in the first wave detailing what advice they were given by 111 and a lot of people were being advised to stay at home unless they were showing obvious signs of oxygen deprivation (lips turning blue etc.). There was a high threshold for patients to get an ambulance or admittance that was unlike anything we’ve experienced before and those numbers were still very high for the resources we had.

The examples you mention were followed because it was a dire situation. The government had no intention of reacting to covid following Chinas example until we reached the point it was obvious there wasn’t much choice. If we’d had the hospital resources we wouldn’t have locked down.

People in the media, and on here, we’re screeching to be locked down

They just wanted the government to do something - anything - to make them feel like there was some semblance of control or someone being in charge.

Brains don't like feeling out of control or under threat, so a visceral combination of both was always going to terrify people. The psychology of the pandemic was fascinating but I wish I hadn't had to live through it. It sometimes felt like the Stanford Prison Experiment made real.

Given the wider societal pressure for significant restrictions in March 2020 and their prevalence elsewhere by then, it would've taken a much more skilful and less populist government than Johnson and co to make a case against them. They did a pretty inept job when they tried it, as discussed upthread.

Putting restrictions to avoid people infecting each other in a pandemic is a reasonable response and this has been known for centuries.

There is a solid public health basis to that.

And we could see in March 2020 what was happening to health services in Italy etc

So no it wasn't just societal pressure, it was a response to a crisis that was reasonable and based on the knowledge we had then.

Again though, you're using historical examples of things that are not full societal lockdown to justify full societal lockdown. If lockdown in March 2020 was indeed the best choice, which I don't rule out, it's not because it was a centuries old known response.