End of all remaining Covid restrictions in England

[Richard Scott]

Why though, particularly if comparing the present situation with 3 years ago?

Also schemes like 'eat out to help out' were very good in that they helped both the pubs/restaurants and the customers getting a cheaper meal than normal.

You really don't get it, some of us found this incredibly hard and fact that there are still issues due to this seem to have escaped you. Eat out to help out has to be paid for somehow as do all the other financial support schemes hence National Insurance rises etc. so, no, it isn't better and that's before we discuss mental health issues, hospital waiting lists, preventable deaths etc.

 

[Philip]

In the first year or so of the pandemic, I heard frequent references about not wanting to go back to the 'old normal' but rather using the pandemic disruption to life to create a 'new normal' at the end of it all, relating to more equality; less marginalisation; less discrimination and generally a country where people are more keen to help others and awareness of things like mental health.

I guess the question is whether this has actually happened and to what extent if it has, but it does show that these were problems before the pandemic. Yes, the NHS is struggling with waiting times and especially in the GP area, but these again were all serious problems before the pandemic started.

 

[Mag_seven]

I heard frequent references about not wanting to go back to the 'old normal' but rather using the pandemic disruption to life to create a 'new normal' at the end of it all, relating to more equality; less marginalisation; less discrimination and generally a country where people are more keen to help others.

I suggest the "new normal" that you talk about is highly subjective. By all means what you state may be desirable but such things should be made official political party policy and put to the public at the next general election.

 

[Cdd89]

In the first year or so of the pandemic, I heard frequent references about not wanting to go back to the 'old normal' but rather using the pandemic disruption to life to create a 'new normal' at the end of it all, relating to more equality; less marginalisation; less discrimination and generally a country where people are more keen to help others and awareness of things like mental health.

I remember that too. I think this motivated some to exaggerate the harms from the pandemic as it served as an opportunity to force change that would not have otherwise been possible. There were multiple articles in 2020 about how “only 10%” wanted to go back to the old normal after Covid.

Of course the fact that 90% want change doesn’t mean there is any consensus on what that change is, and my impression is that our response to Covid worsened all those things cited above, especially mental health.

 

[bramling]

You really don't get it, some of us found this incredibly hard and fact that there are still issues due to this seem to have escaped you. Eat out to help out has to be paid for somehow as do all the other financial support schemes hence National Insurance rises etc. so, no, it isn't better and that's before we discuss mental health issues, hospital waiting lists, preventable deaths etc.

Yes I suspect people may now be starting to wonder if a few weeks going to the beach every day and some discounted meals were really worth it, considering what all this has now caused.

The irony is that all the restaurants round here have now upped their prices significantly. A typical meal for two at my local Indian, for example, would come to £40-50 pre-Covid, now for the same meal you won’t get much change out of £80.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 5 Apr 2022 ==

In the first year or so of the pandemic, I heard frequent references about not wanting to go back to the 'old normal' but rather using the pandemic disruption to life to create a 'new normal' at the end of it all, relating to more equality; less marginalisation; less discrimination and generally a country where people are more keen to help others and awareness of things like mental health.

If this was ever a serious prospect, things haven’t turned out this way. I’d say all these things are now worse than before Covid.

To be frank it’s very hard to think of *anything* that’s now better.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 5 Apr 2022 ==

I remember that too. I think this motivated some to exaggerate the harms from the pandemic as it served as an opportunity to force change that would not have otherwise been possible. There were multiple articles in 2020 about how “only 10%” wanted to go back to the old normal after Covid.

Of course the fact that 90% want change doesn’t mean there is any consensus on what that change is, and my impression is that our response to Covid worsened all those things cited above, especially mental health.

No doubt some of those 90% thought the “new normal” was going to be not having to go to work, being paid to walk the new dog round the park every day, discount meals, etc.

Things haven’t quite worked out this way, the new normal for some seems to be having to choose between hearing their home or filling the car up.

 

[LAX54]

You really don't get it, some of us found this incredibly hard and fact that there are still issues due to this seem to have escaped you. Eat out to help out has to be paid for somehow as do all the other financial support schemes hence National Insurance rises etc. so, no, it isn't better and that's before we discuss mental health issues, hospital waiting lists, preventable deaths etc.

I always thought a better name for Eat to Help out would have bee....Eat out...Pay Later !

 

[bramling]

I always thought a better name for Eat to Help out would have bee....Eat out...Pay Later !

Another Sunak measure which seems to have caused more problems than it solved was the stamp duty holiday. Seems to have seriously overheated an already inflated housing market round here. £1.7m for a semi, anyone?

 

[Mag_seven]

I always thought a better name for Eat to Help out would have bee....Eat out...Pay Later !

Well there is no doubt we are starting to pay the price for lockdowns and this will fall disproportionally on the poorest in society. I hope the wealthy pro lockdown "work from home" types are proud of themselves.

 

[kristiang85]

I think a key problem is that things such as lockdowns that basically no-one would have thought would ever happen in 2019 did occur, and now that all those things were imposed on us, they hang over us like the Sword of Damocles as things that could happen again at some point or other. That's one way we really can't return to our naive state of 2019, as much as we might want to. The relationship between the individual and the state has changed, quite dramatically, and for the worse.

Another issue is that in 2019, other than those with specific medical conditions such as OCD, we didn't tend to look at other human beings as threats to our existence merely by existing, and we didn't have this wretched and poisonous idea that people who appear and feel perfectly healthy should nevertheless take mitigating steps (tests, masks, etc.) to be 'considerate' of others. In that respect our society in 2019 was, despite all its faults and issues, considerably better and healthier than now.

Also most things were quite a bit cheaper in 2019, and the inflation situation is about to get significantly worse.

Plus there are still all manner of things that I'm not allowed to do now that I could do freely in 2019. For example, while there are no domestic restrictions in place in England anymore, I am not currently able to travel to large parts of the world, including the USA.

Absolutely. In 2019 I had no idea what happened afterwards would be possible, and now I'm worrying that governments will wield this again not just on future variants of COVID and other pandemics (imagine the inconsequential swine flu happening now), but also climate related issues. In 2019 I felt good about the future; now I worry. A lot.

And financially, I am paid about 1% more than I was in 2019 yet prices seem to be around 8-10% more. Luckily I've offset that by commuting less, but it does deprive me of a lot of my fun midweek social life in London.

 

[MikeWM]

In the first year or so of the pandemic, I heard frequent references about not wanting to go back to the 'old normal' but rather using the pandemic disruption to life to create a 'new normal' at the end of it all, relating to more equality; less marginalisation; less discrimination and generally a country where people are more keen to help others and awareness of things like mental health.

I have speculated previously that this may well be a large part of the reason that so much of the 'left' were, rather bafflingly in my opinion, wholeheartedly behind the covid restrictions and the attitudes supporting them. Perhaps inspired by what happened with the reforming Attlee government after the great upheaval of WW2.

However, I always felt this was totally misguided and a total misreading of history - by people I had often previously agreed with on many things. Lockdowns, and now the consequences of lockdowns, hit the poor and the marginalised hardest - the very people the 'left' are supposed to be sticking up for. In addition, this idea that your fellow man is a danger to your existence and should be mitigating against that, rather than being seen as a comrade and friend, is totally opposite to traditional 'left' approaches to society and community.

I would add that I don't think we've ended in a better place at all. I believe there is more mistrust, more division and more marginalisation in our society now than ever.

 

[Smidster]

I would argue that life is generally worse now than in 2019 and a large part of that is the consequences of the measures that we put in place for Covid.

Many of the financial effects that we say today with high inflation etc are the direct result of our policies - even without geopolitical events we were already heading for historically high inflation as demand increased after restrictions and supply was constrained as well as massive labour shortages (of course partly that is other Govt policy) - take away Covid policies and we likely wouldn't have had such a pressure on the system as we had last year.

Then let's look at more general society - Thanks to the Covid reaction we now have city centres that are dying / dead , a health system with record numbers of people waiting for treatment (including those who will die because of that wait) , an education system that has failed kids which will have impacts for decades , taxation at its highest rate as a proportion of GDP for decades and a country where people won't take potatoes from food banks because they need cooking.

The Pandemic did give us an opportunity to really change society for the better and tackle big problems - we could have really thought about what a good sick pay system looks like for example - but instead we didn't have any of those tough conversations and got fixated on arguments about masks / lockdowns.

Were things great in 2019? No, of course not....but they were a damn sight better than they are today.

 

[bramling]

I would argue that life is generally worse now than in 2019 and a large part of that is the consequences of the measures that we put in place for Covid.

Many of the financial effects that we say today with high inflation etc are the direct result of our policies - even without geopolitical events we were already heading for historically high inflation as demand increased after restrictions and supply was constrained as well as massive labour shortages (of course partly that is other Govt policy) - take away Covid policies and we likely wouldn't have had such a pressure on the system as we had last year.

Then let's look at more general society - Thanks to the Covid reaction we now have city centres that are dying / dead , a health system with record numbers of people waiting for treatment (including those who will die because of that wait) , an education system that has failed kids which will have impacts for decades , taxation at its highest rate as a proportion of GDP for decades and a country where people won't take potatoes from food banks because they need cooking.

The Pandemic did give us an opportunity to really change society for the better and tackle big problems - we could have really thought about what a good sick pay system looks like for example - but instead we didn't have any of those tough conversations and got fixated on arguments about masks / lockdowns.

Were things great in 2019? No, of course not....but they were a damn sight better than they are today.

Very good post, and can only agree with all of this.

 

[kristiang85]

I would argue that life is generally worse now than in 2019 and a large part of that is the consequences of the measures that we put in place for Covid.

Many of the financial effects that we say today with high inflation etc are the direct result of our policies - even without geopolitical events we were already heading for historically high inflation as demand increased after restrictions and supply was constrained as well as massive labour shortages (of course partly that is other Govt policy) - take away Covid policies and we likely wouldn't have had such a pressure on the system as we had last year.

Then let's look at more general society - Thanks to the Covid reaction we now have city centres that are dying / dead , a health system with record numbers of people waiting for treatment (including those who will die because of that wait) , an education system that has failed kids which will have impacts for decades , taxation at its highest rate as a proportion of GDP for decades and a country where people won't take potatoes from food banks because they need cooking.

The Pandemic did give us an opportunity to really change society for the better and tackle big problems - we could have really thought about what a good sick pay system looks like for example - but instead we didn't have any of those tough conversations and got fixated on arguments about masks / lockdowns.

Were things great in 2019? No, of course not....but they were a damn sight better than they are today.

Ditto above, you captured it in a nutshell.

 

[nw1]

Sorry, can't agree, 2019 and before weren't perfect but infinitely preferable to anytime after March 2020 up to present day. Hated every minute of lockdown and would happily have everything back as it was in 2019.

Agree there. To be honest I'd prefer 1989 or 1997 rather than 2019, but to be quite honest anything from the late 80s up to 2019 would do. (I personally enjoyed the early and mid-80s - including, in particular, the trains amongst other things - by virtue of still being a child or teenager, and therefore not having to worry about 'adult' concerns - but will admit these were tough times for the country as a whole.)

Summer 2020 was kind of alright, compared to spring 2020, but it still felt there was a 'shadow' over things and a lot of (as it turned out, correct) talk of things not being 'normal' by the autumn as the damper and colder weather would cause Covid to spread again. So it felt a bit like the eye of a hurricane so to speak, that things would have to get worse before they got better.

I certainly wouldn't like to live in a permanent world of five-day-a-week home working, little socialisation, having to book to go to the pub, legally-enforced 10-day self-isolation, local lockdowns that could happen at any time (Leicester in summer 2020) and so on. While there have always been problems (particularly in the 2010s, IMX), for me life up to 2019 was much better than what we've had since.

 

[Eyersey468]

Well there is no doubt we are starting to pay the price for lockdowns and this will fall disproportionally on the poorest in society. I hope the wealthy pro lockdown "work from home" types are proud of themselves.

And it's not like this wasn't predictable either.

 

[ainsworth74]

I think a key problem is that things such as lockdowns that basically no-one would have thought would ever happen in 2019 did occur, and now that all those things were imposed on us, they hang over us like the Sword of Damocles as things that could happen again at some point or other. That's one way we really can't return to our naive state of 2019, as much as we might want to. The relationship between the individual and the state has changed, quite dramatically, and for the worse.

I find it darkly ironic that so much of Brexit was about Parliamentary Sovereignty and as soon as it was secured Parliament appears to have been perfectly content to just allow ministers to govern by fiat publishing regulations minutes before they're due to come into force without any Parliamentary scrutiny whatsoever. The suggestion that some scrutiny might be, you know, a good idea being pooh-poohed by ministers who insist that there was no time and they had to act. That might have been true in March of 2020 (though mostly due to government incompetence, the warning signs were there in Italy during February 2020 that this was going to be a big problem) but it certainly wasn't by the time we get to the other end of the year and yet throughout Government continued to sidestep Parliament and it seems like Parliament, with a few exceptions, simply didn't care.

That's one heck of a damaging precedent in general as it effectively removes any checks and balances between the executive and the legislature. Now our system has always been weaker in that regard as the executive is drawn from the largest party that can command the House of Commons so the executive has usually been able to get its way fairly easily. But it at least theoretically existed as a check on an executive gone 'mad'. I'm now not sure how bad things would have to get for it to be enough to rouse Parliament to oppose the Government. Heck even if they did they'd probably just get prorogued on spurious grounds like they did in the Autumn of 2019.

Forget whether lockdowns were a good idea, terrible idea, whether masks are effective or ineffective, whether we should test or not test or any of the other arguments that have raged. The real thing that should worry people is what's happened to our constitutional norms over the last two years.

 

[nw1]

I have speculated previously that this may well be a large part of the reason that so much of the 'left' were, rather bafflingly in my opinion, wholeheartedly behind the covid restrictions and the attitudes supporting them. Perhaps inspired by what happened with the reforming Attlee government after the great upheaval of WW2.

I did find that somewhat hard to understand. The left surely should not be supporting policies that lead to job losses, poverty, bankruptcies, mental health issues and long-term economic problems. The issue I think the left had was a sense of guilt: 'we must prevent people dying of Covid at all costs' - without realising that the damage caused by hard lockdown policies might be worse in the long run.

If anything, the effects of lockdowns align more with certain economically right-wing, conservative philosophies. For instance - force people out of business and larger, multinational organisations can take them over.

I would add that I don't think we've ended in a better place at all. I believe there is more mistrust, more division and more marginalisation in our society now than ever.

I would agree although certain other non-Covid events of recent years (which I do not want to discuss further as it's OT) have also played a part. I think Covid is the big one though. In particular, a lot of organisations have exploited the effect of Covid to force long-term changes in the way that they run, and it feels we are a more isolated society of 'bubbles' now compared to 2019 and before. Again, it's actually more of a right-wing philosophy than left-wing: "put up with the New Norm or shut up, and be thankful you even have a job".

 

[MikeWM]

The real thing that should worry people is what's happened to our constitutional norms over the last two years.

I agree with all that - as you say, our Westminster setup automatically means that our separation of powers has always been remarkably poor, but the last two years has exposed just how poor Parliament has been, and how unwilling it has been to standup for itself.

Again, this is part of a trend that has gone on for years though, which Covid has just accelerated. Parliament in the 1970s, even 1980s, had considerable power retained to back-benchers. There has been a long-term project, from both major parties, over the last 30-40 years to shift power from the legislature to the executive. I've been complaining about that quite strongly since the New Labour days.

 

[danm14]

I have speculated previously that this may well be a large part of the reason that so much of the 'left' were, rather bafflingly in my opinion, wholeheartedly behind the covid restrictions and the attitudes supporting them. Perhaps inspired by what happened with the reforming Attlee government after the great upheaval of WW2

I think it's much simpler than that.

If Donald Trump had made masks mandatory and recommended that his supporters wore MAGA-masks, the "left" would have been fighting for them to remain optional, and where mandatory for wide ranging exemptions that anyone could pretend to have, citing rape victims, the hearing impaired and people with sensory issues.

If Boris Johnson had supported lockdowns rather than herd immunity from the start, the "left" would have opposed them as an unreasonable imposition on their freedoms, and would have been very vocal about the harms.

 

[bramling]

I find it darkly ironic that so much of Brexit was about Parliamentary Sovereignty and as soon as it was secured Parliament appears to have been perfectly content to just allow ministers to govern by fiat publishing regulations minutes before they're due to come into force without any Parliamentary scrutiny whatsoever. The suggestion that some scrutiny might be, you know, a good idea being pooh-poohed by ministers who insist that there was no time and they had to act. That might have been true in March of 2020 (though mostly due to government incompetence, the warning signs were there in Italy during February 2020 that this was going to be a big problem) but it certainly wasn't by the time we get to the other end of the year and yet throughout Government continued to sidestep Parliament and it seems like Parliament, with a few exceptions, simply didn't care.

That's one heck of a damaging precedent in general as it effectively removes any checks and balances between the executive and the legislature. Now our system has always been weaker in that regard as the executive is drawn from the largest party that can command the House of Commons so the executive has usually been able to get its way fairly easily. But it at least theoretically existed as a check on an executive gone 'mad'. I'm now not sure how bad things would have to get for it to be enough to rouse Parliament to oppose the Government. Heck even if they did they'd probably just get prorogued on spurious grounds like they did in the Autumn of 2019.

Forget whether lockdowns were a good idea, terrible idea, whether masks are effective or ineffective, whether we should test or not test or any of the other arguments that have raged. The real thing that should worry people is what's happened to our constitutional norms over the last two years.

Another very good post. Yes the way the government has carried on has been disgusting, right down to the having their own parties whilst imposing restrictions on everyone else - which of course raises the question as to whether they really believed the restrictions were justified.

It is scary how people can be influenced by something as simple as a blue heart or fitting in with the masses.

 

[nw1]

I agree with all that - as you say, our Westminster setup automatically means that our separation of powers has always been remarkably poor, but the last two years has exposed just how poor Parliament has been, and how unwilling it has been to standup for itself.

Again, this is part of a trend that has gone on for years though, which Covid has just accelerated. Parliament in the 1970s, even 1980s, had considerable power retained to back-benchers. There has been a long-term project, from both major parties, over the last 30-40 years to shift power from the legislature to the executive. I've been complaining about that quite strongly since the New Labour days.

I would certainly agree regarding the Johnson government. It seems to get its way on just about everything it wants - helped of course by our "40% of vote, 100% of power" pseudo-democratic system.

I think it's much simpler than that.

If Donald Trump had made masks mandatory and recommended that his supporters wore MAGA-masks, the "left" would have been fighting for them to remain optional, and where mandatory for wide ranging exemptions that anyone could pretend to have, citing rape victims, the hearing impaired and people with sensory issues.

If Boris Johnson had supported lockdowns rather than herd immunity from the start, the "left" would have opposed them as an unreasonable imposition on their freedoms, and would have been very vocal about the harms.

Though the left would have had plenty of other sticks to beat Johnson with, rather than his attitude to lockdown (and I dispute that the Johnson government has been consistently lockdown-sceptic, in particular the early 2021 lockdown really was disproportionately harsh and criminalised harmless, low risk activities as well as the 'Look them in the eye' guilt-tripping to make people feel they were uncaring monsters if they made two visits to the supermarket in a given day).

The left could have beat the Johnson government over Brexit, over the authoritarian attitude of Patel to law and order, over the Policing Bill and Elections Bill, over their bad attitude towards immigration. There was no need for the left, on political grounds alone, to beat the government over their Covid policies (other than them being too harsh at times). Maybe a lockdown-sceptic line would actually have helped Labour a little in areas vulnerable to job losses such as some of the Red Wall seats?

 

[danm14]

Though the left would have had plenty of other sticks to beat Johnson with, rather than his attitude to lockdown (and I dispute that the Johnson government has been consistently lockdown-sceptic, in particular the early 2021 lockdown really was disproportionately harsh and criminalised harmless, low risk activities as well as the 'Look them in the eye' guilt-tripping to make people feel they were uncaring monsters if they made two visits to the supermarket in a given day).

The left could have beat the Johnson government over Brexit, over the authoritarian attitude of Patel to law and order, over the Policing Bill and Elections Bill, over their bad attitude towards immigration. There was no need for the left, on political grounds alone, to beat the government over their Covid policies (other than them being too harsh at times). Maybe a lockdown-sceptic line would actually have helped Labour a little in areas vulnerable to job losses such as some of the Red Wall seats?

I mean that on a global scale - the idea that the "left" are pro-lockdown/restrictions and the "right" are anti-lockdown/restrictions was effectively decided randomly on a "who blinks first" basis.

I do not in any way believe the Johnson government were lockdown-skeptics beyond the very first days of Covid when herd-immunity and business as usual was the stated policy.

 

[nw1]

I mean that on a global scale - the idea that the "left" are pro-lockdown/restrictions and the "right" are anti-lockdown/restrictions was effectively decided randomly on a "who blinks first" basis.

I do not in any way believe the Johnson government were lockdown-skeptics beyond the very first days of Covid when herd-immunity and business as usual was the stated policy.

Yes, that's true - fair point. I see where you're coming from now: if Trump and Johnson had both ordered lockdowns on say Feb 1st 2020, in advance of more moderate governments, and before Covid even became a big problem, maybe the world would have associated the right with lockdowns and the left might have taken the more sceptical line, particularly with the later lockdowns which were more controversial than the early ones.

 

[danm14]

Yes, that's true - fair point. I see where you're coming from now: if Trump and Johnson had both ordered lockdowns on say Feb 1st 2020, in advance of more moderate governments, and before Covid even became a big problem, maybe the world would have associated the right with lockdowns and the left might have taken the more sceptical line, particularly with the later lockdowns which were more controversial than the early ones.

Yes, that is my point, more or less.

The same applies to masks and vaccine passports - if to a slightly lesser extent (as the idea that lockdown is left-wing was already established).

The idea that some people could not wear a mask was not controversial at first, and I recall many "left-wing" people being cautious about the idea of mandating them unless exemptions were made for the disabled. Until they were mandated, and people perceived by the "left" as "right-wing" chose not to wear them, of course - then the "if my (imaginary) deaf-blind autistic great-grandmother with COPD, asthma and terminal lung cancer can wear a mask for sixteen hours at a time, then anyone can" nonsense started.

If Donald Trump had won the US election, I could imagine him using "Operation Warp Speed" (the vaccine) enforced through vaccine passports as a way to leave the "loony left's policies of lockdowns and masks" behind - and those who chose "not to take the Trump vaccine" would have opposed it. Would the rest of the world have adopted vaccine passports with such gusto if Trump was the posterchild? In those circumstances, I think the February 2021 idea of "lockdown never lifting for the unvaccinated" would have happened in the UK, and much of the EU would have avoided vaccine passports.

 

[raspberrypeel]

Agree with the above points on parliamentary oversight. Use the powers for an initial 2 week lockdown, fine.

The 'rule by decree' tactic adopted by Johnson and clapped on dimwittedly by 'lockdown ever harder!!!' opposition MPs was a massive breach of our democratic norms and I worry it has let the cat out the bag.

 

[nw1]

Agree with the above points on parliamentary oversight. Use the powers for an initial 2 week lockdown, fine.

The 'rule by decree' tactic adopted by Johnson and clapped on dimwittedly by 'lockdown ever harder!!!' opposition MPs was a massive breach of our democratic norms and I worry it has let the cat out the bag.

It will be interesting to see if they try to order restrictions if a bad flu season of the 1999/2000 type happens again (assuming Covid has gone firmly into the background by that stage). I would hope not - even though I was ill with the 1999 flu personally.

One can imagine 'lockdown' style tactics being favoured by some in other circumstances, e.g. a ban on climbing Snowdon on particularly warm bank holiday weekends - though I doubt they would be enacted. While I can appreciate that over-use of honeypot destinations can bring environmental damage, I would not want to see the type of restrictions on mountain access seen at some places in the US and Canada (and at odds with the normal freedom enjoyed in the UK and much of the rest of Europe).

The pendulum has definitely swung towards increased state control in recent years, and that's not just restricted to Covid (witness Patel's general approach to law and order, for instance) - after a long period in which excessive state control was unfashionable.

 

[greyman42]

Whilst there were some irritations like social distancing measures being in force, mask mandates and testing/isolation rules, I thought there were plus points even compared with 2019 and the situation now - trains were much less busy, pubs and towns were well patronised but not often mad busy compared with now and life didn't feel like a 'rat-race' as much as it normally does.

So you thought that having to socially distance in a pub and walk around it with a useless mask on was a plus point?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 5 Apr 2022 ==

It will be interesting to see if they try to order restrictions if a bad flu season of the 1999/2000 type happens again (assuming Covid has gone firmly into the background by that stage). I would hope not - even though I was ill with the 1999 flu personally.

Not a chance unless Labour are in power.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 5 Apr 2022 ==

I suggest the "new normal" that you talk about is highly subjective. By all means what you state may be desirable but such things should be made official political party policy and put to the public at the next general election.

It would be political suicide to put that in a manifesto.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 5 Apr 2022 ==

If Boris Johnson had supported lockdowns rather than herd immunity from the start, the "left" would have opposed them as an unreasonable imposition on their freedoms, and would have been very vocal about the harms.

The left had two years to oppose lockdowns but all they did was ask for harsher ones.
I will not forget this at the ballot box.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 5 Apr 2022 ==

Maybe a lockdown-sceptic line would actually have helped Labour a little in areas vulnerable to job losses such as some of the Red Wall seats?

Yes it would of done but as their policy was to call for harsher lockdowns and restrictions, we were never going to get that.

 

[Philip]

So you thought that having to socially distance in a pub and walk around it with a useless mask on was a plus point?

At least the pub was open by then! It felt like a boost just to be able to go in pubs again and without having to sit outside like you had to in April-May last year; everyone knew at the time that face coverings and social distancing measures would eventually be removed. However, I remember in April '20 there was a lot of uncertainty about when the pubs and restaurants would be reopening, with some suggestions at the time that they may be forced to stay shut for the rest of the year or longer. I thought being able to go in a pub and restaurant again in July was a welcome boost and sooner than initially expected, despite the measures in place.

It was also a boost being able to travel unlimted domestically again without the restrictions that had been in place between March and May.

 

[danm14]

At least the pub was open by then! It felt like a boost just to be able to go in pubs again and without having to sit outside like you had to in April-May last year; everyone knew at the time that face coverings and social distancing measures would eventually be removed. However, I remember in April '20 there was a lot of uncertainty about when the pubs and restaurants would be reopening, with some suggestions at the time that they may be forced to stay shut for the rest of the year or longer. I thought being able to go in a pub and restaurant again in July was a welcome boost and sooner than initially expected, despite the measures in place.

It was also a boost being able to travel unlimted domestically again without the restrictions that had been in place between March and May.

Well, yes, in the same way that having only one broken leg is a boost over having two broken legs. It's not a boost over having no broken legs.

 

[nw1]

At least the pub was open by then! It felt like a boost just to be able to go in pubs again and without having to sit outside like you had to in April-May last year; everyone knew at the time that face coverings and social distancing measures would eventually be removed. However, I remember in April '20 there was a lot of uncertainty about when the pubs and restaurants would be reopening, with some suggestions at the time that they may be forced to stay shut for the rest of the year or longer.

Yes, wasn't it Dorries who was banging on about keeping lockdown going until a vaccine was ready? (though admittedly she didn't clarify what she meant by 'lockdown').

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 6 Apr 2022 ==

Back to the current situation, and I'm trying to make sense of the current apparent rise in symptomatic cases (generally, not as a result of the ONS survey discussed above).

There seem to be as many as Christmas, which suggests we're in a secondary Omicron wave (due to this 'BA2' mutation, I presume) - but also there is presumably much less testing now (due to the removal of the legally mandated isolation) which almost suggests to me that there are more symptomatic cases than in the winter - as, in contrast to Christmas, presumably only those with significant symptoms would go to the trouble of testing. Also I'm hearing a lot of stories of people ill with Covid phoning in to radio shows, etc, and colleagues are reporting that 'several' of their friends are ill with Covid.

However the number of really, really serious cases is still low. So does 'BA2' have worse, albeit still not serious, symptoms compared to the original Omicron? As in 'BA2' is more likely to give you a noticeable flu-like illness?