Covid restrictions extended to 19/7/2021. Your views on how this will pan out.

[Bantamzen]

It seems that some people on here are quite keen on authoritarianism as long as it doesn’t effect them, just so they can sit on their lofty perch and virtue signal and judge everyone else, they have no real understanding on how authoritarians work, but they’re usually the first to complain when it effects them at some point.

This has been very much the theme through lockdowns and restrictions. People least affected by them seem most comfortable with them, so long as they don't intrude on their own lives. And when you try to explain to them the effects these have on other people, they are often just dismissive of other people's issues. We should perhaps rename the disease "I'm Alright Jackovid".

 

[35B]

My cousin has had the vaccine and had an adverse reaction, he’s an NHS worker, 26, he has had breathing difficulties since and has not gone for his 2nd Jab, now his case is probably a minority case, is he an anti vaxxer for not wanting the 2nd Jab? Even though he is a minority case of an adverse reaction to the jab, it still needs to be looked into, the government were quick enough extending restrictions because of cases, not deaths, cases

Did you actually read my post? Nowhere did I deny that there are reactions to vaccines; the point is that the anti-vaxxers are using what are rare reactions to spread the lie that the vaccine is dangerous and unnecessary, and then adding flat out lies to amplify their message.

If I were in your cousin's shoes, of course I'd also be concerned about those effects and seeking advice for how it would affect me. But unless I'm missing something, his reaction is not something that can be transmitted to anyone else, and is extremely unusual - which puts it in a completely different category of decision when thinking about public health as a whole.

Meanwhile, I wish your cousin a full and speedy recovery.

So you are in favour of a medical apartheid? OK what about people who haven't had a flu jab, should they also be segregated? After all flu can kill tens of thousands in winter seasons. And what about the MMR jab, would you include that too?

Hey, how about an age apartheid? After all older people are more likely to get sick, so how about we keep them away from younger people. So as younger people tend to be the ones working in public facing roles, let's build walled off zones for over 60s to keep them from spreading illness to the workers....

I hope by now my point is made. But if it is not then understand that I find a mentality where some want people segregated on the basis of medical interventions, gender, age, race, social standing, financial position etc fundamentally disturbing. History is full of examples of these, and the consequences they reap. We should be learning from history and the mistakes we made, not seeking to repeat them.

If you are looking for a risk free life, and want anyone you might perceive as a threat kept away from you, it is up to you to make the necessary changes to your life, not for everyone else to change theirs. Life comes attached with risks, we either deal with that reality, or we try to hide from it. The only problem for the hiders is that life knows exactly where they are.

It's interesting that you use those examples of why isolating the vulnerable are cock-eyed - they are precisely the policies that would have been required to implement the Great Barrington Declaration.

As for the question of segregation, that's a strawman that you raise in response to a question about where businesses will tend to focus their efforts. The medical intervention of vaccination - and yes, as citizens, we all should have a choice of whether we accept it - is in a fundamentally different class to most of the other characteristics you mention; the logic of your argument is that no person or business should ever make a decision about who they deal with or how they deal with them, but always deal with them in exactly the same way, no matter what. I'll try that with the bank some time. To discriminate is to choose; if a business were to have a choice between serving those who can prove they've been vaccinated, or focussing on the small minority who won't, then most business will automatically follow the common sense approach of serving the majority of their potential customers.

 

[quantinghome]

This has been very much the theme through lockdowns and restrictions. People least affected by them seem most comfortable with them, so long as they don't intrude on their own lives. And when you try to explain to them the effects these have on other people, they are often just dismissive of other people's issues. We should perhaps rename the disease "I'm Alright Jackovid".

Really? How do you really know this is people's attitude?

I've no idea why some people are more accepting of lockdown and restrictions than others. It could be that they are less affected; it could be that they have a more stoical disposition; it could be that they find it really difficult but are persuaded that it's for the greater good; it could be any number of reasons. Without some sort of comprehensive survey it's just guesswork.

Just as we shouldn't dismiss those who have found restrictions intolerable, likewise we shouldn't show prejudice to those who have somehow managed to live with them.

 

[NorthKent1989]

This has been very much the theme through lockdowns and restrictions. People least affected by them seem most comfortable with them, so long as they don't intrude on their own lives. And when you try to explain to them the effects these have on other people, they are often just dismissive of other people's issues. We should perhaps rename the disease "I'm Alright Jackovid".

Indeed, and I agree with the renaming of Covid too, because this is exactly what’s happened, the “I’m alright Jack” attitude has never been more exposed in our society.

Really? How do you really know this is people's attitude?

I've no idea why some people are more accepting of lockdown and restrictions than others. It could be that they are less affected; it could be that they have a more stoical disposition; it could be that they find it really difficult but are persuaded that it's for the greater good; it could be any number of reasons. Without some sort of comprehensive survey it's just guesswork.

Just as we shouldn't dismiss those who have found restrictions intolerable, likewise we shouldn't show prejudice to those who have somehow managed to live with them.

Well I don’t exactly see many poor, working class, lower middle class or small business owners begging for lockdown either, seeing as they’re most effected by such measures, furlough doesn’t go far, food prices have remained the same, some landlords have demanded tenants pay rent with what little funds they have.

I have however seen more of those financially secure, those who can work from home or of an older generation being quite blasé about continual restrictions and lockdowns, they haven’t exactly complained about them either.

 

[Bertie the bus]

A year ago the idea of vaccine passports just to live a normal social life was “utter nonsense” and now look at where we are now, funny that isn’t it.

You basically answered my question for me you are for segregation and apartheid, remember at one time it was legal and sensible to put a sign saying “No Blacks, No Irish, No Dogs” legality does not equate to morality I sincerely hope you understand that

I have not expressed an opinion either way. I have stated how the world works. Personally I simply don't care whether you are vaccinated or not. It is your choice but I have absolutely no idea why you think people should put their businesses, homes, etc at risk because of a choice you have made.

Your arguments get more and more ridiculous. I'd guessed you would trot out the no blacks thing. People don't choose to be black. People choose to not be vaccinated. You have known for months there would probably be some kind of vaccine passport for certain activities and chose not to anyway so don't start moaning now.

 

[ChrisC]

I think there are a very large number of people, myself included, who in many ways were pro lockdown back in March 2020 but are very much the opposite now. Back in March last year it was an unknown situation, any form of vaccination looked a long time in the future, and the hospital admissions and death rates were rising at a very fast rate. We are now, with the very successful vaccination programme in a completely different position.

Many people, like myself, who accepted the lockdowns and have followed all restrictions imposed by them, even when we could see others not doing so, feel that we have done our bit and the goal posts should not be moved. We were told that vaccination would be the way out of this and yet even after all the most vulnerable people have been double vaccinated, we are still having to wear masks and social distance. From being very supportive of the lockdowns last year I am now really annoyed at the 21st June date not happening and more and more I am just ignoring some of the current restrictions and getting on with life as normal as is possible at the moment. I don’t want to wear a mask in shops, on public transport, in church etc any longer and hopefully that will all be dropped on 19th July. We can’t, for sake of the economy, people’s jobs, our travel, entertainment and hospitality businesses and above all peoples mental health and other health issues, continue with this nonsense any longer.

However, I will still be careful for a time, and if I found myself somewhere like on a very overcrowded London tube, I might just voluntarily wear a mask as to me it would seem a sensible precaution. With the vaccinations working, low hospital admissions and low death rates all restrictions should have been lifted by now and people left to make their own personal choices.

 

[quantinghome]

Indeed, and I agree with the renaming of Covid too, because this is exactly what’s happened, the “I’m alright Jack” attitude has never been more exposed in our society.

Well I don’t exactly see many poor, working class, lower middle class or small business owners begging for lockdown either, seeing as they’re most effected by such measures, furlough doesn’t go far, food prices have remained the same, some landlords have demanded tenants pay rent with what little funds they have.

I have however seen more of those financially secure, those who can work from home or of an older generation being quite blasé about continual restrictions and lockdowns, they haven’t exactly complained about them either.

Why do you feel the need to judge those who don't share your views on lockdown? Why do you feel the need to ascribe their views to selfishness or thoughtlessness? Why not admit that people can come to different conclusions on this issue in good faith?

 

[Dent]

What would I call business owners who, if forced to make a choice between catering for 94% of the population and 6%, chose the 94%? Sensible.

As for your claim the government is going to prevent you from buying food, that is utter nonsense.

That sounds like a false dichotomy. Where was it suggested that businesses have a binary choice between serving only vaccinated customers or only serving unvaccinated customers? Surely the more sensible options would be to not to turn away 94% of customers or 6% of customers, but to remain open to 100% of them.

 

[VauxhallandI]

Hell we could sterilise the un-vaxxinated if it made you feel more comfortable?

 

[NorthKent1989]

I have not expressed an opinion either way. I have stated how the world works. Personally I simply don't care whether you are vaccinated or not. It is your choice but I have absolutely no idea why you think people should put their businesses, homes, etc at risk because of a choice you have made.

Your arguments get more and more ridiculous. I'd guessed you would trot out the no blacks thing. People don't choose to be black. People choose to not be vaccinated. You have known for months there would probably be some kind of vaccine passport for certain activities and chose not to anyway so don't start moaning now.

You say my arguments are ridiculous yet you’re clearly in favour of an irrational response to a virus with a 99% survival rate.

You may not have expressed an opinion, but your views very clearly show you are in favour of further division, segregation and authoritarianism.

If Covid was Ebola then I would get vaccinated But it’s not, it’s a new strain of flu that we will have to live with.

I don’t see why anyone should be coerced into anything they don’t feel is right for them.

No I shan’t retract that “No Blacks, No Irish, No Dogs” analogy, because it’s true, you said businesses can exclude anyone unvaccinated, I was pointing out that just because something is legal doesn’t make it right or moral, and do you honestly think that there won’t be some form of racial discrimination somewhere with domestic vaccine passports? You are very naive about how authoritarianism can begin.

Why do you feel the need to judge those who don't share your views on lockdown? Why do you feel the need to ascribe their views to selfishness or thoughtlessness? Why not admit that people can come to different conclusions on this issue in good faith?

I’m not judging, simply point out what I’ve observed this past year, and it’s true that those less fortunate or not as well off were more sceptical of lockdowns for the reasons I posted above, I can’t help what I and many others have noticed I shan’t auger coat it either.

 

[Bantamzen]

Really? How do you really know this is people's attitude?

I've no idea why some people are more accepting of lockdown and restrictions than others. It could be that they are less affected; it could be that they have a more stoical disposition; it could be that they find it really difficult but are persuaded that it's for the greater good; it could be any number of reasons. Without some sort of comprehensive survey it's just guesswork.

Just as we shouldn't dismiss those who have found restrictions intolerable, likewise we shouldn't show prejudice to those who have somehow managed to live with them.

Well I don’t exactly see many poor, working class, lower middle class or small business owners begging for lockdown either, seeing as they’re most effected by such measures, furlough doesn’t go far, food prices have remained the same, some landlords have demanded tenants pay rent with what little funds they have.

I have however seen more of those financially secure, those who can work from home or of an older generation being quite blasé about continual restrictions and lockdowns, they haven’t exactly complained about them either.

@NorthKent1989 pretty much sums it up. I don't see people furloughed on a 20% pay cut not being affected, do you? Nor the people who have lost their jobs, their businesses, perhaps even their homes. I don't see the people who have had to live increasingly on credit not being affected, or those people who have had to work from home with the kids, acting as employee and teaching assistant.

Its a reality that millions of people have been thrown under the bus to make some people feel all warm and cuddly. For the last 16 odd months we have been drip fed the image of a nation happily staying at home, "enjoying" the Zoom interactions with family, friends an colleagues, banging pots for the NHS, making banana bread and singing out of half opened windows. Sadly this cosy, middle England image that has been cultivated by the media is a total fallacy for many. Because those lovely homes you see are owned largely by people with enough financial security to ride lockdowns out, and stuff the rest. Where was the pot banging for all the 9.6 million people that at some point were furloughed? Or the people losing their homes, jobs, businesses, livelihoods? Or even the estimated 500 million people worldwide that would be thrown into poverty as a direct result of restrictions?

And the result of all this? The virus still spreads! Its almost as if that's what viruses have been doing for hundreds of millions of years, maybe even billions.

 

[NorthKent1989]

I think there are a very large number of people, myself included, who in many ways were pro lockdown back in March 2020 but are very much the opposite now. Back in March last year it was an unknown situation, any form of vaccination looked a long time in the future, and the hospital admissions and death rates were rising at a very fast rate. We are now, with the very successful vaccination programme in a completely different position.

Many people, like myself, who accepted the lockdowns and have followed all restrictions imposed by them, even when we could see others not doing so, feel that we have done our bit and the goal posts should not be moved. We were told that vaccination would be the way out of this and yet even after all the most vulnerable people have been double vaccinated, we are still having to wear masks and social distance. From being very supportive of the lockdowns last year I am now really annoyed at the 21st June date not happening and more and more I am just ignoring some of the current restrictions and getting on with life as normal as is possible at the moment. I don’t want to wear a mask in shops, on public transport, in church etc any longer and hopefully that will all be dropped on 19th July. We can’t, for sake of the economy, people’s jobs, our travel, entertainment and hospitality businesses and above all peoples mental health and other health issues, continue with this nonsense any longer.

However, I will still be careful for a time, and if I found myself somewhere like on a very overcrowded London tube, I might just voluntarily wear a mask as to me it would seem a sensible precaution. With the vaccinations working, low hospital admissions and low death rates all restrictions should have been lifted by now and people left to make their own personal choices.

This is why I’m annoyed, I followed the rules last year and did my bit, we were told that only the elderly and vulnerable would be vaccinated and until that arrived we would have to do our big, only for the government to turn around and say “actually everyone even those unaffected by Covid must get the vaccine or else be excluded” is a big smack in the face.

We’ve done our bit now let’s move on! No restrictions, no more lockdowns, no ifs, no buts, no conditions, life has to return to 2019 levels!

 

[quantinghome]

Its a reality that millions of people have been thrown under the bus to make some people feel all warm and cuddly.

What a strange comment.

I’m not judging, simply point out what I’ve observed this past year, and it’s true that those less fortunate or not as well off were more sceptical of lockdowns for the reasons I posted above, I can’t help what I and many others have noticed I shan’t auger coat it either.

As every person does, you are taking examples that you've seen which happen to confirm your views about the situation and then making generalisations.

 

[NorthKent1989]

What a strange comment.

But true nonetheless, since Lockdown 2/Tier systems (both unnecessary) this has been the case, those who favour restrictions have been pandered to and listened to every step of the way, ignoring those with mental health issues, those with poor finances, those who have had their appointments delayed

What a strange comment.


As every person does, you are taking examples that you've seen which happen to confirm your views about the situation and then making generalisations.

You seem very touchy about this issue of people making “generalisations” on those who have favoured lockdowns and restrictions

Hell we could sterilise the un-vaxxinated if it made you feel more comfortable?

Don’t give them ideas

 

[Bantamzen]

What a strange comment.

Why? Are you saying nobody was adversely effected? Because they were, and the government knew damned well what the consequences of long term restrictions would be. So if they knew what would happen, then yes people were thrown under the bus.

 

[35B]

But true nonetheless, since Lockdown 2/Tier systems (both unnecessary) this has been the case, those who favour restrictions have been pandered to and listened to every step of the way, ignoring those with mental health issues, those with poor finances, those who have had their appointments delayed

You lose the argument at Lockdown 2/tier systems being unnecessary - just how many deaths are necessary for you to accept that the government needed to do something?

We can agree to disagree on what measures, and their timing - they are things that reasonable people will disagree on. But the idea that we could just have carried on regardless through the winter is for the birds.

 

[Bantamzen]

You lose the argument at Lockdown 2/tier systems being unnecessary - just how many deaths are necessary for you to accept that the government needed to do something?

We can agree to disagree on what measures, and their timing - they are things that reasonable people will disagree on. But the idea that we could just have carried on regardless through the winter is for the birds.

Let's flip that around, can you demonstrate the number of deaths would have been significantly more if those restrictions had not been applied?

 

[quantinghome]

But true nonetheless, since Lockdown 2/Tier systems (both unnecessary) this has been the case, those who favour restrictions have been pandered to and listened to every step of the way, ignoring those with mental health issues, those with poor finances, those who have had their appointments delayed

You lose the argument at Lockdown 2/tier systems being unnecessary - just how many deaths are necessary for you to accept that the government needed to do something?

We can agree to disagree on what measures, and their timing - they are things that reasonable people will disagree on. But the idea that we could just have carried on regardless through the winter is for the birds.

This is why anti-restriction arguments don't get a hearing by the government. Taking such an extreme stance against previous lockdowns loses credibility. If those against restrictions now were to accept that previous lockdowns were necessary, their arguments would carry a lot more weight.

 

[HSTEd]

This is why anti-restriction arguments don't get a hearing by the government. Taking such an extreme stance against previous lockdowns loses credibility. If those against restrictions now were to accept that previous lockdowns were necessary, their arguments would carry a lot more weight.

Doubtful, because the fact that they had changed position would be used against them.

 

[Dent]

This is why anti-restriction arguments don't get a hearing by the government. Taking such an extreme stance against previous lockdowns loses credibility. If those against restrictions now were to accept that previous lockdowns were necessary, their arguments would carry a lot more weight.

"Necessary" according to what comprehensive cost/benefit analysis?

 

[quantinghome]

Doubtful, because the fact that they had changed position would be used against them.

There's a credible argument for changing position though. Vaccinations have fundamentally changed the risk. Prior to mass vaccination, lockdowns were the only thing that stopped the virus spreading.

 

[kristiang85]

You lose the argument at Lockdown 2/tier systems being unnecessary - just how many deaths are necessary for you to accept that the government needed to do something?

Their effects on COVID numbers and deaths have never been proven, and the curve was still in line with what you expect from a respiratory disease season.

What is proven is the effects on economy, business and psychological health, as well as the myriad of other health conditions that have been deprioritised because of the COVID obsession.

If you look at this chart of weekly UK deaths, last spring- which pretty much everybody accepts was a serious situation - stands out. The winter doesn't stand out so much. And the full lockdown came in too late to have any effect on the peak, so it in all likelihood not locking down in winter would have had similar outcomes in terms of COVID, but immeasurably better for the bigger picture. And we would have far much more money in governmetn coffers to spend on shoring up the NHS for future winter crises and epidemic events, but it seems like we've got nothing to show for it now apart from a load of humongous bills for testing.

 

[NorthKent1989]

You lose the argument at Lockdown 2/tier systems being unnecessary - just how many deaths are necessary for you to accept that the government needed to do something?

We can agree to disagree on what measures, and their timing - they are things that reasonable people will disagree on. But the idea that we could just have carried on regardless through the winter is for the birds.

How exactly do I lose the argument? By last winter it was becoming clear that Covid wasn’t going anywhere anytime time, all I said was lockdown was unnecessary, what should have happened was the restrictions we have now where there is social distancing in restaurants and venues, but not nightclubs, now we’re at a situation where the government will use the xyz variant to extend restrictions longer, normality has to resume at some point and Covid cannot be the number one concern indefinitely.

Instead we’re looking at a mental health crisis, businesses going under all because the government wanted to be seen to do something.

This is why anti-restriction arguments don't get a hearing by the government. Taking such an extreme stance against previous lockdowns loses credibility. If those against restrictions now were to accept that previous lockdowns were necessary, their arguments would carry a lot more weight.

Pointing out that the economy is suffering due to lockdown equates to losing credibility? How so it’s a valid point, can’t protect the NHS if the economy is in the toilet.

There's a credible argument for changing position though. Vaccinations have fundamentally changed the risk. Prior to mass vaccination, lockdowns were the only thing that stopped the virus spreading.

Lockdown #1 maybe but lockdown 2 should never have been a thing, it didn’t stop the spread because people still caught and need I keep reminding people that Covid has a 99% survival rate for the majority of people? All we’re basing restrictions on now is cases not deaths, cases, and it’s not worth it if it’s only cases

 

[quantinghome]

Pointing out that the economy is suffering due to lockdown equates to losing credibility? How so it’s a valid point, can’t protect the NHS if the economy is in the toilet.

No, what loses credibility is claiming that lockdown was not necessary to prevent tens of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands of deaths.

 

[roversfan2001]

No, what loses credibility is claiming that lockdown was not necessary to prevent tens of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands of deaths.

Have you any sources to back up that claim? I find it extremely hard to believe that the second and third lockdowns prevented hundreds of thousands of deaths.

 

[NorthKent1989]

No, what loses credibility is claiming that lockdown was not necessary to prevent tens of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands of deaths.

Lockdown 1 was necessary, maybe lockdown 2 at a push I’ll give you, but was it really worth missed appointments? I bet you any money that deaths from suicides, cancer, missed operations and heart disease was in the tens of thousands, sadly we may never know, because Covid is all that matters.

 

[yorksrob]

No, what loses credibility is claiming that lockdown was not necessary to prevent tens of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands of deaths.

The fact remains (and is often ignored now) that whilst some form of measures were necessary, the experience of Sweden seems to suggest that infections could indeed be brought under control without the sort of extreme restrictions imposed here.

What's more, the restrictions that were imposed, were often done so without any assessment of their effectiveness and seemed to be chosen for reasons of political expediency rather than any assessment of what actually worked.

 

[philosopher]

I think there are a very large number of people, myself included, who in many ways were pro lockdown back in March 2020 but are very much the opposite now. Back in March last year it was an unknown situation, any form of vaccination looked a long time in the future, and the hospital admissions and death rates were rising at a very fast rate. We are now, with the very successful vaccination programme in a completely different position.

Many people, like myself, who accepted the lockdowns and have followed all restrictions imposed by them, even when we could see others not doing so, feel that we have done our bit and the goal posts should not be moved. We were told that vaccination would be the way out of this and yet even after all the most vulnerable people have been double vaccinated, we are still having to wear masks and social distance. From being very supportive of the lockdowns last year I am now really annoyed at the 21st June date not happening and more and more I am just ignoring some of the current restrictions and getting on with life as normal as is possible at the moment. I don’t want to wear a mask in shops, on public transport, in church etc any longer and hopefully that will all be dropped on 19th July. We can’t, for sake of the economy, people’s jobs, our travel, entertainment and hospitality businesses and above all peoples mental health and other health issues, continue with this nonsense any longer.

However, I will still be careful for a time, and if I found myself somewhere like on a very overcrowded London tube, I might just voluntarily wear a mask as to me it would seem a sensible precaution. With the vaccinations working, low hospital admissions and low death rates all restrictions should have been lifted by now and people left to make their own personal choices.

I am very similar in that I similarily supported lockdowns in March 2020. I even signed a petition on the parliament website asking for a lockdown then. I think I was a bit too taken in by all the fear mongering that was around at that time. Since last summer I have gradually shifted my view to a more anti restriction postion. I have never been against all restrictions, just that the level of restrictions was not justified.

A big part of why I changed my view was that I became increasingly under the impression that some people wanted restrictions to remain as they preferred it that way. The whole ’we are all in it together’ argument that seemed to make sense in Spring 2020 by Autumn 2020 had fallen apart as it was obvious by then the measures were significantly impacting some while others were barely being impacted by them, or in some cases benefiting from them.

 

[Crossover]

There's a credible argument for changing position though. Vaccinations have fundamentally changed the risk. Prior to mass vaccination, lockdowns were the only thing that stopped the virus spreading.

We relied heavily on a suitable and effective vaccine been found. Had this not happened, what then? We couldn't keep locking down forever!

 

[quantinghome]

Have you any sources to back up that claim? I find it extremely hard to believe that the second and third lockdowns prevented hundreds of thousands of deaths.

The data from the vaccination rollout has shown that those vaccinated are very well protected compared to those who have not been vaccinated. This shows that levels of natural immunity were relatively low in the Autumn and Winter prior to vaccination, when the second and third lockdowns happened. As @NorthKent1989 rightly says, COVID has a 99% survival rate, meaning a 1% death rate. So if the majority of the population had not developed natural immunity prior to vaccination, and the COVID virus spread throughout the population you would have seen hundreds of thousands of deaths.

We relied heavily on a suitable and effective vaccine been found. Had this not happened, what then? We couldn't keep locking down forever!

We would have faced an invidious choice.