End of all remaining Covid restrictions in England

[nw1]

The thing is, I don't behave as though my opinions are facts. They are just thoughts, a way that I think things would work to care for all.
I don't have to be right, I don't have to have the last word, and if I get annoyed when someone implies that I am a racist is that a surprise?

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that you were a xenophobe (which has a different meaning to "racist"), if you are talking about my xenophobia comment in post #794. Many apologies if you took it that way.

I was trying to say that policies which require international visitors to have tests to visit the UK (I am aware of course that such policies have been dropped), would, IMO, be rather xenophobic - because Covid is here, in the UK, so why should foreigners (some of whom will be coming from countries with lower case rates than us) be assumed to be more dangerous than citizens/residents? Thankfully the UK has ditched this - but there are some countries that are behaving particularly xenophobically at this time, notably ones which require testing or vaccine passports for non-EU citizens but not EU citizens. Hard Brexit in reverse, if you will - and IMO as xenophobic as Hard Brexit. Also very bad for the tourist industry, which has suffered quite enough lately - and may be impacted by the cost of living crisis, so last thing we need is yet more Covid restrictions on travel.

 

[DustyBin]

Dictating is not my thing, I think about stuff, and suggest, hey, maybe this, whatever, might be a good idea, or better in some way... A sort of open minded approach to things.

The problem is that the authorities adopted a similar “let’s try this” approach over the course of the pandemic in order to be “seen to be doing something”. The various NPIs demonstrably failed to achieve anything, with the exception of full lockdowns which firstly aren’t sustainable, and secondly simply kick the can down the road in any case.

I find the atmosphere and comments towards me in this topic quite toxic, I seemed to become public enemy number one over just having different views to "the big fish" here.

Whilst I’d rather be civil, I think what you’re seeing is a backlash against unjustified state interference in people’s everyday lives. Being made to wait outside shops, social distancing, having to order a scotch egg with a pint; it’s pointless, farcical and would almost be funny if it wasn’t so damaging. As for masks, their ineffectiveness has been discussed extensively on this forum and elsewhere. They are also highly symbolic of what for many people has been an absolutely miserable two years; personally I’d be delighted if I were to never see one again! That said if some individuals feel safer wearing one that’s up to them, as nonsensical (and actually rather sad) as it is.

 

[nw1]

Whilst I’d rather be civil, I think what you’re seeing is a backlash against unjustified state interference in people’s everyday lives.

This. The problem is, that to many of us, there have been irrational mandates against low-risk or very-low-risk activity, presumably because the state needs to be seen to "be doing something". In particular I would consider:

- the bans on going out for exercise more than once a day;
- the bans on sitting on a park bench and drinking coffee while going out for a walk (the much-quoted "two women in a bubble" case);
- the bans (not in England) on travelling, even by foot, more than 5 miles/km (forget which) from your home;
- curfews (not in the UK, thankfully), because of course you can only spread Covid after 9pm;
- guilt-tripping people to not go to the supermarket twice, apparently implying they were potentially morally guilty of manslaughter if they did (and this was England, though wasn't actually legislation);
- £5000 fines on leaving the UK(!) for no good reason (this time last year);
- blanket restrictions on international travel which were not restricted to the one understandable scenario, travel from a high-rate country to a low-rate country;
- dismissing and patronising people who wished to debate the Covid response and bring up the disadvantages of long and harsh lockdowns;

and of course

- the likes of Matt Hancock constantly moralising about all this while, around this time last year, breaking the rules himself. And he's still an MP! Worse than Owen Paterson, as far as I'm concerned - and that is saying something.

All of these IMO would have had little impact on spreading the virus or cutting the number of deaths, and were all, IMO, authoritarian state control seemingly "for the sake of it", and "being seen to be doing something".

 

[yorksrob]

This. The problem is, that to many of us, there have been irrational mandates against low-risk or very-low-risk activity, presumably because the state needs to be seen to "be doing something". In particular I would consider:

- the bans on going out for exercise more than once a day;
- the bans on sitting on a park bench and drinking coffee while going out for a walk (the much-quoted "two women in a bubble" case);
- the bans (not in England) on travelling, even by foot, more than 5 miles/km (forget which) from your home;
- curfews (not in the UK, thankfully), because of course you can only spread Covid after 9pm;
- guilt-tripping people to not go to the supermarket twice, apparently implying they were potentially morally guilty of manslaughter if they did (and this was England, though wasn't actually legislation);
- £5000 fines on leaving the UK(!) for no good reason (this time last year);
- blanket restrictions on international travel which were not restricted to the one understandable scenario, travel from a high-rate country to a low-rate country;
- dismissing and patronising people who wished to debate the Covid response and bring up the disadvantages of long and harsh lockdowns;

and of course

- the likes of Matt Hancock constantly moralising about all this while, around this time last year, breaking the rules himself. And he's still an MP! Worse than Owen Paterson, as far as I'm concerned - and that is saying something.

All of these IMO would have had little impact on spreading the virus or cutting the number of deaths, and were all, IMO, authoritarian state control seemingly "for the sake of it", and "being seen to be doing something".

You can add to that the pointless tier system which seemed to be used primarily to punish local authorities fornot towing the Downing Street line, 22:00 chucking out, which made people more likely to be in close contact than less.

So much half-baked drivel was enacted in the name of COVID safety, I have no intention of indulging the authorities with it again.

 

[Eyersey468]

This. The problem is, that to many of us, there have been irrational mandates against low-risk or very-low-risk activity, presumably because the state needs to be seen to "be doing something". In particular I would consider:

- the bans on going out for exercise more than once a day;
- the bans on sitting on a park bench and drinking coffee while going out for a walk (the much-quoted "two women in a bubble" case);
- the bans (not in England) on travelling, even by foot, more than 5 miles/km (forget which) from your home;
- curfews (not in the UK, thankfully), because of course you can only spread Covid after 9pm;
- guilt-tripping people to not go to the supermarket twice, apparently implying they were potentially morally guilty of manslaughter if they did (and this was England, though wasn't actually legislation);
- £5000 fines on leaving the UK(!) for no good reason (this time last year);
- blanket restrictions on international travel which were not restricted to the one understandable scenario, travel from a high-rate country to a low-rate country;
- dismissing and patronising people who wished to debate the Covid response and bring up the disadvantages of long and harsh lockdowns;

and of course

- the likes of Matt Hancock constantly moralising about all this while, around this time last year, breaking the rules himself. And he's still an MP! Worse than Owen Paterson, as far as I'm concerned - and that is saying something.

All of these IMO would have had little impact on spreading the virus or cutting the number of deaths, and were all, IMO, authoritarian state control seemingly "for the sake of it", and "being seen to be doing something".

I completely agree, a lot of the restrictions seed to be introduced because they had to be seen to do something, regardless of how effective that thing actually was.

@OldandRambling Regarding the article in the Sun, sorry but if you are to convince me that vaccine efficiency and not antibody production wanes over time I need something better than a poorly written article in a newspaper.

 

[Mag_seven]

As the COVID restrictions in England are now well behind us having ended a few weeks ago now we will bring this one to a close.

thanks everyone.