Police checking travel

[43096]

Well that's your interpretation, but I don't see that at all.

Perhaps you need to open your mind to what's going on around you, then.

 

[cactustwirly]

Well that's your interpretation, but I don't see that at all.

Well you clearly haven't been listening to the radio then!

 

[Philip]

Perhaps you need to open your mind to what's going on around you, then.

Not really, I frequently go out for a long walk and sometimes a run and I see many others out doing the same. I don't live in a beauty spot but I make the most of the green spaces that are nearby. I don't feel any sense that we shouldn't be doing it and nor is there any written law stating that we shouldn't be doing it. I am completely relaxed about it as I'm sure most people are, it is probably this fixation about the UK becoming an authoritarian country, stirred up by some media outlets, which causes any unease.

 

[Bikeman78]

I am not scared of the virus and I am not happy about being in lockdown for various reasons. But I accept it as a temporary necessary measure whilst we're in this critical situation of the virus being out of control in the communities. Expecting the general public to also observe the restrictions reasonably well is not being 'authoritarian' as some people seem to keep piping on about in this thread, it is because we're in this together and we all need to play our part to get out of it by helping to drive down infection rates and admissions, whilst vaccination is still in its early days. So yes it is annoying when you see blatant breaches like some of the examples we've heard of, as this is not playing your part. All this does is contributes towards lockdown potentially being extended as it increases the transmission, and so we all suffer as a result. That is why the police need to get tough in some circumstances; yes there should absolutely be discretion, but examples like the family going for a long drive out to look at snow shouldn't be in the discretion category.

I am fed up of hearing people say we have been in lockdown for 10 months; we have been in lockdown for about 4 months in total. The period from June to November last year wasn't lockdown. I am also fed up about hearing this 'authoritarian' word being branded about casually towards anyone who thinks lockdown is currently necessary, and towards the police who are just doing their job. I agree that for a minority of officers this has become a power trip and this isn't acceptable, but the majority are doing what they've been told to do and I bet a fair few are both fed up of having to enforce restrictions and having to deal with people who are blatantly ignoring them.

For those of us in Wales wanting to visit England, the only periods of relative freedom were July to September and a few weeks in December. Having said that, I've seen very little evidence of the Police checking up on people in South Wales.

 

[birchesgreen]

The key is to avoid broadcast TV, don't get these nanny adverts on Prime or Netflix!

 

[Yew]

I just recognise the situation we are in and the need for some temporary lifestyle changes as a result of the restrictions. And people together should be doing the same. That isn't being authoritarian.

You've already taken a year from me, I cannot stand Idly by whilst you drag out these insane measures any more.

 

[yorksrob]

People can go out to exercise, that has been made clear in the restrictions. No point in exaggerating to try and get the point across. And in terms of mental health/wellbeing, there is a balancing act needed and the mental and physical wellbeing of doctors and nurses who are working under huge pressure and no doubt with a lot of stressful and upsetting experiences, this also needs to be considered.

Stopping a family looking at the snow a drive away is not a proportionate way of dealing with NHS staff pressures.

 

[RT4038]

Seriously? You honestly think that a fascist regime with clear intentions to invade nearby countries is comparable to a respiratory virus (which has so far proved impervious to nearly all measures taken against it)?

It is comparable in the sense that the country was facing a crisis of unknown proportion. Just like now, the Government did not have the benefit of hindsight to judge the size and seriousness of the threat.

Just like now, our democratically elected representatives took us into the crisis, and made decisions on our behalf, often without meaningful parliamentary scrutiny, which seriously restricted the liberties of the population. Obviously the nature of the crisis dictated the detail of the restrictions, comparing that crisis to that currently. There was no effective opposition to the way that the crisis was handled.

There were then people who denied that a crisis existed, thought the crisis unnecessary or that the threat was being portrayed as more serious than it was. There were also plenty who objected to the restrictions, believed them to be an imposition, didn't agree with their reasoning or efficacy, or selfishly felt that 'others' could observe them if they want to but they shouldn't apply to them. No doubt there were plenty of differing opinions as to how the crisis should be handled, and conspiracy theories that the restrictions were for some nefarious purpose. However, the rules were enforced, sometimes quite severely, and people just had to live with them for the duration.

Like now, the leader of the day was not universally liked (but then what leader is?) and there were those who thought that he was incompetent and/or seeking glory or enrichment. The country was not prepared for the crisis, and the leader (and his advisors) made plenty of mistakes on the way, costing lives and wasting money.

Children's lives and education were disrupted: evacuation, rationing, class sizes ballooning, teaching quality declining, air raids, home destruction, parents away in danger. By and large they got through it - at least my parents both did, even though it was no doubt frightening and upsetting at the time.

The restrictions to liberty were only 'temporary', although these lasted nearly six years (and rationing much longer), No conspiracy emerged to use the restrictions to 'control' liberties after the crisis passed.

However, we do need to learn from the past and the present. But all those expressing mock indignation that the restriction situation today is unprecedented need to look at their history. The country got through far worse.

Not being experts, my Grandparents had a choice of listening to, and believing in, the Leader of the Day or William Joyce (Lord Haw-Haw) . I now have the choice of listening to, and believing in, the Leader of the Day or some 'Barrack-Room' epidemiologists on RailUKForums.
What goes around, comes around!

 

[Yew]

It is comparable in the sense that the country was facing a crisis of unknown proportion. Just like now, the Government did not have the benefit of hindsight to judge the size and seriousness of the threat.

Just like now, our democratically elected representatives took us into the crisis, and made decisions on our behalf, often without meaningful parliamentary scrutiny, which seriously restricted the liberties of the population. Obviously the nature of the crisis dictated the detail of the restrictions, comparing that crisis to that currently. There was no effective opposition to the way that the crisis was handled.

There were then people who denied that a crisis existed, thought the crisis unnecessary or that the threat was being portrayed as more serious than it was. There were also plenty who objected to the restrictions, believed them to be an imposition, didn't agree with their reasoning or efficacy, or selfishly felt that 'others' could observe them if they want to but they shouldn't apply to them. No doubt there were plenty of differing opinions as to how the crisis should be handled, and conspiracy theories that the restrictions were for some nefarious purpose. However, the rules were enforced, sometimes quite severely, and people just had to live with them for the duration.

Like now, the leader of the day was not universally liked (but then what leader is?) and there were those who thought that he was incompetent and/or seeking glory or enrichment. The country was not prepared for the crisis, and the leader (and his advisors) made plenty of mistakes on the way, costing lives and wasting money.

Children's lives and education were disrupted: evacuation, rationing, class sizes ballooning, teaching quality declining, air raids, home destruction, parents away in danger. By and large they got through it - at least my parents both did, even though it was no doubt frightening and upsetting at the time.

The restrictions to liberty were only 'temporary', although these lasted nearly six years (and rationing much longer), No conspiracy emerged to use the restrictions to 'control' liberties after the crisis passed.

However, we do need to learn from the past and the present. But all those expressing mock indignation that the restriction situation today is unprecedented need to look at their history. The country got through far worse.

Not being experts, my Grandparents had a choice of listening to, and believing in, the Leader of the Day or William Joyce (Lord Haw-Haw) . I now have the choice of listening to, and believing in, the Leader of the Day or some 'Barrack-Room' epidemiologists on RailUKForums.
What goes around, comes around!

We have the choice of listening to the most experienced epidemiologists in the world, and following conventional pandemic protocols, or following Boris, Witty and Fergurson down this insane experimental, inhumane, rabbit hole.

 

[DustyBin]

It is comparable in the sense that the country was facing a crisis of unknown proportion. Just like now, the Government did not have the benefit of hindsight to judge the size and seriousness of the threat.

Just like now, our democratically elected representatives took us into the crisis, and made decisions on our behalf, often without meaningful parliamentary scrutiny, which seriously restricted the liberties of the population. Obviously the nature of the crisis dictated the detail of the restrictions, comparing that crisis to that currently. There was no effective opposition to the way that the crisis was handled.

There were then people who denied that a crisis existed, thought the crisis unnecessary or that the threat was being portrayed as more serious than it was. There were also plenty who objected to the restrictions, believed them to be an imposition, didn't agree with their reasoning or efficacy, or selfishly felt that 'others' could observe them if they want to but they shouldn't apply to them. No doubt there were plenty of differing opinions as to how the crisis should be handled, and conspiracy theories that the restrictions were for some nefarious purpose. However, the rules were enforced, sometimes quite severely, and people just had to live with them for the duration.

Like now, the leader of the day was not universally liked (but then what leader is?) and there were those who thought that he was incompetent and/or seeking glory or enrichment. The country was not prepared for the crisis, and the leader (and his advisors) made plenty of mistakes on the way, costing lives and wasting money.

Children's lives and education were disrupted: evacuation, rationing, class sizes ballooning, teaching quality declining, air raids, home destruction, parents away in danger. By and large they got through it - at least my parents both did, even though it was no doubt frightening and upsetting at the time.

The restrictions to liberty were only 'temporary', although these lasted nearly six years (and rationing much longer), No conspiracy emerged to use the restrictions to 'control' liberties after the crisis passed.

However, we do need to learn from the past and the present. But all those expressing mock indignation that the restriction situation today is unprecedented need to look at their history. The country got through far worse.

Not being experts, my Grandparents had a choice of listening to, and believing in, the Leader of the Day or William Joyce (Lord Haw-Haw) . I now have the choice of listening to, and believing in, the Leader of the Day or some 'Barrack-Room' epidemiologists on RailUKForums.
What goes around, comes around!

And yet here we are nearly a year into the pandemic, we now know exactly what we’re dealing with and we continue to make the same mistakes. I reluctantly accepted this third lockdown as it was inevitable and the government had to be seen to be doing something; whether it’s been beneficial or not is however somewhat debatable. This has to be the last though, we absolutely must start building herd immunity through both vaccines and natural infection as soon as possible. We missed the opportunity through the warmer months last year, we simply can’t afford to repeat that mistake.

I don’t agree with the WWII comparison incidentally, the virus is not a threat to the very existence of our country and way of life (indeed it’s our own government’s response that poses the greatest threat, ironically).

 

[DB]

It is comparable in the sense that the country was facing a crisis of unknown proportion. Just like now, the Government did not have the benefit of hindsight to judge the size and seriousness of the threat.

You might possible have been able to make that claim last March. You cannot make it now - this virus is now far from an unknown quantity.

And even last March, completely ignoring tried and tested protocol for pandemics in favour of a massively damaging experimental approach (which has shown to have little or no impact on spread) was not acceptable.

 

[bramling]

I don't accept that at all.

Looking at the experience quoted, I'd need to see a lot more evidence that prohibiting the action taken (a family driving out of their locality to look at the snow) will have a tangeble positive effect on numbers than some wishy-washy "something might happen so someone might end up in hospital" type scenario.

We are not "all in it together". We all have different circumstances. The concentration on local activity is particularly insidious for people whose support network is slightly further afield.

We haven't all been in lockdown for four months. Some areas have been in lockdown for much longer.

Wales has been in lockdown for much longer than four months (and a real lot of good it’s done them!). Places like Leicester have pretty much not been out of it.

 

[DustyBin]

We have the choice of listening to the most experienced epidemiologists in the world, and following conventional pandemic protocols, or following Boris, Witty and Fergurson down this insane experimental, inhumane, rabbit hole.

A lot of people simply don’t realise that this is the case. We’re making this up as we go along when we had a plan based on decades of epidemiological experience and research. I can’t fathom why, given the disastrous results of our strategy, people aren’t questioning why we did this.

 

[yorkie]

It is comparable in the sense that the country was facing a crisis of unknown proportion.

We are, but the huge crisis is mostly caused by the over the top measures; not the virus itself (average age of a death with Covid is 82)

Just like now, the Government did not have the benefit of hindsight to judge the size and seriousness of the threat.

The seriousness of the threat to mental & physical wellbeing, and loss of livelihoods, created by the measures used to reduced the spread is recognised in countries like Sweden but not by our Government.

Not being experts, my Grandparents had a choice of listening to, and believing in, the Leader of the Day or William Joyce (Lord Haw-Haw) . I now have the choice of listening to, and believing in, the Leader of the Day or some 'Barrack-Room' epidemiologists on RailUKForums.
What goes around, comes around!

Ah the good old "you are not an epidemiologist so your views are invalid" argument; this is very common among authoritarians.

We Need a Radically Different Approach to the Pandemic and Our Economy as a Whole

We talk to two public health experts about America's COVID-19 response and how poor households have borne a disproportionate share of the pandemic's hardship. We need to urgently fight for a more just society.

jacobinmag.com

I don’t think it’s wise or warranted to keep society locked down until vaccines become available.

This quote is from Katherine Yih, an epidemiologist at Harvard Medical School.

Other pertinent points from the interview include:

... It is the country’s poor and working-class households, particularly those with children, who have borne a disproportionate share of the burden. ...

...Progressives need to reject the unquestioning lockdown approach, which is simply inappropriate unless and until hospitals and other health care facilities are in danger of being overwhelmed. We need to be scrupulous about protecting the elderly and other high-risk groups. Others should be permitted to go about their business and keep society functioning...

...I think the lockdown is the worst assault on the working class in half a century, and especially on the urban working class. In effect, we are protecting low-risk college students and young professionals who can work from home at the expense of older, high-risk, working-class people that have no choice but to work, leading to more deaths overall. There have been studies, for example in Toronto, that show that lockdowns have primarily protected high-income, low-minority neighborhoods, but not low-income or high-minority neighborhoods...

...Yes, the discussion of COVID-19 policy has become polarized into two camps, with most liberals* advocating some form of lockdown and people on the Right arguing to open up..

(* in the USA they must have a different meaning of the term "liberal" as most people in the UK who I know who describe themselves as "liberal" are against lockdowns)


Now, tell me, why do you disagree with Katherine Yih, an epidemiologist at Harvard Medical School?

Also why do you disagree with Johan Giesecke, one of the world’s most senior epidemiologists, advisor to the Swedish Government?

Why do you disagree with Anders Tegnell, state epidemiologist for Sweden?

It is easy for you to disingenuously discredit us as not being epidemiologists, despite presumably you not being one yourself (the irony!), but we are listening to epidemiologists, so you need to explain why you disagree with those epidemiologists if you want to have a valid argument

Well that's your interpretation, but I don't see that at all.

Clearly I see a lot of things very differently to you.

 

[DB]

I can’t fathom why, given the disastrous results of our strategy, people aren’t questioning why we did this.

Because propaganda works, and the relentless 'keep people safe', inane three-phrase slogans and the like are clearly effective with a large part of the population.

 

[bramling]

Because propaganda works, and the relentless 'keep people safe', inane three-phrase slogans and the like are clearly effective with a large part of the population.

That’s exactly what it is. Some of the reactions we see to this are not rational.

 

[DustyBin]

Because propaganda works, and the relentless 'keep people safe', inane three-phrase slogans and the like are clearly effective with a large part of the population.

Yes you’re quite right, most people fall for it unfortunately. I probably shouldn’t be surprised really....

 

[Yew]

A lot of people simply don’t realise that this is the case. We’re making this up as we go along when we had a plan based on decades of epidemiological experience and research. I can’t fathom why, given the disastrous results of our strategy, people aren’t questioning why we did this.

Indeed, I imagine that if you asked lots of people 'are lockdowns a conventional method that we recommended using before March' the answer would be entirely wrong.

 

[Bikeman78]

Indeed, I imagine that if you asked lots of people 'are lockdowns a conventional method that we recommended using before March' the answer would be entirely wrong.

Before broadband internet it wouldn't have been possible.

 

[DB]

Before broadband internet it wouldn't have been possible.

Indeed - before widespread internet access governments simply wouldn't have been able to do what they have done.

 

[Cowley]

This thread hasn’t been going anywhere other than off topic for a while now and there doesn’t seem to be much more to add at the moment so we’ve decided to lock it.
If any news stories come up that would seem to fit in here then please get in touch with one of us and if need be we’ll unlock it.

Thanks for all your contributions though.