Public Opinion on Lockdowns

[DB]

I've not seen any stats, but I wonder whether there is a notable difference in view between those who can work at home / are furloughed, and those whose job means that some or all of the time they are having to attend a workplace?

 

[philosopher]

Just to offer an alternative view here, because we're all at risk of living in an echo chamber.

To answer the OPs question:

Yes, the views in the poll reflect my opinion, the views of my family, the views of my friends, and the views of any colleague I have discussed it with.

For me, this sub-forum is a weird reverse echo chamber where I can go to read the strange views of people who have a different understanding of the public health crisis to me. Here and also occasionally twitter.

I haven't yet worked out what it is about rail enthusiasts that would make them so polar opposite to everyone else I know. I suspect there's a fair bit of self selection in terms of who is actually posting in the covid forum and the views here don't necessarily match the wider community.

I think if you are the kind of person who is strongly anti-lockdown you may be overthinking public enthusiasm for lockdowns though. The survey, even if accurate, isn't suggesting 75% of people want to stay locked in their homes for weeks on end voluntarily. No-one wants to be in lockdown. No-one particularly wants to be wearing masks on public transport or in supermarkets. As someone else commented upthread, large numbers of people weren't doing those things until they were compelled to, even if they thought it was a good idea for everyone else to be doing it.
We're all doing it now because scientists have (correctly) informed us that there is literally no good alternative, the government have agreed, and there's now no other option but to quietly get on with it until things get better.

My gut instinct is that there is a majority in favour of lockdowns but the polls are overstating the support. Perhaps it is 60:40 in favour of lockdowns rather than 70:30.

Of the people I have spoken to, opinion does seem mixed. At my work, most seem to be in favour. For example one of them said it was a good idea when Perth, Australia locked down for one case. However it must be said we are all working from home and most of my colleagues live with a partner but don’t have kids. I think these people in general most benefit from home working so probably have little to lose from lockdowns. Another person I spoke to before December on a meetup was in favour of lockdowns as she admitted she was benefitting from the furlough money. This I think reflects what many have said here that WFH’ers and those on furlough often have relatively little to lose from lockdowns so are fairly supportive of them.

Of my friends and family they pretty much all bar one are frustrated with the restrictions and want life to go back to normal and a lot are definitely skeptical of the benefits. My family are from Malta where they have not had a lockdown but have overall had case numbers and deaths lower than the UK so I think that influences their views. One friend said he was genuinely unsure whether lockdowns were the right course of action.

 

[Ianno87]

I've not seen any stats, but I wonder whether there is a notable difference in view between those who can work at home / are furloughed, and those whose job means that some or all of the time they are having to attend a workplace?

I think working from home/ furlough is a red herring on this matter.

More likely related to what your disposition was pre-Covid. Plenty of people were perfectly content for their leisure time to be spent on the sofa than out and about, regardless of your working circumstances.

 

[Кряква]

I think working from home/ furlough is a red herring on this matter.

More likely related to what your disposition was pre-Covid. Plenty of people were perfectly content for their leisure time to be spent on the sofa than out and about, regardless of your working circumstances.

Agree with this.

I would add that "No one wants to be locked down" is a false statement; it's logically inconsistent.

Lockdown, and restrictions in general, are not forces of nature, comparable to say, a broken leg, or a cancer.

They are policies chosen with a cost-benefit analysis. If the balance is worth it in your opinion, then you do want lockdown.

 

[bramling]

I think working from home/ furlough is a red herring on this matter.

More likely related to what your disposition was pre-Covid. Plenty of people were perfectly content for their leisure time to be spent on the sofa than out and about, regardless of your working circumstances.

I’m less sure about furlough (whilst people loved it when it first came in, I get the feeling some are feeling the 80% as well as worrying for the future), however I can categorically say that the work from homes in my town are absolutely relishing it. Facebook is absolutely oozing with people who can be seen banging on with the same old stuff about how workplaces are a death-trap and how we must lock down until this is eliminated.

When one explores the social media profiles of such people, you can bet that elsewhere they will be posting how wonderful their work-life balance now is, and how they do not want to go back to working in the office.

I’m rather tired of hearing about how so many people can work at home, yet if I had a pound for every time I come across a service which isn’t available “as our staff aren’t in the office” - despite the current position being that anyone who cannot work at home should be attending work.

No excuses once the vaccines are rolled out...

I agree about the sofa though. It’s surprising how many people seem quite content with a rather unfulfilled zombie existence, which is still quite possible to maintain at the moment. There’s certainly people who are happy to allow this to suffice if it means they don’t have to go to work.

 

[yorkie]

I've not seen any stats, but I wonder whether there is a notable difference in view between those who can work at home / are furloughed, and those whose job means that some or all of the time they are having to attend a workplace?

There definitely will be.

Of the people I have spoken to, opinion does seem mixed. At my work, most seem to be in favour. For example one of them said it was a good idea when Perth, Australia locked down for one case. However it must be said we are all working from home and most of my colleagues live with a partner but don’t have kids. I think these people in general most benefit from home working so probably have little to lose from lockdowns. Another person I spoke to before December on a meetup was in favour of lockdowns as she admitted she was benefitting from the furlough money. This I think reflects what many have said here that WFH’ers and those on furlough often have relatively little to lose from lockdowns so are fairly supportive of them.

Absolutely. I speak to a lot of parents and the overwhelming impression I get is that they want schools to reopen.

Agree with this.

I would add that "No one wants to be locked down" is a false statement; it's logically inconsistent.

Lockdown, and restrictions in general, are not forces of nature, comparable to say, a broken leg, or a cancer.

They are policies chosen with a cost-benefit analysis. If the balance is worth it in your opinion, then you do want lockdown.

Agreed, very well put.

One could quite reasonably make the point that the answer to your question as to why this forum seems to buck the trend could well be that many of the people posting here have quite clearly taken the trouble to better inform themselves about the pandemic than the average joe on the street.

I also think that is true; I've done a huge amount of research, as have others, and we have a lot of in-depth discussion on this forum that you don't tend to easily be able to get elsewhere. There is a lot of scaremongering going on and this can sway opinions.

This is supported by the fact that surveys have shown on numerous occasions that many people have incorrect beliefs about many of the Covid statistics, for example average age of death and probability of mortality.

Yep, along with misunderstandings about how the immune system works, how vaccines work, and all sorts of other things. While I don't claim to be an expert on any of these things, I have read and listened to a lot of expert opinions (not just ones I agree with) and therefore I think I am able to consider the bigger picture and not be easily mislead by scary media headlines.

Some of the postings on this board are extremely well evidenced and thought through, and indeed I’ve found many rather persuasive. Indeed the last year has also shown much of it to be pretty prophetic.

Agreed.

 

[DB]

I’m rather tired of hearing about how so many people can work at home, yet if I had a pound for every time I come across a service which isn’t available “as our staff aren’t in the office” - despite the current position being that anyone who cannot work at home should be attending work.

Banks, utility companies, etc now use Covid as the go-to excuse for inefficiency- it's replaced "new computer system". They've had a year now to implement a system (for which there are plenty of options are regards technology which can enable it), so there's really no justification for using this excuse now.

 

[bramling]

Banks, utility companies, etc now use Covid as the go-to excuse for inefficiency- it's replaced "new computer system". They've had a year now to implement a system (for which there are plenty of options are regards technology which can enable it), so there's really no justification for using this excuse now.

Absolutely. My bank branch in the town has slimmed its hours down to almost a bare minimum. Now okay there *may* well be logistical issues why this is necessary, who knows. But then they are closing branches in the area claiming footfall has evaporated. Well of course footfall has evaporated when no one can get in the flaming place.

Perhaps it’s being done deliberately to make it harder for people to withdraw all their money and hide it under the sofa of negative interest rates come in?! Someone has to pay for all that furlough, so let’s make it the people who have actually been sensible and kept savings...

 

[yorksrob]

Many on the left are very keen to portray lockdown support as compulsory for people on the left, and this does mean that some people who are more easily led and less able to look at the bigger picture will blindly go with that. I have spoken to many people who see themselves as left of centre who felt politically homeless and felt awkward for being against lockdowns as if it was against what they were 'supposed' to think; I believe that it has been very liberating for many people, including myself, to understand that it is not a left v right thing at all and that there are many many others who feel the same way but are often silent.

Possibly so, although some of my personal aquaintances whom I would describe as being generally left of centre are also sceptical of lockdown. I notice that the left of centre media has a tendency to see lockdown in virtuous terms though.

I think working from home/ furlough is a red herring on this matter.

More likely related to what your disposition was pre-Covid. Plenty of people were perfectly content for their leisure time to be spent on the sofa than out and about, regardless of your working circumstances.

Hit the nail on the head there I think.

 

[Кряква]

Reduced footfall is a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Most towns and cities in the UK aren't inner London - people generally live in suburbs. If there's no reason to go into town, no-one will be there. Every closed business and every business running with restrictions (such as reduced opening hours) decrease the reason to be there, and so you get a feedback loop of destruction of place.

 

[DB]

Reduced footfall is a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Most towns and cities in the UK aren't inner London - people generally live in suburbs. If there's no reason to go into town, no-one will be there. Every closed business and every business running with restrictions (such as reduced opening hours) decrease the reason to be there, and so you get a feedback loop of destruction of place.

True when people take any notice of the lockdowns, but we seem to be in a situation now where so many are going out anyway that those shops which are open are as busy as normal.

 

[bramling]

True when people take any notice of the lockdowns, but we seem to be in a situation now where so many are going out anyway that those shops which are open are as busy as normal.

Busier than normal. My local WH Smith is normally pretty empty most of the time. Not today!

That’s what happens when Boris closes most of the shops. On Planet Eton everyone is simply sitting at home staring at four walls, whilst in the real world they’re packing into the remaining ones which are open.

 

[Freightmaster]

To answer the OPs question:

Yes, the views in the poll reflect my opinion, the views of my family, the views of my friends, and the views of any colleague I have discussed it with.

Presumably none of those people work (or more accurately worked) in the hospitality/tourism/leisure/retail/airline/theatre industries,
so they are not at risk of redundancy/bankruptcy, losing their home, etc??

No-one particularly wants to be wearing masks on public transport or in supermarkets. As someone else commented upthread, large numbers of people weren't doing those things until they were compelled to, even if they thought it was a good idea for everyone else to be doing it.
We're all doing it now because scientists have (correctly) informed us that there is literally no good alternative, the government have agreed, and there's now no other option but to quietly get on with it until things get better.

Despite being a self confessed 'lockdown sceptic', I actually agree with all that - apart from the last few words,
as I think the YouGov polls will still be showing a majority in favour of 'keeping restrictions in place' even when
hospitalisations and deaths have fallen tenfold from where they are now...





MARK

 

[Kite159]

Absolutely. My bank branch in the town has slimmed its hours down to almost a bare minimum. Now okay there *may* well be logistical issues why this is necessary, who knows. But then they are closing branches in the area claiming footfall has evaporated. Well of course footfall has evaporated when no one can get in the flaming place.

Perhaps it’s being done deliberately to make it harder for people to withdraw all their money and hide it under the sofa of negative interest rates come in?! Someone has to pay for all that furlough, so let’s make it the people who have actually been sensible and kept savings...

And if it's like some of the bank branches which are only open between 10 & 2 on weekdays the reduced hours means they are busier than if they were open for longer (to spread demand)

 

[Cdd89]

the views expressed in these opinion polls reflect the views of your friends, family and co-workers? If these opinion polls are overstating (or perhaps understating) support for lockdowns, why do you think that is the case?

0% of my friends believe in cases other than as a leading indicator of deaths.

This poll therefore offers non mutually exclusive choices; if you don’t care that the NHS can cope with high deaths, and want to reduce deaths while a vaccine is rolled out, which option do you choose? You’re probably forced into “low cases” and lumped in with the Covid Zero-ers, even though that isn’t what you mean.

Similarly, if you want some restrictions to continue, but want (say) open air recreation or schools added back as soon as the NHS can cope, which option do you choose? “Continue the lockdown” is an undefined statement which could mean anything from the same (or tighter) restrictions, down to a reduction to say Tier 3 or so.

 

[VauxhallandI]

There is the possibility that work colleagues evil in their statements as they don’t want to be seen in bad light. I find that no one really talks about their personal feeling about the laws and methodology. They just talk about how they are dealing and living through it. The few I have scraped carefully through the surface of the subject have given me the cautious responses that lean towards they’ve had enough now.

On paper I am the perfect lockdown lover, can work well at home and deliver the same results, two of us no kids, savings increasing and both have as secure a job as I can think of. Yet both have firmly had enough of this circus of actions based in no logic whatsoever.

I’m very frustrated at being looked down upon by people I rightly or wrongly see as mugs. Plus those using me for their own personal gain

 

[Bantamzen]

Just to offer an alternative view here, because we're all at risk of living in an echo chamber.

To answer the OPs question:

Yes, the views in the poll reflect my opinion, the views of my family, the views of my friends, and the views of any colleague I have discussed it with.

For me, this sub-forum is a weird reverse echo chamber where I can go to read the strange views of people who have a different understanding of the public health crisis to me. Here and also occasionally twitter.

I haven't yet worked out what it is about rail enthusiasts that would make them so polar opposite to everyone else I know. I suspect there's a fair bit of self selection in terms of who is actually posting in the covid forum and the views here don't necessarily match the wider community.

I think if you are the kind of person who is strongly anti-lockdown you may be overthinking public enthusiasm for lockdowns though. The survey, even if accurate, isn't suggesting 75% of people want to stay locked in their homes for weeks on end voluntarily. No-one wants to be in lockdown. No-one particularly wants to be wearing masks on public transport or in supermarkets. As someone else commented upthread, large numbers of people weren't doing those things until they were compelled to, even if they thought it was a good idea for everyone else to be doing it.
We're all doing it now because scientists have (correctly) informed us that there is literally no good alternative, the government have agreed, and there's now no other option but to quietly get on with it until things get better.

Incorrect, some scientists have advised governments that there is no alternative to lockdowns. If you spent even just a few minutes digging beyond the media headlines & first pages of search engine results you'd find that lockdowns are not universally supported by science, indeed many quarters believe they do little good and a lot of harm. The reason being is that unlike a lot of these experts advising governments, real people need to earn real money in order to get by. They can't exist forever on a diet of Zoom meetings & 20% less income each month. Maybe your social & family circles are comfortable with all of this, but that does not make it the case for many others.

This has been the biggest problem we have had in 2020-2021, people simply assuming that because all seems well in their immediate environment everyone else can go stuff themselves. I personally know a lot of people who have lost jobs, businesses, even some who have lost their homes as a direct result of all of this. And that is just scratching the surface, there are far more worrying issues emerging such as mental health problems, people having to borrow more & more to survive, environmental issues as a result of less use of public transport & demand for chemicals & plastics. In the middle of last year, the IMF forecast that 500 million people would be forced into poverty as a direct result of global lockdown policies. Its a nightmare situation, and is absolutely not the correct thing to do.

 

[nedchester]

Just to offer an alternative view here, because we're all at risk of living in an echo chamber.

To answer the OPs question:

Yes, the views in the poll reflect my opinion, the views of my family, the views of my friends, and the views of any colleague I have discussed it with.

For me, this sub-forum is a weird reverse echo chamber where I can go to read the strange views of people who have a different understanding of the public health crisis to me. Here and also occasionally twitter.

I haven't yet worked out what it is about rail enthusiasts that would make them so polar opposite to everyone else I know. I suspect there's a fair bit of self selection in terms of who is actually posting in the covid forum and the views here don't necessarily match the wider community.

I think if you are the kind of person who is strongly anti-lockdown you may be overthinking public enthusiasm for lockdowns though. The survey, even if accurate, isn't suggesting 75% of people want to stay locked in their homes for weeks on end voluntarily. No-one wants to be in lockdown. No-one particularly wants to be wearing masks on public transport or in supermarkets. As someone else commented upthread, large numbers of people weren't doing those things until they were compelled to, even if they thought it was a good idea for everyone else to be doing it.
We're all doing it now because scientists have (correctly) informed us that there is literally no good alternative, the government have agreed, and there's now no other option but to quietly get on with it until things get better.

Absolutely agree. This forum has become a massive echo chamber for anti-lockdowners and anti-maskers.

I absolutely loathe both lockdown and masks and many other restrictions but at the moment I see little alternative. It’s not “authoritarian”, it’s a necessary evil at the moment.

If we all went back to normal tomorrow then what would happen? The NHS would be massively overwhelmed, more would die, people with other conditions would also suffer and die. Therefore, something has to be done to stem the flow.

There is absolutely a balance to be made between the Covid virus itself and other factors like mental health and economic effects but it is a exactly that.

At the moment I see that we have a very successful vaccination programme in the U.K. This is the route out as I see it and I suspect we shall see positive moves from the middle of March.

 

[philosopher]

There is the possibility that work colleagues evil in their statements as they don’t want to be seen in bad light. I find that no one really talks about their personal feeling about the laws and methodology. They just talk about how they are dealing and living through it. The few I have scraped carefully through the surface of the subject have given me the cautious responses that lean towards they’ve had enough now.

On paper I am the perfect lockdown lover, can work well at home and deliver the same results, two of us no kids, savings increasing and both have as secure a job as I can think of. Yet both have firmly had enough of this circus of actions based in no logic whatsoever.

I’m very frustrated at being looked down upon by people I rightly or wrongly see as mugs. Plus those using me for their own personal gain

The impression I get is that discussing whether lockdowns are right or not is a very controversial topic which many do not like discussing. Therefore, to avoid conflict, there seems to be a sort of unwritten rule that you have to say that you accept lockdowns but that you what them to end. However it does make it harder to gauge people’s true feelings.

That said I think you still work what their true opinion is on lockdown. For example at work a lot have said they think restrictions will need to continue for most of or all the year. This I think would lean towards them being pro lockdown.

 

[Richard Scott]

Absolutely agree. This forum has become a massive echo chamber for anti-lockdowners and anti-maskers.

I absolutely loathe both lockdown and masks and many other restrictions but at the moment I see little alternative. It’s not “authoritarian”, it’s a necessary evil at the moment.

If we all went back to normal tomorrow then what would happen? The NHS would be massively overwhelmed, more would die, people with other conditions would also suffer and die. Therefore, something has to be done to stem the flow.

There is absolutely a balance to be made between the Covid virus itself and other factors like mental health and economic effects but it is a exactly that.

Why are they a necessary evil? Countries like Sweden doing no worse than us despite having neither. There is no balance at the moment, it's virus or nothing. Would the NHS be overwhelmed? We have majority of those in vulnerable categories vaccinated so if it were to be overwhelmed think we've wasted our time and efforts on vaccinations?

 

[VauxhallandI]

The impression I get is that discussing whether lockdowns are right or not is a very controversial topic which many do not like discussing. Therefore, to avoid conflict, there seems to be a sort of unwritten rule that you have to say that you accept lockdowns but that you what them to end. However it does make it harder to gauge people’s true feelings.

That said I think you still work what their true opinion is on lockdown. For example at work a lot have said they think restrictions will need to continue for most of or all the year. This I think would lean towards them being pro lockdown.

You are correct there.

That said no one has said anything pro lockdown to me across the whole thing at work.

 

[yorksrob]

Absolutely agree. This forum has become a massive echo chamber for anti-lockdowners and anti-maskers.

I absolutely loathe both lockdown and masks and many other restrictions but at the moment I see little alternative. It’s not “authoritarian”, it’s a necessary evil at the moment.

If we all went back to normal tomorrow then what would happen? The NHS would be massively overwhelmed, more would die, people with other conditions would also suffer and die. Therefore, something has to be done to stem the flow.

There is absolutely a balance to be made between the Covid virus itself and other factors like mental health and economic effects but it is a exactly that.

At the moment I see that we have a very successful vaccination programme in the U.K. This is the route out as I see it and I suspect we shall see positive moves from the middle of March.

And that's part of the problem.

One of the noticable elements of the established pro-lockdown assuption is the assertion that it must be lockdown or nothing.

There is no alternative to lockdown - it is the only way. This view is made easier to hold with the prospect of vaccines coming over the horizon, however that doesn't make it correct.

There are many combinations of non-clinical measures short of a full lockdown which can have an effect on transmission. The Governments advisors have never attempted to quantify which ones work better than others, or if they have, they prefer to obscure such information. This isn't surprising as they prefer a policy of surpressing activity according to what they consider to be valuable or frivolous, rather than what activities are higher risk of transmission. Easier to keep the population behind closed doors, not asking awkward questions.

 

[nedchester]

Why are they a necessary evil? Countries like Sweden doing no worse than us despite having neither. There is no balance at the moment, it's virus or nothing. Would the NHS be overwhelmed? We have majority of those in vulnerable categories vaccinated so if it were to be overwhelmed think we've wasted our time and efforts on vaccinations?

Sweden has a must lower population density for a start which reduces the spread. It’s a bit like those who trumpet how great New Zealand is at managing Covid whilst forgetting the population density, sparse entry points etc. The U.K. is a densely populated country which means that infection rates are likely to be higher.

As for overwhelming the NHS, until a couple of weeks ago it was very much overwhelmed or maybe you thought the people on the news were actors?! The over-70s should be vaccinated by 15/2 which gives until about 8/3 for them to be effectively vaccinated (even though it is first dose). The next group 50-70s are pretty vulnerable to severe illness which by default means more people in hospital. Therefore, a careful releasing from lockdown will be needed but I suspect Easter onwards will see a move back to normality.

 

[Ianno87]

And that's part of the problem.

One of the noticable elements of the established pro-lockdown assuption is the assertion that it must be lockdown or nothing.

There is no alternative to lockdown - it is the only way. This view is made easier to hold with the prospect of vaccines coming over the horizon, however that doesn't make it correct.

There are many combinations of non-clinical measures short of a full lockdown which can have an effect on transmission. The Governments advisors have never attempted to quantify which ones work better than others, or if they have, they prefer to obscure such information. This isn't surprising as they prefer a policy of surpressing activity according to what they consider to be valuable or frivolous, rather than what activities are higher risk of transmission. Easier to keep the population behind closed doors, not asking awkward questions.

What bugs me so much is that, particularly in the latter half of 2020, restrictions have got chopped and changed so much, I don't think we really have a clear idea of what is effective and what isn't. Lockdown is seen as simply the most "failsafe" catchall of everything.

 

[yorksrob]

What bugs me so much is that, particularly in the latter half of 2020, restrictions have got chopped and changed so much, I don't think we really have a clear idea of what is effective and what isn't. Lockdown is seen as simply the most "failsafe" catchall of everything.

Indeed. It's easier to explain, easier to implement and easier to police, hence why it is the go-to option for the authorities.

 

[sjpowermac]

Why are they a necessary evil? Countries like Sweden doing no worse than us despite having neither. There is no balance at the moment, it's virus or nothing. Would the NHS be overwhelmed? We have majority of those in vulnerable categories vaccinated so if it were to be overwhelmed think we've wasted our time and efforts on vaccinations?

Would this be the same Sweden that managed to fill 99% of its ICU capacity and where it was touch and go if they would need to call in medics from Norway and Denmark?

http://www.businessinsider.com/sweden-offered-urgent-coronavirus-help-by-neighbours-as-hospitals-fill-2020-12%3famp

Sweden has a must lower population density for a start which reduces the spread. It’s a bit like those who trumpet how great New Zealand is at managing Covid whilst forgetting the population density, sparse entry points etc. The U.K. is a densely populated country which means that infection rates are likely to be higher.

As for overwhelming the NHS, until a couple of weeks ago it was very much overwhelmed or maybe you thought the people on the news were actors?! The over-70s should be vaccinated by 15/2 which gives until about 8/3 for them to be effectively vaccinated (even though it is first dose). The next group 50-70s are pretty vulnerable to severe illness which by default means more people in hospital. Therefore, a careful releasing from lockdown will be needed but I suspect Easter onwards will see a move back to normality.

Ah, clearly a virus threads novice in our midsts here! Perhaps I might offer you some advice?

Each time there has been talk of a new lockdown the virus has heard about it and infections start to fall anyhow. It’s really a very thoughtful virus and if you just ask it nicely it stops infecting people.

When speaking of Sweden you have to overlook things like them having a high proportion of single inhabitant households. So please, think of Sweden as being ‘just like France’ and you will be fine.

Regarding the hospitals being full, I know someone who’s uncle works in a hospital and he says he has never known them to be so quiet, so there’s my proof and everyone will agree with me.

If I need any more proof for anything that I’m saying I will simply quote my work colleagues/Facebook/Twitter to rubbish your arguments and many others will agree with me. I would be happy to provide you with a link to my social media if you feel it would help you?

Previously it was ok to use terms such as ‘Facebook Karen’ or ‘Furlough Brigade’ but that all got banned when I came up with ‘Work From Home Herbert’. It is still ok though to assume anyone on furlough is a lazy shirker.

A bit of practical advice too. If you go out for a walk then please avoid churning up footpaths. Remember, a train driver might wish to use that footpath during their copious time off due to reduced timetables and mere mortals should be cautious of getting in their way.

One final one, please remember that all schools are COVID secure. That’s critical if you do decide to have a go on the education thread.

In summary, you sound like a bit of an authoritarian to me. You probably don’t even have a Jenny Harries poster on your wall or an ‘I love Tegnall’ badge. If you follow my advice though I’m sure you will make lots of new friends here

 

[nedchester]

Would this be the same Sweden that managed to fill 99% of its ICU capacity and where it was touch and go if they would need to call in medics from Norway and Denmark?

http://www.businessinsider.com/sweden-offered-urgent-coronavirus-help-by-neighbours-as-hospitals-fill-2020-12%3famp

Ah, clearly a virus threads novice in our midsts here! Perhaps I might offer you some advice?

Each time there has been talk of a new lockdown the virus has heard about it and infections start to fall anyhow. It’s really a very thoughtful virus and if you just ask it nicely it stops infecting people.

When speaking of Sweden you have to overlook things like them having a high proportion of single inhabitant households. So please, think of Sweden as being ‘just like France’ and you will be fine.

Regarding the hospitals being full, I know someone who’s uncle works in a hospital and he says he has never known them to be so quiet, so there’s my proof and everyone will agree with me.

If I need any more proof for anything that I’m saying I will simply quote my work colleagues/Facebook/Twitter to rubbish your arguments and many others will agree with me. I would be happy to provide you with a link to my social media if you feel it would help you?

Previously it was ok to use terms such as ‘Facebook Karen’ or ‘Furlough Brigade’ but that all got banned when I came up with ‘Work From Home Herbert’. It is still ok though to assume anyone on furlough is a lazy shirker.

A bit of practical advice too. If you go out for a walk then please avoid churning up footpaths. Remember, a train driver might wish to use that footpath during their copious time off due to reduced timetables and mere mortals should be cautious of getting in their way.

One final one, please remember that all schools are COVID secure. That’s critical if you do decide to have a go on the education thread.

In summary, you sound like a bit of an authoritarian to me. You probably don’t even have a Jenny Harries poster on your wall or an ‘I love Tegnall’ badge. If you follow my advice though I’m sure you will make lots of new friends here

Hee! Hee!

 

[sjpowermac]

Hee! Hee!

One final one that I forgot: it’s a terribly bad idea to mention the ‘m’ word. That’s likely to result in a tsunami of posts. It has got so bad that even the admins discourage this topic.

For me personally it’s all been a bit of a boon, I can walk around with my unusually large nose covered and look no different from anyone else, I love m*s*s!

 

[Domh245]

It’s not “authoritarian”, it’s a necessary evil at the moment.

They are absolutely, objectively authoritarian. The necessity (or not) of them does not affect their nature

authoritarian
/ɔːˌθɒrɪˈtɛːrɪən/
adjective
favouring or enforcing strict obedience to authority at the expense of personal freedom.

I agree that they are a necessary evil at the moment, but they should be removed as soon as is practical, exactly because they are so authoritarian and go against all the values you'd expect of this country

 

[Bantamzen]

Absolutely agree. This forum has become a massive echo chamber for anti-lockdowners and anti-maskers.

I absolutely loathe both lockdown and masks and many other restrictions but at the moment I see little alternative. It’s not “authoritarian”, it’s a necessary evil at the moment.

If we all went back to normal tomorrow then what would happen? The NHS would be massively overwhelmed, more would die, people with other conditions would also suffer and die. Therefore, something has to be done to stem the flow.

There is absolutely a balance to be made between the Covid virus itself and other factors like mental health and economic effects but it is a exactly that.

At the moment I see that we have a very successful vaccination programme in the U.K. This is the route out as I see it and I suspect we shall see positive moves from the middle of March.

Yes it is authoritarian, how else would you describe being told when you are allowed out of the house, who you can meet, who you can have physical contact with, where you can go? The problem is that literally none of the restrictions imposed on us in almost 12 months have done anything to stop the virus. In fact if anything judging by the newer variants becoming dominant, they have actually helped the virus.

Restrictions are not necessary evils, just political solutions to biological problems. Their publicly stated aim were to "protect the NHS", but yet few people seemed to ask why the NHS needed protecting. After all a well funded & competently managed NHS would have lots of capacity, yes? No, the real problem here was that despite the fact the NHS had known of the possibility of a pandemic for years, it was not set up to cope. So all of this comes down to not protecting the NHS, but covering up the neglect of successive governments.

Stay At Home > Save Political Careers > Protect The Government's Reputation