Public Opinion on Lockdowns

[theblackwatch]

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!

They're quite a fashion statement at the moment (not having one is probably like not having a Parka in the early 80s). Transdev do various different versions, and I believe some people are collecting the set - see here . This might be best discussed in the bus section though.

 

[sjpowermac]

They're quite a fashion statement at the moment (not having one is probably like not having a Parka in the early 80s). Transdev do various different versions, and I believe some people are collecting the set - see here . This might be best discussed in the bus section though.

Many thanks for the link, those do look nice!

I agree about fashion statement and quite so with the Parka comparison! In the summer I actually went with a denim one and created the whole new fashion of ‘triple denim’.

As a general point about public opinion on lockdowns, I’m feeling a bit left out and can’t really comment. All my friends and family want to do is talk about trains, so no change there then

For myself, I follow both the law and guidance, keeping a scotch egg in my pocket just in case I get questioned on my daily walk!

 

[DB]

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.

If you think lockdowns are 'necessary' you need to explain why, worldwide (and between US states) there is absolutely no correlation between the severity of restrictions and the outcome. If only a couple of countries was looked at they could be anomalies, but across the whole world this is not tenable - this applies to both mask mandates and to restrictions more generally.

You also need to explain why countries with lighter restrictions don't see continuous exponential growth until they reach herd immunity. The lockdown narrative ignores the fact that there are naturally increases and decreases, and indeed in early January in this country we were already seeing this before the lockdown measures could have had any effect.

There ought to be a balance between the virus and mental health, economic factors, etc, but the fact is that we aren't seeing that at all in this country - the narrative is entirely fixated on the virus.

 

[Кряква]

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.

Yes, "something must be done" about the NHS, but equally "something must be done" about the rest of the country falling apart.

Physical and mental health are one and the same thing. There's no use us getting through this if you simply create a world of people plugged into screens, a generation of individuals with PTSD, children who aren't able to socialise properly because they've been told in their formative years that other humans are death incarnate.

The analogies to the war amuse me, because as far as I'm concerned prolonged restrictions are akin to bombing your own cities so that the Germans couldn't get there first.

Notwithstanding that is the fact that lockdowns will eventually stop working. We have this one - after that, it won't matter if 60% of people think lockdown is the best thing since sliced bread, the other 40% will be getting on with it and you'll need a strategy anyway. Why not get a head start on it rather than leaving everything until the last minute?

There ought to be a balance between the virus and mental health, economic factors, etc, but the fact is that we aren't seeing that at all in this country - the narrative is entirely fixated on the virus.

It's a bit like dealing with a parent who thinks that the only way to get their child to behave is via the cane.

Trouble is, we're not children and we know that what we're being told to do doesn't make sense.

 

[initiation]

If you think lockdowns are 'necessary' you need to explain why, worldwide (and between US states)

Shhh, don't let facts get in the way. The only alternative to lockdown is to abandon every single rule and encourage people to go around licking public door handles. Professor Lockdown's prediction of 500k deaths is absolutely right. It is up to covid-deniers to explain why they should be able to visit friends and family or send their kids to school.

I mean it is clear from these graphs that there is a very strong correlation in US states between lockdowns and mortality... California have had long and hard lockdowns compared to Florida, that must have had an impact right?

 

[Yew]

Cor, that bar graph is pretty damning, @initiation!

 

[nedchester]

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

I'll agree about the NHS and pandemic preparation but we are where we are so have to do something to stop overwhelming of healthcare services

 

[yorkie]

Cor, that bar graph is pretty damning, @initiation!

There are all sorts of others you can look at; Spain had an incredibly strict lockdown in Spring 2020, to the point where they committed child abuse on a massive scale, and it did them no good.

Places like Peru have had strict lockdowns and it didn't help them much either.

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.

My response remains the same.

And it clearly is authoritarian; not many people are arguing for there to be no measures whatsoever but we are arguing against the draconian nature of the measures. If you go out of your house and do not encounter anyone else, there is no risk of transmission, yet that could be deemed illegal depending on what ''excuse'' you provide if asked.

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.

This is a false dichotomy; no-one is suggesting we go completely back to normal. Sweden is not back to normal but does not have a lockdown. There is a big difference.

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.

This is where we agree, but we clearly disagree on where the balance lies.

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.

It needs to be earlier than that.

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.

We need to look at where the virus is, not where it isn't. It isn't generally a problem in the rural parts with low population density (and that applies to the UK, and many other countries, as well as Sweden)

Cities like Stockholm, Gothenburg and Malmö have high population density and are not that dissimilar to cities in the UK. Certainly they have much more in common with UK cities than the average settlement in any other Nordic country; you also need to consider various factors such as high immigrant population, population mobility etc.

One of the main factors that initially drove the epidemics in certain countries was how much 'seeding' occurred in the early stages; countries such as the UK and Sweden had a lot of that, whereas NZ etc didn't.

Rather than go through all this again in this thread, it may be worth you reading the discussion that has taken in numerous previous threads where such comparisons have arisen.

 

[Yew]

There are all sorts of others you can look at; Spain had an incredibly strict lockdown in Spring 2020, to the point where they committed child abuse on a massive scale, and it did them no good.

Places like Peru have had strict lockdowns and it didn't help them much either.

Often though, it's been Spain vs Sweden, or California vs Florida, and due to the small sample sizes, have an air of cherry picking about them. Whereas that shows all the US states, and there is no clear pattern between deaths and restrictions.

 

[nedchester]

Many thanks for the link, those do look nice!

I agree about fashion statement and quite so with the Parka comparison! In the summer I actually went with a denim one and created the whole new fashion of ‘triple denim’.

As a general point about public opinion on lockdowns, I’m feeling a bit left out and can’t really comment. All my friends and family want to do is talk about trains, so no change there then

For myself, I follow both the law and guidance, keeping a scotch egg in my pocket just in case I get questioned on my daily walk!

I find the masks keep my face nice and warm in this colder weather...........

 

[yorksrob]

Come the better weather, the British public will grind lockdown into the dirt under their feet, whatever SAGE and their ilk proclaim.

 

[Bantamzen]

I'll agree about the NHS and pandemic preparation but we are where we are so have to do something to stop overwhelming of healthcare services

And what impact do you suppose the lockdowns will have on the ability to make the changes needed? In 2019-20, the NHS budget was £141 billion. In 2020 alone we spent in the region of £300-500 billion for the various pay-outs as a result of restrictions, and that figure is still climbing. And that's before we start counting the cost of people needing urgent medical attention because routine operations were cancelled, people losing their lives because other illnesses were effectively ignored for a year, children trying to take their lives because of restrictions, business failing, jobs lost, massive increase in personal debt, depression, oh I could go on but I hope my point is getting across.

If not, then here it is. The cure is worse than the illness.

 

[nedchester]

And what impact do you suppose the lockdowns will have on the ability to make the changes needed? In 2019-20, the NHS budget was £141 billion. In 2020 alone we spent in the region of £300-500 billion for the various pay-outs as a result of restrictions, and that figure is still climbing. And that's before we start counting the cost of people needing urgent medical attention because routine operations were cancelled, people losing their lives because other illnesses were effectively ignored for a year, children trying to take their lives because of restrictions, business failing, jobs lost, massive increase in personal debt, depression, oh I could go on but I hope my point is getting across.

If not, then here it is. The cure is worse than the illness.

So are you suggesting that we just let people with Covid stay at home and suffocate to death while we deal with other illnesses?

I think once this is over healthcare services worldwide will be prioritised a lot more than they were prior to 2020. I'll agree that the NHS was massively underfunded by successive governments and I would hope they have learned their lessons.

Covid is an illness in the same way as cancer, heart disease and other awful illnesses we have to treat them all and need the budget to cover them all.

 

[yorkie]

So are you suggesting that we just let people with Covid stay at home and suffocate to death while we deal with other illnesses?

This sounds like a strawman argument to me; @Bantamzen didn't actually say that.

I think once this is over healthcare services worldwide will be prioritised a lot more than they were prior to 2020. I'll agree that the NHS was massively underfunded by successive governments and I would hope they have learned their lessons.

Covid is an illness in the same way as cancer, heart disease and other awful illnesses we have to treat them all and need the budget to cover them all.

With extended and ever harsher lockdowns, the chances of actually ever being able to pay for these things diminishes...

The pro-lockdown lobbyists have no viable plan to pay for any of their proposals.

That said, I think you will be switching sides soon; you are talking about reopenings in March, but the die-hard lockdown enthusiasts want the lockdown to last far longer than that! It'll be interesting to see what happens in about 6 weeks time

 

[sjpowermac]

I find the masks keep my face nice and warm in this colder weather...........

Oooh, you authoritarian, people have a right to have a cold face if they so choose

Notice how some of the things I’ve warned you about have already happened on the thread. Tegnal is some kind of deity and you must take all sorts of factors into account when discussing Sweden. When comparing other countries though you must completely ignore any differences between them.

Maybe as some kind of penitence you could have the bar chart that was presented up thread printed out on a custom made mask?

 

[DorkingMain]

Targeted questions to a population that have increased time on their hands at the moment to complete the surveys. Consider that many of these people are sitting at home and effectively being paid for the privelege, is it any wonder the majority are happy for it to continue?

Think you've hit the nail on the head there.

Lockdown is great if your obligations are gone and you're furloughed, or working from home and getting away with doing very little.
If the gigantic stream of money from the furlough scheme stopped, I think the public mood would quickly turn. We've basically been bribed into accepting lockdown.

 

[Bantamzen]

So are you suggesting that we just let people with Covid stay at home and suffocate to death while we deal with other illnesses?

I think once this is over healthcare services worldwide will be prioritised a lot more than they were prior to 2020. I'll agree that the NHS was massively underfunded by successive governments and I would hope they have learned their lessons.

Covid is an illness in the same way as cancer, heart disease and other awful illnesses we have to treat them all and need the budget to cover them all.

Most people with covid will not suffocate to death, and you know it. This kind of emotional blackmail is tiresome at best, and at worst despicable.

What I am saying and what you seem to be missing is that lockdowns & restrictions do not help. They are literally draining money from the economy, money that could be better used to save lives & reduce people's suffering. Restrictions make things worse, not better. Its time people got a grip on that.

 

[Кряква]

Most people with covid will not suffocate to death, and you know it. This kind of emotional blackmail is tiresome at best, and at worst despicable.

It's a tired talking point.

Most (>50%) people with coronavirus will barely even notice it, because it's fully asymptomatic in 33% and at least another 33% will just have a bit of a cough and feel tired.

Most (>50%) people under lockdown will barely even notice it, because their life has always consisted of Eastenders re-runs anyway.

Building policy around what the majority desires is rightfully lambasted as populism for a reason.

 

[yorkie]

Notice how some of the things I’ve warned you about have already happened on the thread. Tegnal is some kind of deity and you must take all sorts of factors into account when discussing Sweden.

If a comparison is made, it ought to be a valid comparison. Can you think of a good reason why I shouldn't challenge the population density argument that was made? If population density is being considered as a comparator (and it is only one factor out of many) then we need to look at the cities, surely?

Most (>50%) people under lockdown will barely even notice it, because their life has always consisted of Eastenders re-runs anyway.

I think the vast majority of people are negatively affected by lockdowns, though they may not realise it until it's too late.

Many people are able to cope, despite being negatively affected, but an alarming number of people are suffering poor mental & physical well-being, including a significant number of younger people, which I am very concerned about. Previously happy kids are becoming depressed. We don't know what the long term effects of lockdowns will be, but we should be worried. Why aren't the pro-lockdown people worried?

Those young people that are not suffering mentally tend to be those who enjoy playing online games, which is great for the short term, but it could be storing up all sorts of issues in the long term. Some parents report that their children don't want to go for a walk any more and it is a struggle to get them to leave the house. I am even aware of cases where children who do not have access to adequate provision for doing school work at home do not want to walk to their school to collect devices that have been made available for them.

It's rare for anyone who is pro-lockdown to recognise the harms caused by lockdowns, especially relating to the negative effects on young people.

 

[theblackwatch]

As a general point about public opinion on lockdowns, I’m feeling a bit left out and can’t really comment. All my friends and family want to do is talk about trains, so no change there then

It sounds like your friends and family are coping quite well. Incidentally, I rang my Dad this morning to see how he was after his vaccination yesterday and he ended up telling me there was a 158 on the York services today, so conversation is quite similar! I do wonder if there is some connection between people's opinion on lockdown and their health (mental or physical)?

For myself, I follow both the law and guidance, keeping a scotch egg in my pocket just in case I get questioned on my daily walk!

Not sure about your scotch egg - some might regard that as you going out for a picnic.

 

[nedchester]

This sounds like a strawman argument to me; @Bantamzen didn't actually say that.


With extended and ever harsher lockdowns, the chances of actually ever being able to pay for these things diminishes...

The pro-lockdown lobbyists have no viable plan to pay for any of their proposals.

That said, I think you will be switching sides soon; you are talking about reopenings in March, but the die-hard lockdown enthusiasts want the lockdown to last far longer than that! It'll be interesting to see what happens in about 6 weeks time

So go on rather than having a go at what is happening now what do you think should have been done:

1. From March 2020?
2. From December 2020 when infections started to rise?

Maybe I will change my view on matter because I tend to look at the evidence and react accordingly. Basically, I can change my mind even saying that I've been wrong in the past about certain aspects.

 

[Кряква]

I think the vast majority of people are negatively affected by lockdowns, though they may not realise it until it's too late.

Agree with this, but I'm fairly happy in my elitist stance.

The vast majority of people are completely unwilling or unable to look further than the end of their nose.

Trash the atmosphere until nature turns against you, chuck 50 quid a month into your pension and say you've done your bit, ramp up asset prices into the moon whilst telling the young to just work a bit harder, etc.

 

[nedchester]

Think you've hit the nail on the head there.

Lockdown is great if your obligations are gone and you're furloughed, or working from home and getting away with doing very little.
If the gigantic stream of money from the furlough scheme stopped, I think the public mood would quickly turn. We've basically been bribed into accepting lockdown.

I tend to agree with this point of view that furlough has kept the public mood 'on side'........

 

[yorkie]

So go on rather than having a go at what is happening now what do you think should have been done:

1. From March 2020?
2. From December 2020 when infections started to rise?

Maybe I will change my view on matter because I tend to look at the evidence and react accordingly. Basically, I can change my mind even saying that I've been wrong in the past about certain aspects.

We should be adopting an approach similar to Sweden, with proportionate sensible measures but no authoritarianism.

The vast majority of people are completely unwilling or unable to look further than the end of their nose.

This is very true; people who are not suffering mentally seem to find it worryingly easy to dismiss those who are, which demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of the importance of, and factors related to, mental (and physical) well-being.

 

[nedchester]

Most people with covid will not suffocate to death, and you know it. This kind of emotional blackmail is tiresome at best, and at worst despicable.

What I am saying and what you seem to be missing is that lockdowns & restrictions do not help. They are literally draining money from the economy, money that could be better used to save lives & reduce people's suffering. Restrictions make things worse, not better. Its time people got a grip on that.

No they don't but a significant number do and would without treatment.

So are you saying no lockdowns or restrictions and let it rip?

I'll fully admit I thought Sweden had got it right but now I am very much against that view. You see, unlike some on here, I look at the evidence and decide what is the best course.

 

[Кряква]

So go on rather than having a go at what is happening now what do you think should have been done:

1. From March 2020?
2. From December 2020 when infections started to rise?

Maybe I will change my view on matter because I tend to look at the evidence and react accordingly. Basically, I can change my mind even saying that I've been wrong in the past about certain aspects.

Assuming our timeline begins at March 2020 (i.e. we couldn't react earlier)

With the core tenet being, as you state, the protection of the NHS, but with the caveat that I don't consider it the only important component of society:

I give the vulnerable as much support as possible - using the hundreds of billions we've spent on furlough etc in a more targeted manner.

Payments to working adults to move out of multi-generational homes (should they so wish), ramped up security in care homes (e.g. staff rotas with carers living on site). There are many other things that can be done but you get the general gist.

If we must furlough - then we could at least be putting our 'pseudo-unemployed' population to good use; a good example being the aforementioned care home issue. Target furlough towards the vulnerable - e.g. a 60 year old supermarket worker should have the option of taking furlough and replaced with a 25 year old for the period.

I would flip the messaging entirely to have people focus on their own wellbeing, whilst respecting others, rather than trying to explicitly blame individuals for collective outcomes (avoid social division and fatigue).

Do we end up with more or less deaths? I don't know. I do know that at least such an approach localises the damage in ways that don't result in societal division.

With regard to "looking at the evidence": I'm not convinced that said evidence exists. Freedom and human rights are not quantifiable. I along with the majority of the respectable individuals I know would rather cut off one of our legs and be free men, than have all of our limbs but live in a totalitarian society. There is no way to quantify that into a paper in Nature.

 

[sjpowermac]

It sounds like your friends and family are coping quite well. Incidentally, I rang my Dad this morning to see how he was after his vaccination yesterday and he ended up telling me there was a 158 on the York services today, so conversation is quite similar! I do wonder if there is some connection between people's opinion on lockdown and their health (mental or physical)?

Not sure about your scotch egg - some might regard that as you going out for a picnic.

The similarities are remarkable, my dad mentioned having seen a 68 on his way back from vaccination!

If I could correct you on the scotch egg, there’s no way that it could be regarded as a picnic, it’s quite definitely a ‘substantial meal’ and oddly there’s nothing in the guidance against that

 

[yorkie]

I'll fully admit I thought Sweden had got it right but now I am very much against that view. You see, unlike some on here, I look at the evidence and decide what is the best course.

You see, unlike some on here, I look at the evidence and decide what is the best course, and having been to Sweden, and looked at what is really happening in Sweden, I am certain Sweden has it right.

The similarities are remarkable, my dad mentioned having seen a 68 on his way back from vaccination!

I think we are in danger of missing the point.

I feel very strongly that it is important to remain positive in our outlook and to have positive interactions and to try to enjoy life but at the same time it's absolutely right to be concerned about the strategy, to point out the current restrictions go to far, it's okay to feel worried about the damage that is being done to our society (especially younger people), it's okay to express those concerns.

It should not be the case that people should feel it's an either/or situation.

It should not be the case that people are led to believe that the depression is their fault and that they shouldn't be feeling the way they do; this is not going to help the situation.

It's about getting a balance. This thread is to discuss the opinions on lockdowns and if people feel that lockdowns are wrong, but are also making the most of what they can do (which is how I feel and what I am doing) then it's only right they have this outlet for expressing their concerns but that does not preclude them from having positive experiences and interactions.

The two are not mutually exclusive!

If I could correct you on the scotch egg, there’s no way that it could be regarded as a picnic, it’s quite definitely a ‘substantial meal’ and oddly there’s nothing in the guidance against that

Agreed; a scotch egg is substantial enough to land you in very hot water if caught with it out and about; a mere cup of coffee was enough for Derbyshire Police to declare an illegal picnic!

 

[DB]

So are you saying no lockdowns or restrictions and let it rip?

I'll fully admit I thought Sweden had got it right but now I am very much against that view. You see, unlike some on here, I look at the evidence and decide what is the best course.

Have you not looked at the USA graphs above (or Worldometers for other countries)? What the data shows is quite clear - there is no correlation between lockdowns and number of cases / deaths. You are also presenting the false choice of no restrictions or 'let it rip' (a favourite Locktivist term). It really is not a binary choice, much as some like to pretend it is.

Not sure how you can conclude that Sweden got the overall strategy wrong (although they did get care homes wrong) - given they are still doing better than many countries which have imposed vicious lockdowns.

 

[yorkie]

Have you not looked at the USA graphs above (or Worldometers for other countries)? What the data shows is quite clear - there is no correlation between lockdowns and number of cases / deaths. You are also presenting the false choice of no restrictions or 'let it rip' (a favourite Locktivist term). It really is not a binary choice, much as some like to pretend it is.

Not sure how you can conclude that Sweden got the overall strategy wrong (although they did get care homes wrong) - given they are still doing better than many countries which have imposed vicious lockdowns.

Agreed.

I was watching a podcast with various virologists and they all agreed a middle approach is needed.

I don't think many countries are imposing authoritarianism as we are in the UK; most do appear to be going for some sort of middle approach.

There is a fallacy that if you lock down hard enough (e.g. Spain disallowed kids going outside!) the virus will go away even when it's already endemic, but it's completely false.

Zero Covid people such as Devi Sridhar and various others are very worried that restrictions are going to start to be lifted from around 8th March (give or take a week) and they are desperately ramping up their propaganda campaigns to sway public opinion against the lifting of any restrictions on the basis that we need to go for "Zero Covid". They feel our lockdown is not "hard" enough and March is "too early" to lift any restrictions.

The reality is they can huff and puff but are not going to win; some relaxations are going to happen from hopefully the 8th, but in a worst case scenario I'd say the 15th of March. Even then I think we are looking at April before we get to the sort of restrictions they have in Sweden.