Lockdowns
- Thread starter Ben
- Start date
- Dec 18, 2014
- 1,999
- 1,050
The one thing the government will not say is that the public are to blame for the lock down as they didn't comply with the previous measures. They don't want Piers Morgan ranting about how the government is saying "its your fault" - but really that's what has happened. The media, instead of reinforcing the message that the rules such as curfew were designed as whole to reduce social interaction, were more intent on ridiculing certain measures and encouraging people to take no notice. The ONLY measure (apart from a vaccine) that will reduce transmission is reducing social interaction - and that message should be rammed home at all opportunities.
With regard to vaccines - if the Oxford vaccine is shown to be safe (which I believe it is), they should just start to roll it out. Can't see the point in waiting. Doing something is better than doing nothing even if its not 100% effective
With regard to vaccines - if the Oxford vaccine is shown to be safe (which I believe it is), they should just start to roll it out. Can't see the point in waiting. Doing something is better than doing nothing even if its not 100% effective
- Jun 24, 2013
- 3,400
- 2,345
Just found time to read this thread, and find myself largely agreeing with much of what Knutsfordian says. I think I'd better book myself a GP appointment quick.
This is lockdown lite and I doubt it will have the desired effect. Firstly because so many places shown to be responsible for much of the spread (ie education facilities at all levels) are remaining open. Secondly because it is (like everything else this govt has done) too late. Thirdly because too many people have got it into their heads that their own personal liberty to infect others at will should not be restrained.
I can see the arguments for keeping schools open, not least in that it allows their parents to keep working where necessary, but the measures to counter the spread in schools needs to be a lot stricter. Plenty of examples of how to do this in other countries (even in the US), rather than just saying "children aren't badly affected". Schools are not just for children, and children don't live in a bubble outside school. As for universities - there was never a reason for requiring students to return to campuses, other than the financial considerations behind making sure they paid for their accommodation.
Hospitality has been hit hard, but that's down to the irresponsible behaviour of a few. Like with many laws/rules, we end up having to legislate to protect the majority when a small minority prove devoid of common sense.
To those saying "just shield the vulnerable/the elderly and let the rest of us get back to normal life", let me give you a real-life example to consider (and possibly provide a solution to the questions raised):
My wife is 60 and disabled, with underlying medical issues.
Q1: Should she not leave the house for the foreseeable future? Should I therefore also shield myself, to protect her? If so, who pays for that? (not that I have received any financial support whatsoever from govt schemes since March, but that's a separate issue)
My daughter also has compromised immunity and health conditions.
Q2: Should she therefore shield?
Her husband works in a job which involves lots of contact with the general public in and outside their homes.
Q3: Should he stop work in order to protect his wife? If so, who pays for this? Or just carry on and hope for the best?
They have 2 children, one primary one secondary.
Q4: Do these children stop going to school to protect their mother?
There are no simple solutions to the complexities of real life.
If everyone kept to the basic rules, it would cut infection rates. But they don't. Without a lockdown, too many people don't, too many think "it's all over" or "it doesn't affect me". A lot of that can be traced back to a loss of any trust or confidence or faith in the way this government has approached things from day one, but that's in the past and we have to find a way to cope with a lack of confidence in govt measures. And without a lockdown, rates will rise, serious illnesses will rise, hospital admissions will rise, and there will be no room in hospitals for people suddenly afflicted by other illnesses/diseases/accidents, so both CV19 and non-CV19 deaths would be likely to rise. As a self-employed individual profoundly hit by the financial impact of all this, and one who has not been able to turn to Uncle Rishi for any support, trust me, I fully understand concerns about the economy.
But dead people can't work either.
This is lockdown lite and I doubt it will have the desired effect. Firstly because so many places shown to be responsible for much of the spread (ie education facilities at all levels) are remaining open. Secondly because it is (like everything else this govt has done) too late. Thirdly because too many people have got it into their heads that their own personal liberty to infect others at will should not be restrained.
I can see the arguments for keeping schools open, not least in that it allows their parents to keep working where necessary, but the measures to counter the spread in schools needs to be a lot stricter. Plenty of examples of how to do this in other countries (even in the US), rather than just saying "children aren't badly affected". Schools are not just for children, and children don't live in a bubble outside school. As for universities - there was never a reason for requiring students to return to campuses, other than the financial considerations behind making sure they paid for their accommodation.
Hospitality has been hit hard, but that's down to the irresponsible behaviour of a few. Like with many laws/rules, we end up having to legislate to protect the majority when a small minority prove devoid of common sense.
To those saying "just shield the vulnerable/the elderly and let the rest of us get back to normal life", let me give you a real-life example to consider (and possibly provide a solution to the questions raised):
My wife is 60 and disabled, with underlying medical issues.
Q1: Should she not leave the house for the foreseeable future? Should I therefore also shield myself, to protect her? If so, who pays for that? (not that I have received any financial support whatsoever from govt schemes since March, but that's a separate issue)
My daughter also has compromised immunity and health conditions.
Q2: Should she therefore shield?
Her husband works in a job which involves lots of contact with the general public in and outside their homes.
Q3: Should he stop work in order to protect his wife? If so, who pays for this? Or just carry on and hope for the best?
They have 2 children, one primary one secondary.
Q4: Do these children stop going to school to protect their mother?
There are no simple solutions to the complexities of real life.
If everyone kept to the basic rules, it would cut infection rates. But they don't. Without a lockdown, too many people don't, too many think "it's all over" or "it doesn't affect me". A lot of that can be traced back to a loss of any trust or confidence or faith in the way this government has approached things from day one, but that's in the past and we have to find a way to cope with a lack of confidence in govt measures. And without a lockdown, rates will rise, serious illnesses will rise, hospital admissions will rise, and there will be no room in hospitals for people suddenly afflicted by other illnesses/diseases/accidents, so both CV19 and non-CV19 deaths would be likely to rise. As a self-employed individual profoundly hit by the financial impact of all this, and one who has not been able to turn to Uncle Rishi for any support, trust me, I fully understand concerns about the economy.
But dead people can't work either.
- Jun 24, 2013
- 868
- 1,090
- Jun 24, 2013
- 868
- 1,090
It's part public fault and part Government fault for not dealing with their own reprobates.
The public needed little invitation to be non-compliant but the Government insisted on sending them a gold-plated one anyway. The first lockdown - with actually a very decent slogan in Stay Home, Protect the NHS, Save lives - was working well and they blew it.
- Jun 24, 2013
- 868
- 1,090
An optimist would look at that graph and conclude that the recent lockdowns were massively successful!
Modelled data in the event of no intervention different from data after an intervention shocker! Who'd have thought it?
- Jul 28, 2013
- 3,007
- 2,330
That example was horrifically over estimated. It was intentional. They wanted to scare people, in a hope to stop people becoming complacent.
However, that was a very bad move. There are people scared stiff, won’t even leave their houses. Awful for their mental and physical health.
When the scientists leading the county’s response resort to scare tactics, they lose any trust and respect from the public.
The position of Vallance and Whitty has been untenable since that day.
Last edited:
- Jul 28, 2013
- 3,007
- 2,330
If you do want a sweeping statement though, you could try this one
The fact I made a sweeping statement about doommongers in response to yours in the post might have been a bit of a clue it was in jest.... ??
- Jun 24, 2013
- 868
- 1,090
I still don't think we should be blaming the scientists though. Do they have much to gain from misleading people?
...and if scaring people into staying indoors is what it takes, so be it. It'll all be over much the sooner for them and everyone. Lockdowns as such are not the problem just the way we have chosen to apply them and enforce them.
Personally I'd be all up for putting the army on the street. Zero tolerance. We've asked you nicely and that didn't work, now we'll ask you again with a bullet in your kneecap. Just need to inflict some pain. No need to go so far as to overload the NHS! Seems fair.
...and if scaring people into staying indoors is what it takes, so be it. It'll all be over much the sooner for them and everyone. Lockdowns as such are not the problem just the way we have chosen to apply them and enforce them.
Personally I'd be all up for putting the army on the street. Zero tolerance. We've asked you nicely and that didn't work, now we'll ask you again with a bullet in your kneecap. Just need to inflict some pain. No need to go so far as to overload the NHS! Seems fair.
- Dec 18, 2014
- 1,999
- 1,050
I think there is an element of self preservation with the scientific community. They are bound to exercise caution to make sure no one can pin anything on them after they were criticised in the early part of the pandemic
regarding non compliance, I agree that certain leading figures haven't covered themselves in glory, but they were from all parties and their misdemeanours were really subject to some OTT reporting. But whilst we can point to the villains, the bottom line is we need less social interaction and the media have sadly failed the people in the reporting of what is required. Whilst giving the miscreants some pain they should still have reinforced basic messages and not gone down the route of "if its good enough for them then we can all do it"
It has become the norm to rip into all govt actions, and whilst I get they have not been perfect, we are too quick to point the gun and fire without considering the enormity of some of the decisions having to be made. Not so long back the commentators were all against lockdowns to preserve the economy, now its all against not going into lockdown soon enough. Rock and hard place doesn't come into it.
But whatever people say on the TV and in the media, the evidence is before our eyes on the streets. Peeps are not social distancing, students waking to school/college hand in and and play fighting etc, Crowds of people just congregating in towns just for somewhere to go (went to Bakewell 2 weeks back - it was heaving so came home). So whatever we might think about actions of ministers etc its the general populous that spreads the disease and that's where responsibility for the lock down sits
regarding non compliance, I agree that certain leading figures haven't covered themselves in glory, but they were from all parties and their misdemeanours were really subject to some OTT reporting. But whilst we can point to the villains, the bottom line is we need less social interaction and the media have sadly failed the people in the reporting of what is required. Whilst giving the miscreants some pain they should still have reinforced basic messages and not gone down the route of "if its good enough for them then we can all do it"
It has become the norm to rip into all govt actions, and whilst I get they have not been perfect, we are too quick to point the gun and fire without considering the enormity of some of the decisions having to be made. Not so long back the commentators were all against lockdowns to preserve the economy, now its all against not going into lockdown soon enough. Rock and hard place doesn't come into it.
But whatever people say on the TV and in the media, the evidence is before our eyes on the streets. Peeps are not social distancing, students waking to school/college hand in and and play fighting etc, Crowds of people just congregating in towns just for somewhere to go (went to Bakewell 2 weeks back - it was heaving so came home). So whatever we might think about actions of ministers etc its the general populous that spreads the disease and that's where responsibility for the lock down sits
- Jun 24, 2013
- 868
- 1,090
What would this government have to do for you not to think the sun shines out of their arse?
What gets me is that hard-nosed Tories just can’t see that an alternative to this particularly corrupt and incompetent shower is a decent Tory government.
All that would take is for Tories to actually start scrutinising them instead of bending over and ensuring the whole country gets shafted.
Johnson, Hancock, Raab, Patel, Sharma, Jenrick... I could go on. Not a single one of them is fit for office.
Keep Sunak, ditch the rest and start again.
They totally set the tone for non-compliance and have been making flakey, half-arsed decisions on lock-down since.
What gets me is that hard-nosed Tories just can’t see that an alternative to this particularly corrupt and incompetent shower is a decent Tory government.
All that would take is for Tories to actually start scrutinising them instead of bending over and ensuring the whole country gets shafted.
Johnson, Hancock, Raab, Patel, Sharma, Jenrick... I could go on. Not a single one of them is fit for office.
Keep Sunak, ditch the rest and start again.
They totally set the tone for non-compliance and have been making flakey, half-arsed decisions on lock-down since.
Last edited:
- Thread starter
- #213
A few points I’d like to make. Deaths and cases are lower than this time last week and there are signs of them plateauing. Evidence that the regional lockdowns were starting to work. Makes the government’s national lockdown even more premature.
On people following the rules, I’m not saying it helps if people don’t listen, but I do truly believe that we’d be in this position now whether folk had stuck to the rules or not. Logic dictates that the moment you open up from a lockdown, infections rise. There’s only so much mask wearing, social distancing and hand washing can do.
Blaming the public is an easy way for the government to shy away from their own failings on test and trace and to build up hospital capacity for what was inevitably going to be a second wave of infections.
On people following the rules, I’m not saying it helps if people don’t listen, but I do truly believe that we’d be in this position now whether folk had stuck to the rules or not. Logic dictates that the moment you open up from a lockdown, infections rise. There’s only so much mask wearing, social distancing and hand washing can do.
Blaming the public is an easy way for the government to shy away from their own failings on test and trace and to build up hospital capacity for what was inevitably going to be a second wave of infections.
- Dec 18, 2014
- 1,999
- 1,050
The sun doesn't shine out of Boris's bum, it obviously came out of Jeremy Corbyn's before he decided on another election lol
The only comment you make that I really object to is "corrupt". I don't think that any of our politicians from ANY party is corrupt. We may disagree with them but I think they try and act with good intent.
So you slate the current government front bench - but who would you pick from the opposition - odious Anneliese? Brainless Rayner? Creaky Creacy? Non of them could run a department, a company or probably their own household never mind a government
So flakey decisions - well we will never know how Labour options would have worked - but do you really, really think they wouldn't have died under the torrential tirade of abuse that they would have received in the media? Not a chance they would be better. And when you look abroad, despite the view that we have performed worse than our peers - its not that different really and it will take some time before true comparisons can be made.
One thing is absolutely certain, I bet the Labour front bench are think thank the lordy we lost that election. Imagine that anti Semitism report landing right now on Corbyn? Whatever you think about this government, it could/would definitely have been worse under Labour
- Dec 18, 2014
- 1,999
- 1,050
The government are not blaming the public - that was me.
Track and trace was hailed as the silver bullet that would keep us all safe. However, when the number of infections reaches a certain point, no amount of test, track and trace will work as we are seeing all over Europe and this idea that it can be "reset" during a 2 week lockdown is fanciful. Can you imagine restructuring a top 100 UK company in 2 weeks? No of course not. Better tell the Labour front bench then !
And another factor to go into track and trace is whether people actually want to be tracked. I know quite a few people who don't comply, deliberately avoid or misinform the track and trace systems. The systems depend on compliance, which is not in abundant supply.
- Jun 24, 2013
- 868
- 1,090
You can only ever speculate on that Knutsfordian. Unfortunately your opinion is completely tarnished by your hatred for Labour.The sun doesn't shine out of Boris's bum, it obviously came out of Jeremy Corbyn's before he decided on another election lol
The only comment you make that I really object to is "corrupt". I don't think that any of our politicians from ANY party is corrupt. We may disagree with them but I think they try and act with good intent.
So you slate the current government front bench - but who would you pick from the opposition - odious Anneliese? Brainless Rayner? Creaky Creacy? Non of them could run a department, a company or probably their own household never mind a government
So flakey decisions - well we will never know how Labour options would have worked - but do you really, really think they wouldn't have died under the torrential tirade of abuse that they would have received in the media? Not a chance they would be better. And when you look abroad, despite the view that we have performed worse than our peers - its not that different really and it will take some time before true comparisons can be made.
One thing is absolutely certain, I bet the Labour front bench are think thank the lordy we lost that election. Imagine that anti Semitism report landing right now on Corbyn? Whatever you think about this government, it could/would definitely have been worse under Labour
I never mentioned Labour by the way. I was suggesting we had a better Tory government.
When it comes to facing tirades from the media... yep, pretty certain Labour would’ve dealt with it though. They’ve had plenty of practise.
As for not being corrupt. That just makes you look a bit silly. Try opening your other eye occasionally.
- Dec 18, 2014
- 1,999
- 1,050
Aaaah well that because I think you need to reunite and form back as one club - but that's a whole new thread !!
As for my hatred for Labour - you couldn't be further off the mark. Labour have lost their way and the move to the left after the Blairite years has cost them hugely along with their surrender to the SNP. Current Labour is unelectable in England and without the Scottish seats will never have enough clout to form a majority UK government. Starmer is not the inspirational leader they need and most of the Labour front bench would not make it as fishing club or 1874 committee members. Alongside that you have the suicide of the LibDems as a party electing a succession of leaders who are even worse than Labour's which makes Labour's failings even more exaspirating. The Corbynista view of fighting a class war every day belongs in the 1930's and most of those battles have long since passed
Labour's other huge failing was Brexit. Throughout the 1970's and 1980's Labour was anti -EU. Blair changed Labour's stance on EU to become a pro-EU party but forgot to tell the people who voted labour !! So when they got a chance to vote against the EU - they did !! Big time !! Labour completely messed it up. They completely got wrapped up in their own ideology and party conferences exhorting people to hate the Tories and become a Remain party, when actually they were the one's leaving behind their core vote. The ordinary people who just wanted to be out of Europe, solid government, good schools, sensible and straight forward and straight talking government. What they got was bucket loads of shi1t straight out of the Morning Star. Sitting alongside that the threat of union militancy and a return to the 1970s and it was the perfect storm. People are not that daft. So never mistake my "hatred for labour" with sheer anger at what Labour have become and how over the past 50 years they have let down and abused the vote that enabled them to become what they once were. And do you really think that some of the current crop of Labour MPs really have what it takes to be leaders in this frantic world? I really despair at what's on offer but they seem incapable of finding another John Smith to take the party forwards.
- Jun 24, 2013
- 868
- 1,090
Unpicking the slightly dodgy grammar, yes I do think some of the current crop of Labour MPs really have what it takes to be leaders in this frantic world. Enough for a Cabinet? Debatable. However, the current government has shown that’s not a prerequisite. They are a shambles.
As for the EU, care to bore us with Johnson’s views over the years?
(Please don’t, we all know that he’s had more changes of mind than he’s had children.)
- Dec 18, 2014
- 1,999
- 1,050
Just because one party has a lack of talent, it defies logic to pick a Labour party with even less
I really don't care what Boris's views on the EU have been over the years - I just want us out (wrong thread anyway)
The real point is you accuse me of hating the Labour party - I don.t. I just despair at what it has become and can't find its way back to being electable with a strong enough base that could make that a possibility
I really don't care what Boris's views on the EU have been over the years - I just want us out (wrong thread anyway)
The real point is you accuse me of hating the Labour party - I don.t. I just despair at what it has become and can't find its way back to being electable with a strong enough base that could make that a possibility