• ℹ️ Heads up...

    This is a popular topic that is fast moving Guest - before posting, please ensure that you check out the first post in the topic for a quick reminder of guidelines, and importantly a summary of the known facts and information so far. Thanks.

Coronavirus

Coronavirus - The Poll

  • Total voters
    97
BarryZola said:
My point was, whenever I've seen "NATION COULD BE LOCKED DOWN IN WEEKS!!!" or similar in newspapers of late, the actual story that follows it up is that pubs and restaurants could be closing. That's sensationalism. I think you need to chill out a bit mate and not take everything so seriously and to the extreme. We all know what the well known and original meaning of lockdown is/was. No need to always try to pick a fight, is there?
Click to expand...

The last time we had this mood music from the government we had a lockdown, the media reported what was said by politicians. The last lockdown was more far reaching than pubs and restaurants closing. People are feeling in the blanks because as usual the government is being vague and unhelpful. If you restrict peoples freedoms it is a lockdown, those restrictions might not matter to you as an individual but they matter to other people.

Don’t ask me to chill out, as I am not stressed. Just commenting on the goings on of the day and highlighting inaccuracies where they occur. Diverting blame from the gov to the media is a classic trope to try and avoid scrutiny where it is due. This government has been a shower of …. since it was elected. I would rather we look at their performance rather than talk about sensationalism in the media, as that’s where the focus needs to be.


BigT said:
I would be astonished if there was a lockdown this week, there will literally be riots in the street at Christmas being cancelled two years on the trot for 85 people in hospital WITH omicron (not necessarily because of it).
Not enough is known for a lockdown this week, look at South Africa, hardly over run by hospital cases is it, yet again the media is talking us into it with sensational headlines, what exactly they achieve by doing this who knows, but that’s exactly what’s happening.
Click to expand...

Sajid Javid went on TV and said a lockdown was being considered, which bit of the media is being sensational when a minister of the state said that on the record?
 
Dave said:
The last time we had this mood music from the government we had a lockdown, the media reported what was said by politicians. The last lockdown was more far reaching than pubs and restaurants closing. People are feeling in the blanks because as usual the government is being vague and unhelpful. If you restrict peoples freedoms it is a lockdown, those restrictions might not matter to you as an individual but they matter to other people.

Don’t ask me to chill out, as I am not stressed. Just commenting on the goings on of the day and highlighting inaccuracies where they occur. Diverting blame from the gov to the media is a classic trope to try and avoid scrutiny where it is due. This government has been a shower of …. since it was elected. I would rather we look at their performance rather than talk about sensationalism in the media, as that’s where the focus needs to be.




Sajid Javid went on TV and said a lockdown was being considered, which bit of the media is being sensational when a minister of the state said that on the record?
Click to expand...

He didn’t say that, he said nothing has been ruled out, there’s quite a difference there.
 
BigT said:
He didn’t say that, he said nothing has been ruled out, there’s quite a difference there.
Click to expand...

How? Nothing has been ruled out is political speak for “it’s being considered” if it wasn’t being seriously considered he would have the confidence to say “it’s not being considered”. This lack of denial simply has two possible explanations:

1) Despite getting the scientific data on Thursday they are so disorganised they haven’t gotten around to even ruling out the things they definitely don’t want to do.

2) It’s being actively considered.

It’s as simple as that, now if I was a betting man I would put money on them doing it on the 27th rather than pre-Christmas but I’m not holding my breath.
 
  • Like
Reactions: D4n
No one in their right mind would argue that the government has not been terrible in recent times. That kind of goes without saying now. That doesn't mean we're not allowed to criticize the media also.
 
I've got a possibly controversial opinion; with the way things currently are, I think lockdown would be a good idea. I'd personally do it sooner rather than later, and I also think that it would be worth doing a pretty tight lockdown so that it can be shorter and drive down the R number and case numbers more quickly. With the speed at which Omicron is currently spreading, I think mere days will make a huge difference, especially with the high transmission period of Christmas coming up.

With Omicron spreading as rapidly as it is (the case increase curve is almost vertical at present), I reckon it would need to be our tightest lockdown yet to have a really tangible effect; I'd suggest everything non-essential shut, and maybe even scrapping the exercise allowance like they did in much of Europe. That way, it would surely only need to last a couple of weeks or so to have a substantial effect, lower case numbers to manageable levels, and allow us to get boosters out to more people. If we had a looser lockdown; as much as people would have more to do, which would of course be nice, I feel like it would have to last longer to have a tangible effect, which only lengthens and increases the pain that the lockdown causes. I admittedly don't have stats to back this up, but my assumption is that a short, strict lockdown would almost be a win-win situation (barring substantially reduced freedoms, of course), because it would drive down disease prevalence more quickly, and it would also minimise economic pain for businesses compared to a longer lockdown or no restrictions (many businesses are losing substantial money at the moment due to the Omicron variant and people cancelling). As well as that, those strongly affected by lockdown mentally wouldn't need to suffer for anywhere near as long as if we had a longer, milder lockdown, so in that sense, a bit of short term pain would really help us in the long term compared to the other lockdown options, in my opinion.

I know Omicron hospital numbers are currently low, and that it's said to be less severe, but with cases increasing at the speed they are, I fear that prevalence will reach astonishingly high levels very soon, and we might still eventually end up with phenomenally high numbers in hospital if we don't implement new restrictions. Being proactive will really help us prevent this; as much as we don't know if Omicron will lead to huge hospital admissions, having a short, strict lockdown very soon would likely eliminate the risk of hospitals being substantially overrun. For my money, I'd prefer having a lockdown and not needing one than needing a lockdown and not having one, just to keep us on the safe side.

Not to mention that high COVID prevalence would have other effects away from hospitals; for instance, it could cause a "pingdemic" on an even greater scale than what we saw in the summer, with huge swathes of people needing to self-isolate. There would also be a whole host of new people suffering from long COVID who might eventually need medical treatment of some form.

For clarity, I'm not suggesting a lockdown for the hell of it. I'm not suggesting a lockdown because I'm a masochist who likes seeing people unhappy. Trust me, I hate seeing people unhappy, and I'm just as gutted as the rest of you that another lockdown is even being considered; I genuinely thought we'd put lockdowns behind us by this point, and I was optimistic that the worst of COVID was behind us. I'm suggesting it because I'm fearful that if we don't take stringent measures now, it could really come back to bite us further down the line, and I wouldn't want that for sure.

In terms of timing; looking at how things are, I'd almost suggest doing it right now, but I also wouldn't want to scupper people's Christmas plans at such short notice, so maybe the 27th would be better... it's a tough one.

Besides, I guess the government are my superiors and know more than me, and I don't really have any authority to comment without knowing the SAGE data.
 
Matt N said:
I've got a possibly controversial opinion; with the way things currently are, I think lockdown would be a good idea. I'd personally do it sooner rather than later, and I also think that it would be worth doing a pretty tight lockdown so that it can be shorter and drive down the R number and case numbers more quickly. With the speed at which Omicron is currently spreading, I think mere days will make a huge difference, especially with the high transmission period of Christmas coming up.

With Omicron spreading as rapidly as it is (the case increase curve is almost vertical at present), I reckon it would need to be our tightest lockdown yet to have a really tangible effect; I'd suggest everything non-essential shut, and maybe even scrapping the exercise allowance like they did in much of Europe. That way, it would surely only need to last a couple of weeks or so to have a substantial effect, lower case numbers to manageable levels, and allow us to get boosters out to more people. If we had a looser lockdown; as much as people would have more to do, which would of course be nice, I feel like it would have to last longer to have a tangible effect, which only lengthens and increases the pain that the lockdown causes. I admittedly don't have stats to back this up, but my assumption is that a short, strict lockdown would almost be a win-win situation (barring substantially reduced freedoms, of course), because it would drive down disease prevalence more quickly, and it would also minimise economic pain for businesses compared to a longer lockdown or no restrictions (many businesses are losing substantial money at the moment due to the Omicron variant and people cancelling). As well as that, those strongly affected by lockdown mentally wouldn't need to suffer for anywhere near as long as if we had a longer, milder lockdown, so in that sense, a bit of short term pain would really help us in the long term compared to the other lockdown options, in my opinion.

I know Omicron hospital numbers are currently low, and that it's said to be less severe, but with cases increasing at the speed they are, I fear that prevalence will reach astonishingly high levels very soon, and we might still eventually end up with phenomenally high numbers in hospital if we don't implement new restrictions. Being proactive will really help us prevent this; as much as we don't know if Omicron will lead to huge hospital admissions, having a short, strict lockdown very soon would likely eliminate the risk of hospitals being substantially overrun. For my money, I'd prefer having a lockdown and not needing one than needing a lockdown and not having one, just to keep us on the safe side.

Not to mention that high COVID prevalence would have other effects away from hospitals; for instance, it could cause a "pingdemic" on an even greater scale than what we saw in the summer, with huge swathes of people needing to self-isolate. There would also be a whole host of new people suffering from long COVID who might eventually need medical treatment of some form.

For clarity, I'm not suggesting a lockdown for the hell of it. I'm not suggesting a lockdown because I'm a masochist who likes seeing people unhappy. Trust me, I hate seeing people unhappy, and I'm just as gutted as the rest of you that another lockdown is even being considered; I genuinely thought we'd put lockdowns behind us by this point, and I was optimistic that the worst of COVID was behind us. I'm suggesting it because I'm fearful that if we don't take stringent measures now, it could really come back to bite us further down the line, and I wouldn't want that for sure.

In terms of timing; looking at how things are, I'd almost suggest doing it right now, but I also wouldn't want to scupper people's Christmas plans at such short notice, so maybe the 27th would be better... it's a tough one.

Besides, I guess the government are my superiors and know more than me, and I don't really have any authority to comment without knowing the SAGE data.
Click to expand...
Utter, utter madness. Especially that last paragraph… I genuinely had hoped you would’ve learnt by now


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Islander said:
Utter, utter madness. Especially that last paragraph… I genuinely had hoped you would’ve learnt by now


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
I apologise if I've offended you... what did I do wrong?

I had a feeling it would be a controversial opinion, and for clarity, I wouldn't be advocating another lockdown if the COVID situation wasn't so severe and rapidly changing. I know the effects that continued lockdowns have on people, I know that cancelled Christmases and restricted freedoms would be gutting for me and everyone else alike, I know that lockdowns cause a lot of pain, and I know that we now have pharmaceuticals for damage limitation. However, I'm really scared by the Omicron variant and the damage it could potentially do; if we don't act soon, I fear we could have real chaos on our hands in the new year...
 
Lockdown a good idea and government are our superiors. Is this a serious post?

I was out in Chester yesterday afternoon. Everywhere was packed in terms of hospitality.

There is no appetite for lockdown and some of the comments I heard would suggest any attempt to impose another one would not go down well at all. The vast majority have done what have been asked of them and another lockdown would be a massive kick in the teeth. The amount of hatred directed towards Boris and those that surround him was immense

I seriously can’t comprehend how anyone would think it is a good idea let alone think Thr government are our superiors.

Let’s not forget their parties last year whilst they appeared on TV telling us to stay home protect the NHS etc (that they’ve been underfunding for over 10 years or more)

i have no good will left towards the government and it’s a shame that the current opposition is merely an extension of them or so it seems.
 
Stating a lockdown makes people ‘unhappy’ severely underplays the impact it has on people’s lives.

Bringing in another lockdown, when we have the vaccines and the treatments, isn’t just a ‘ruined Christmas’. It’ll be the end for many people’s businesses. The toll on mental health will be catastrophic. Lockdowns come at a significant price for society, one we’ll be living with for years, if not decades, to come.

But what’s worse is that it will signal that we’ll never live with Covid. The precedent will be set in stone. New variant + alarmist modelling from SAGE (and it’s important to point out that SAGE only models worst-case scenarios by their own admission, as best-case scenarios wouldn’t require any action from ministers) means the default is to shut down society yet again. I imagine most people tolerated the lockdowns in 2020 under the pretence that this would end once we had the treatment and vaccines needed to deal with Covid. Now they’re available, it’s much harder to justify the damage caused by lockdowns.
 
Personally I think people should have the chance to be responsible for their own health this Christmas. We have the vaccine and we have multiple easy-to-use testing measures.
I don't see why we shouldn't get to see family this year if we've been tested and are almost certain everyone around the table is clear. It's your own loved ones you put at risk by not taking precautions, which should be enough of an incentive to not take risks. Those that do are likely too anyway no matter what the government say.
 
This 'can't rule out' further restrictions being turned into sensationalist news articles as if it has ant meaning at all is utterly tedious.

Noone could possibly rule out further restrictions, it would be ridiculous to do so as noone knows the future. Not ruling it out is the ONLY answer that can be given to the question. It has no real meaning and offers no foresight.
 
In that case, I apologise. In hindsight, I think my post was ill-considered and wrong in many ways, and for that, I'm very sorry.

I'll admit that I was mostly looking at it from a COVID spread standpoint, and my post was perhaps a rash reaction to my own fear after viewing the Omicron stats and lockdown talk in the news; I'll admit seeing a vertical case curve like that is something that is hard for me not to be scared by, as quite a COVID-conscious/COVID-fearing person.

You all make some very fair points, and I hadn't considered the wider impact lockdowns have as much as I should have, as well as the appetite for lockdown within the wider populace, which in hindsight was wrong of me. In terms of where I got the "businesses losing money with no restrictions" from; I got it from the news, where they were running articles talking to business owners about there being tons of lost revenue and tons of cancelled bookings over Christmas due to the Omicron variant. I'll admit I wasn't really talking from personal experience there.

I should also probably clarify what I mean by the government being my superiors and being reluctant to question them.

What I meant was; they are the only ones who see all of the data, they are the ones in charge, and they are the ones who make the rules, so I feel that I'm at a lower level than them and don't really have the authority to question their decision making as I don't have access to the wealth of data and information they do, I'm at a level below them in terms of authority, and I also don't have the same privileges they do in terms of decision making and setting the rules, so I don't really feel that I'm in a place to do much other than trust them when I don't see the same evidence and data they do when making their decisions. As much as I know it may look like a certain path is the ideal one to take from our outside perspective, I don't think it's quite that easy when you're the one pulling the trigger, and you're seeing data and information from all sides that the general population doesn't have access to. The government only wants what they feel is best for the country and its people, and they will take all sides into account when making decisions.

Whether you feel the same way about it as me is of course up to you (everyone's entitled to their own opinion), but as things stand, that is my personal feeling.
 
Matt N said:
I'll admit that I was mostly looking at it from a COVID spread standpoint, and my post was perhaps a rash reaction to my own fear after viewing the Omicron stats and lockdown talk in the news; I'll admit seeing a vertical case curve like that is something that is hard for me not to be scared by, as quite a COVID-conscious/COVID-fearing person.
Click to expand...
What exactly is it you're scared of though? Catching COVID I assume... but then what? Dying from it? Being hospitalised by it? Because both are incredibly, incredibly unlikely. I seem to remember you said your sister had tested positive... how is she? I very, very sincerely hope she is not too unwell - if she's not, or just a little "under the weather", then what is there to be scared about?

Matt N said:
What I meant was; they are the only ones who see all of the data, they are the ones in charge, and they are the ones who make the rules, so I feel that I'm at a lower level than them and don't really have the authority to question their decision making as I don't have access to the wealth of data and information they do, I'm at a level below them in terms of authority, and I also don't have the same privileges they do in terms of decision making and setting the rules, so I don't really feel that I'm in a place to do much other than trust them when I don't see the same evidence and data they do when making their decisions.
Click to expand...
Ahh yes. History would've been so much easier and clear-cut if, over the years, everyone had just bowed-down to their superior authoritative governments.

Seriously, at this point sadly I think this 'argument' is a lost cause with you, as many have tried hard to point out just how horrendously wrong you are. It's a real shame.
 
Islander said:
What exactly is it you're scared of though? Catching COVID I assume... but then what? Dying from it? Being hospitalised by it? Because both are incredibly, incredibly unlikely. I seem to remember you said your sister had tested positive... how is she? I very, very sincerely hope she is not too unwell - if she's not, or just a little "under the weather", then what is there to be scared about?
Click to expand...
It's not my own risk from the disease itself I'm especially concerned about, but more the wider implications. I know that I personally am not at much risk from COVID, and if everyone had my risk level, I would agree that it isn't really anything to be scared about. However, I'm more concerned about spreading it to people who are at higher risk than myself, and I'm also concerned about a potential bloodbath in the hospitals come the new year if COVID is allowed to run rampant unmanaged. The NHS only has so much capacity to deal with COVID patients, and even if Omicron is less severe, I'm scared that a huge spread of it could cause absolute mayhem within the hospitals of a scale we've never seen before, because even a lower hospitalisation percentage will eventually lead to huge admissions if the cases get high enough.

In terms of my sister; she's fairly OK. Just a bit "under the weather", and seemingly getting better. I'm still absolutely fine at present.
Ahh yes. History would've been so much easier and clear-cut if, over the years, everyone had just bowed-down to their superior authoritative governments.

Seriously, at this point sadly I think this 'argument' is a lost cause with you, as many have tried hard to point out just how horrendously wrong you are. It's a real shame.
Click to expand...
I'm not trying to suggest for a second that everyone should bow down under all circumstances, and I'm not trying to enforce that belief upon others; as I said above, you're completely within your right to think what you want about this matter. I'm as big of an advocate for free speech and opinion as anybody, and I'm not denying that protest against governments in the past has overall had a very positive impact on society based on history. Some of our biggest moves towards a free, accepting, progressive society have been caused by protest, and I'm not trying to suggest for a second that the noble actions of some of those people were wrong by any stretch; I admire those people, and their actions led to a far nicer world to live in, in my opinion.

However, in the context of an event like a pandemic, I'm personally inclined to trust what the government does and follow what they tell me because they are guided by data and information that I as a general citizen simply don't see. They don't just do things to spite us; the government exists for a reason, and they will see all kinds of data that we don't, such as focus groups, surveys, models etc, in order to weigh up the pros & cons of various different paths and pick the ideal path forward based on which one has the least cons and which one is, overall, best for the country.

I don't mean to sound stubborn, and if I come across this way, I apologise, and I'll happily dial it back a bit, but I guess my take on the government stems from the fact that I've always been quite compliant, trusting, and afraid to "rock the boat" so to speak; even within the smallest of systems, I am a follower as opposed to a leader, and I always trust the leader and follow the rules. Even if I don't necessarily agree with something the government does based off of what I'm seeing, the way my mind works is to think that they made what they felt was the right decision based on the information they were seeing, so my inclination is to keep my thoughts to myself and trust that they are seeing data that makes their chosen path the best path to pick. As much as I try to critically analyse things, and I do have opinions, I'm simply not someone who would want to distrust or rebel against those in charge, partly down to the fact that I trust them to make the right decision (why would they be in government if they weren't going to make the right decisions for the country?), and partly down to the fact that I'm too afraid of the repercussions. I don't always like the way my mind works, I try to be more cynical, and I'm often frustrated that we can't agree on these things, but I can't really change how I'm wired, I'm afraid.

Some people are born protesters and fighters who aren't afraid to test the system; I guess I'm just not one of those people.
 
Last edited:
How much you choose to trust the government has no right or wrong answer. In someways you are correct that they:
- Have access to information we might not.
- Have access to experts that can make better informed decisions.
- Have been elected to make big decisions on our behalf. Therefore you'd expect them to be competent at doing so.
So it's wrong for us to act like only we know best, when sometimes we don't.

However trusting them completely is also a mistake:
- There's very rarely a right or wrong decision. Usually it comes down to choosing something that favours one group of people over another. And it won't always be for fair reasons as to which group is favoured.
- They also have their own motives for making decisions. Sometimes a politicians will do something purley to help their own agenda (normally to be re-elected).

Once again I highly recommend this video:
 
Tim said:
How much you choose to trust the government has no right or wrong answer. In someways you are correct that they:
- Have access to information we might not.
- Have access to experts that can make better informed decisions.
- Have been elected to make big decisions on our behalf. Therefore you'd expect them to be competent at doing so.
So it's wrong for us to act like only we know best, when sometimes we don't.

However trusting them completely is also a mistake:
- There's very rarely a right or wrong decision. Usually it comes down to choosing something that favours one group of people over another. And it won't always be for fair reasons as to which group is favoured.
- They also have their own motives for making decisions. Sometimes a politicians will do something purley to help their own agenda (normally to be re-elected).

Once again I highly recommend this video:
Click to expand...

So perhaps some form of middle ground is the way to go? Maybe I should try to trust them to a fair degree, but critically analyse things and form my own opinion?

I thought that was what I was doing anyway, but I clearly wasn't doing it well enough...
 
Spot on!

And don't end each post by saying "but the government know better than me so I trust them completely" ;)

None of us are absolute experts here. Some have more experience than others. But we add to the discussion because we want to add points others might be missing.
 
The public won’t do another lockdown. I wouldn’t do another lockdown. Enough lockdowns. We have to learn to live with this virus else what’s the point of having 3 vaccinations?! And with Boris’s Xmas party last year while everyone else was obeying the rules does he really expect us to do the same this year? No!
 
Matt N said:
So perhaps some form of middle ground is the way to go? Maybe I should try to trust them to a fair degree, but critically analyse things and form my own opinion?

I thought that was what I was doing anyway, but I clearly wasn't doing it well enough...
Click to expand...
I'd say that's pretty accurate, yeah. Blindly trusting people no matter what can be dangerous and potentially leave you open to being manipulated in some way. It's always important (in my view, at least) to question whether what you're being told is actually the truth. In fairness, it's a skill that can take time to develop, but I think it's something anyone can improve on during their lives.
 
GaryH said:
The public won’t do another lockdown. I wouldn’t do another lockdown. Enough lockdowns. We have to learn to live with this virus else what’s the point of having 3 vaccinations?! And with Boris’s Xmas party last year while everyone else was obeying the rules does he really expect us to do the same this year? No!
Click to expand...

It'll be a "lockdown" like the last few where most of us will be working in an office/workplace anyway.

But as you say after all the parties no one will be paying the slightest bit of attention beyond mask wearing (since that's increased fairly well from what I've seen).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top