Where is the anti lockdown campaign?

[LamieRobertson]

Agree with some of what you say and herd immunity plus management of the caseload is the only real option at the moment but.........if you were a teacher, maybe in your 50s and perhaps with underlying issues or with a young family of your own, do you want to go back to a class full of healthy-looking but asymptomatic virus-carrying kids who have no real clue about personal hygiene ? Would need to be voluntary for the teachers as well as kids. PPE for teachers too perhaps ? Also, restaurants are more likely to spread than football grounds....plenty of research suggesting the virus doesn't travel at all well outdoors. I can't see pubs and restaurants opening for a while yet (other than as takeaways)

I think another 3 weeks is sensible - what I'd expect though, during that 3 weeks is a progressive explanation of the plan to relax the lockdown, so when the 3 weeks are up everyone is 100% clear on what to expect and when, with very clear guidance on what we can and can't do (learning the lessons from the original move towards lockdown where there was some ambiguity)[/QUOTE

My thoughts

 

[Bry Nylon]

I take it Goldstone will not be banging his saucepan this evening.

I think it is safe to assume that it is a long time since Goldstone banged anything.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

I was fundamentally opposed to the original, and I'm vehemently opposed to the 3 week extension. Where is the campaign to voice the objections of sensible free-thinking people to these draconian regulations? Or is the entire population meekly following along like a flock of scared sheep? If this is allowed to continue unopposed I can see the scenario in a few years time when there's flu virus and the government says "let's have another lockdown. It's easy. No one objected last time". What should have happened was that the elderly and at-risk should have self-isolated and the rest of us continued with our lives as close to normal as is possible. Instead of that the entire population is being virtually imprisoned, and not a bleat of complaint from anyone.

Given your post above which if your idea was implemented would cost people their lives, I thought it might be nice to see a post from you in the green bin thread ......

Where exactly did I say anything about not wanting to save lives? Stop making stuff up to suit your own agenda.

Somewhat shows you up as a complete tosser does it not ?

 

[Horses Arse]

I was fundamentally opposed to the original, and I'm vehemently opposed to the 3 week extension. Where is the campaign to voice the objections of sensible free-thinking people to these draconian regulations? Or is the entire population meekly following along like a flock of scared sheep? If this is allowed to continue unopposed I can see the scenario in a few years time when there's flu virus and the government says "let's have another lockdown. It's easy. No one objected last time". What should have happened was that the elderly and at-risk should have self-isolated and the rest of us continued with our lives as close to normal as is possible. Instead of that the entire population is being virtually imprisoned, and not a bleat of complaint from anyone.

Nurse!! Nurse!!!

Oh yes, they're all busy for some reason.

Sent from my Pixel 4 using Tapatalk

 

[goldstone]

Given your post above which if your idea was implemented would cost people their lives,

The lives it might cost are almost entirely of people who already have serious health conditions. It would save the lives of many people possibly driven to suicide by financial ruin caused by the lockdown.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

The lives it might cost are almost entirely of people who already have serious health conditions. It would save the lives of many people possibly driven to suicide by financial ruin caused by the lockdown.

Why not just exterminate people with serious health conditions? This will save them waiting until they get the virus.

 

[LlcoolJ]

Why not just exterminate people with serious health conditions? This will save them waiting until they get the virus.

goldstone is a moronic troll. But it is going to come to that in the human race end game.

Once genetic research gets only a tiny bit better, people will be able to live forever. But only some, obviously.

Houllebecq nailed it in Atomised.

"we who live in the light......"

 

[Westdene Seagull]

The lives it might cost are almost entirely of people who already have serious health conditions. It would save the lives of many people possibly driven to suicide by financial ruin caused by the lockdown.

Ah, so you lied ! Thank you, I'll remember to tell my parents their lives aren't worth saving when I drop their next batch of shopping off. Indeed, I'll contact Captain Tom and mention to him the country would be better off if he just quietly died thus allowing the fitter people to come out of lockdown a bit earlier.

 

[LlcoolJ]

goldstone is a moronic troll. But it is going to come to that in the human race end game.

Once genetic research gets only a tiny bit better, people will be able to live forever. But only some, obviously.

Houllebecq nailed it in Atomised.

"we who live in the light......"

And, with apologies for quoting myself....I think somewhere between Houllebecq's Atomised and Richard Morgan's "Altered Carbon" is where we'll end up.

Either way, it'll all be about cash to prevent death. Like America. For a generation or two.

 

[phoenix]

450 Romanians being flown in and welcomed into the country with open arms by the government and they will have far more freedom than you - Suck it up.

Well we can't be too picky

 

[Southcoast Corsair]

I was fundamentally opposed to the original, and I'm vehemently opposed to the 3 week extension. Where is the campaign to voice the objections of sensible free-thinking people to these draconian regulations? Or is the entire population meekly following along like a flock of scared sheep? If this is allowed to continue unopposed I can see the scenario in a few years time when there's flu virus and the government says "let's have another lockdown. It's easy. No one objected last time". What should have happened was that the elderly and at-risk should have self-isolated and the rest of us continued with our lives as close to normal as is possible. Instead of that the entire population is being virtually imprisoned, and not a bleat of complaint from anyone.

Go to your local a+e and say that. Go on...

 

[Notters]

So why should people who work in schools now put themselves at risk as well as those already still working in risk areas ?

This old chestnut again. Pretty much everyone is going to get the disease. Therefore it's about reducing the rate of transmission and flattening the curve, not about stopping people from getting it.

 

[Sorrel]

People will start breaking it a little more - not through blatant disregard, but by starting to bend the rules a bit. That is only to be expected as the length of time continues. But it will be a gradual change, and if the government is wise, they will try to capture that by relaxing things a bit while keeping other restrictions strong.

The other problem is how to announce it. If you say the lockdown will be lifted in a particular way in two days, then people will feel it won't matter so much if they break those rules the day before. Therefore I would expect any change to be announced without advance warning.

 

[GT49er]

Where is the anti lockdown campaign?

Hopefully under a stone, where it belongs.

Sadly it seems to have crawled out among the thickos and ********s in Trumpland. Coronavirus? Pfft! Still, at least they've got the guns to cure it.

 

[A1X]

The other problem is how to announce it. If you say the lockdown will be lifted in a particular way in two days, then people will feel it won't matter so much if they break those rules the day before. Therefore I would expect any change to be announced without advance warning.

Absolutely agree. The most in advance it will be is "from midnight tonight" when it happens.

 

[Kalimantan Gull]

No, just no. We have heard of EVERYONE of those deaths because they are selling headlines. Each of them is tragic and sad, but the numbers of younger folk without other conditions is tiny. It’s count on your fingers and toes tiny compared to what could well be a figure of millions infected.

There will be more avoidable deaths from those not visiting a doctor with a lump, folk drinking too much or taking drugs or topping themselves in one month that there will be of young people for the duration of this whole crisis.

We can’t save everyone all the time. It’s about saving as many as we can and not moving soon could mean 100,000 teenagers now has his following 60 years in poverty and poor health, along with his kids and grand kids as opposed to one tragic death of another teenager from Covid-19

I think what this point of view misses is that many young and healthy do get quite sick but receive hospital care and recover. In a scenario with no lockdown and overwhelmed hospitals many wouldn't be so lucky

 

[The Merry Prankster]

Agree with some of what you say and herd immunity plus management of the caseload is the only real option at the moment but.........if you were a teacher, maybe in your 50s and perhaps with underlying issues or with a young family of your own, do you want to go back to a class full of healthy-looking but asymptomatic virus-carrying kids who have no real clue about personal hygiene ? Would need to be voluntary for the teachers as well as kids. PPE for teachers too perhaps ? Also, restaurants are more likely to spread than football grounds....plenty of research suggesting the virus doesn't travel at all well outdoors. I can't see pubs and restaurants opening for a while yet (other than as takeaways)

I think another 3 weeks is sensible - what I'd expect though, during that 3 weeks is a progressive explanation of the plan to relax the lockdown, so when the 3 weeks are up everyone is 100% clear on what to expect and when, with very clear guidance on what we can and can't do (learning the lessons from the original move towards lockdown where there was some ambiguity)[/QUOTE

My thoughts

My understanding is that herd immunity without vaccine requires approx 600 000 deaths in this country (unless the science has changed since last week), is that really what you are suggesting?

 

[RossyG]

My understanding is that herd immunity without vaccine requires approx 600 000 deaths in this country (unless the science has changed since last week), is that really what you are suggesting?

That’s a guess. No one knows. Sweden hasn’t had those types of numbers (comparable to population) so the 250,000 estimate (I don’t remember one as high as 600k) could well have been wide of the mark

Professor Fergusson predicted huge deaths due to bird flu and it turned out to be fewer than 500. Dr Fauci predicted that millions of heterosexuals would die of AIDS in the 1980s. Again very wide of the mark.

 

[Perfidious Albion]

It is not just about catching the virus yourself. It is about passing it to others . They say that you can do that without feeling unwell at all. I do not want my wife to catch it off someone when she shops for essentials at Sainsburys.

I understand the stress on those with young children and the worry about jobs and businesses, but anyone "fundamentally opposed " to the lockdown is just a selfish b######.

 

[RossyG]

It’s selfish now, yes, but for how much longer? I’d say 3-4 weeks and then we need to start relaxing it.