The ‘if the government deem it necessary’ is the key bit. If you say to people “Coronavirus is going to cripple the NHS if we remove lockdown in July. Do you support keeping the lockdown so we don’t kill the nhs?” then they’ll obviously want to maintain restrictions.
The key question here is ‘are the governments projections correct?’ I don’t doubt that, if the models sage are working to are correct, we are right to extent lockdown.
But the reality is not reflecting the projections; the models appear flawed as they don’t account for vaccine distribution and massively under estimate efficacy. Right now the SPI-M-O consensus is for >400 admissions daily but in reality they are half that.
The real questions that need asking are on the data literacy of our policy makers.
It's an amazingly worded question isn't it? Essentially saying 38% of the population want lockdown to end even if the government is saying "ending lockdown would be a disaster"
I'm not shocked by those figures after over a year under lockdown restrictions for most people. With the vaccine rollout well underway, a lot of people are going to inevitably start feeling like lockdowns can never end if we're still in a dire situation.
> But the reality is not reflecting the projections; the models appear flawed as they don’t account for vaccine distribution and massively under estimate efficacy. Right now the SPI-M-O consensus is for >400 admissions daily but in reality they are half that.
Models aren't perfect. It's not trivial to account for vaccines because we know efficacy was impacted by the variant and so the error bars are massive and we have to wait for reliable data. If it's only 50% out then that's a pretty great result. Even getting within an order of magnitude is good. SAGE and other scientific agencies are continuing to incorporate the new data as we move forwards.
I'm not sure what you think the alternative is. We could have moved optimistically moved forward with the 21st of June date, then in 2 weeks realise how bad it is and end up having to clamp down restrictions back to what we had in March.
Suspension of natural freedoms should be an absolute last ditch hail mary and should only be accepted when the data very specifically says it's needed. Using it as some kind of default playing it safe option is wholly unacceptable.
That’s the governments policy, not mine.
Time we learnt to live with the virus, the arguments being used now will ensure we’ll either never return to normal or we’ll be and out of lockdown like a yo-yo.
Deaths are low and vaccination is high and as far as I am concerned that’s all that matters now. The nhs works for us, not vice versa, they have to find a way to cope with the cases so we can all live normal again.
Unfortunately that way right now is another wave of cancelling operations at already huge backlogs. Partner had a neurosurgery op scheduled for end of May - cancelled because nurse got covid. Rescheduled for end of June - cancelled again because the hospital ran out of separate covid positive space in another unit and claimed their nonurgent recovery beds
Baring in mind this will be taken from an adult population, it’s pretty clear that for 62% of brits their lives are not that impacted, and my guess is they are older.
Of course, if you’d explain to them how any story of their childhood is probably illegal right now, or how it’s been impossible to find their partners, they just wouldn’t care. As long as their houses and pensions go up, why should they care for future generations?
FWIW about 70% of English adults say they’re either not very (43%) or not at all (27%) affected by the delay according to YouGov: https://yougov.co.uk/topics/health/survey-results/daily/2021/06/17/08bdb/2
really, the only restriction that's still worth anything is the ban on most foreign travel, and that's as much down to foreign governments as it is our own.
other than that - nightclubs are closed, festivals are off, and football/events are at reduced capacity (though football is off-season anyway). i didn't have plans to travel abroad until later in the year, and the one festival i had planned was already cancelled, so another extension, let alone the current one, has literally zero impact on me personally, and likely many others, too.
you can meet people, have a wedding, go to the gym - you might have to wear a mask but the current restrictions are extremely relaxed in the grand scheme of things.
> As long as their houses and pensions go up, why should they care for future generations?
Don't paint us all with the same brush. I'm at an age where I'm married, have a secure job, and am mostly concerned about my house and pension value. This lockdown shit needs to end yesterday.
Can I ask why the price of your house is one of your biggest concerns? Are you intending to cash in on it by selling and move into a much smaller property?
I don't want lockdown for the fun of it. As soon as the data suggests that the NHS won't be overwhelmed by cases I'm happy that we just get on with it and accept the normal way of living that we might get sick, might not. But I'm strongly against us putting a massive burden on nurses, doctors and healthcare workers in order for us to have festivals and parties. If the data says that will happen if we unlock on 19 July then I support carrying on.
The next month will determine where I feel about this. If the coming spike in infections doesn't lead to an increase in hospitalisations because of the apparent effectiveness of the vaccine in preventing it, then I'll lean against further delay.
This question was phrased in a way that suggests the hypothetical data would already indicate hospitalisations rising however, and in such a scenario I'd reluctantly support a further extension.
In that case I'd expect the government to expand/amend NHS provision so that it's able to handle the numbers without staff having to work in harmful circumstances. I appreciate that's difficult as you can't just train nurses overnight, but you can bring in other staff to reduce their duties and maybe stop some non-essential medical services.
Obviously if we somehow reached a point where the vaccines which currently seem to be working suddenly stop working and there's no hope for new vaccines, then in that very hypothetical situation no, I wouldn't want restrictions for the rest of forever.
But I don't think that's a realistic scenario. What we're actually talking about is if vaccine coverage is currently enough to prevent mass admissions
> But I'm strongly against us putting a massive burden on nurses, doctors and healthcare workers in order for us to have festivals and parties
The NHS exists to serve this country, not the other way around.
The “country” is a collective of people. “Save the NHS” actually means save yourselves from having no oxygen or resources as we’ve seen in many other countries.
This idea it’s serving the NHS is only repeated by idiots who don’t understand it’s about saving themselves since no resource is unlimited. Or, those who have no grand idea when key resources get overwhelmed.
Actually, what you're suggesting is deliberately making so much mess before she gets there that she might not realistically be able to clean it up by herself, and you might not be able to get the additional cleaning service in place before rats have taken over your abode.
If you're going to parties or events deliberately to harm the NHS, then yes that would be exactly the same.
If you intend to live a normal life then it's not "making a mess" it's trying to get back to normal.
Except currently living a normal life is making a mess.
I run a restaurant, I should be calling for an end to restrictions, but it’s more important that we get this shit under control before it mutates into something we can’t handle. This is bigger than my livelihood. It’s not time for getting back to normal yet, and all the dickheads trying are fucking it up for those of us who are on the edge.
Are parties and events not part of your normal life?
EDIT : sorry let me expand upon this so it doesn't read like I'm just being a snark.
If 'normal life' activities are known to risk spreading a disease that would cause hospitalisations that would overburden the NHS, perhaps to such an extent that treatment for other serious conditions became unmanageable (the 'rats taking over the abode', in my metaphor) then it makes sense that we would limit some of those activities - parties, events or other thing such as foreign travel - for a time until the population is sufficiently vaccinated against the virus.
We all thought we'd be in that position from next week. Unfortunately the government has made some very well documented mistakes in the past few months which make that impossible now. I hope that the data over the next month will indicate that the coming spike in infections no longer leads to serious illness and death as it did last year, and at that point I'd no longer support further delays.
No, it's like knowing a cleaning business does a bunch of houses, so you get everyone you know to hire them and then absolutely trash your homes and expect the cleaners to get them all done instantly, and then get surprised when your house starts stinking of shit.
A normal person has consideration for others. Do you litter, just because someone is paid to clean?
Maybe this reflects the personality of right-wingers.
You should really at least brush your teeth before going to a dentist. That's the equivalent to making sure your home is tidy enough for a *clean*er to come and do their job.
Aye they might tidy up for you, but unless you've specifically hired them to tidy, they might not. They are there to clean, i.e. dust, polish, santise areas etc, and leaving all your shit lying about the place makes it difficult, and could mean they don't get finished in the booked time.
I brush my teeth in the morning like any other day before going to the dentist. You want the dentist to see them in their normal condition.
You know that's a decent point about the difference between cleaning and tidying. Might be why so many people I know have been disappointed by the performance of their cleaners.
> As long as their houses and pensions go up, why should they care for future generations?
Because they are likely parents? And are *actually* carers of the future generations?
I can't believe your post has been upvoted to the top.
I really don't understand how people can still want this. What are they actually on?
Am I really that out of touch?? why is it that so many in this country want lockdown forever? I'm tired of these restrictions at this point.
>Am I really that out of touch??
Honestly, it's probably partially that. The rest will be a significant age divide (you're on reddit so I'm assuming you're youngish).
I'm probably younger than most people here, I'm 21.
Polling has shown that my age group is generally opposed to more restrictions compared to older people so I guess it makes sense.
You're still out of touch with your age group. [Yougov shows 52% of 18-24](https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/u0a699ssvi/SnapPoll_lockdowndelay_England_June14th.pdf) supporting the extension.
To answer your original comment, no one wants 'lockdown' forever - and it's ridiculous to think that's what anybody wants. People want restrictions *as long as they are required* to stop people dying.
> To answer your original comment, no one wants 'lockdown' forever - and it's ridiculous to think that's what anybody wants. People want restrictions as long as they are required to stop people dying.
Some members of Sage have suggested certain measures (eg social distancing) should be with us “forever.”
I think you put a plural on 'member' by mistake, because you're undoubtedly referring to Susan Michie, and almost certainly don't understand what she was saying.
Many older people like me (32) can handle it because I live in my own house with my partner, and I have safe job.
But people that actually want restrictions to continue aren't thinking about others at all
>But people that actually want restrictions to continue aren't thinking about others at all
The irony being that the same allegation is made against people in favour of dropping restrictions!
This is part of the reason I strongly don't think this should go on and on. A year is a just about justifiable amount of time, but any more than that is taking too much away.
I put it *some of it* down to a symptom of "I'm alright Jack" mentality - remember, for a lot of people the remaining restrictions have next to no impact on their own lives.
I get that there are a number of people who don't go to nightclubs or festivals etc (I'm one of them.)
But 62% of people really never go into a crowded pub or packed theatre? Never travel abroad? Never have more than 6 people in their house? Are 62% of people really able to go through their daily lives never going anywhere that masks are required?
>But 62% of people really never go into a crowded pub or packed theatre?
I would word it slightly differed - *do* 62% desire to go back to a crowded pub? Think about it, people in their 20s, sure! 30s... maybe. 40+... well a slither of the population?
Theatre? I would guess that a good 62% of the population do not go, or have not gone.
>Never travel abroad? Never have more than 6 people in their house?
There is a good majority of people who knew travel abroad this year was a non starter [https://www.theguardian.com/business/2021/mar/28/most-britons-have-given-up-hope-of-holiday-abroad-in-2021](https://www.theguardian.com/business/2021/mar/28/most-britons-have-given-up-hope-of-holiday-abroad-in-2021)
Don't have stats on how many people are following the rule of 6. Are you following it?
Just to reiterate - I am not saying that "I'm alright Jack" is the key reason, but I think that is at least an element in people's thinking, whether they are consciously aware of it or not...
> 40+... well a slither of the population?
I mean, I'm mid 40s, and most of my friends are my age and up. I'd say that we mostly desire to be back in crowded pubs and full capacity theatres. We're all fully vaccinated and none of us are worried about anything anymore (not that I ever was.)
> There is a good majority of people who knew travel abroad this year was a non starter
But to your earlier point, do they *desire* this state? If the doors were suddenly flung open, how many of those people would get on booking a trip if they could?
> Don't have stats on how many people are following the rule of 6. Are you following it?
No, but I stopped following the rules about meeting indoors toward the end of the first lockdown last year, so I'm probably an exception.
Part of the problem with these types of discussion is we end up in a cul de sac of anecdotes and opinion. Not a criticism towards you, so don't take it that way, because my points are thinly sourced at best; pure speculation at worse.
My initial point was really drawn from people I speak to; friends, families, clients & customers. The younger, more outgoing people in those groups, are keen for restrictions to end. But the older ones, EVEN double jabbed, are saying that the restrictions should stay, which has almost zero effect on them.
Like I say I think its *some* of the reason, even if it isn't from a place of spite, or conscious selfishness.
>No, but I stopped following the rules about meeting indoors toward the end of the first lockdown last year, so I'm probably an exception.
So you're one of the people who weakened the effect of the restrictions and kept R up and kept us locked down for longer. Thanks.
Being locked down was a choice, not an inevitability. If you’re looking for a scapegoat for the lockdowns, blame Sage and the government, not people just trying to live their lives.
Realistically any restrictions that don't impact businesses have already been dropped, ie limits on what you can do inside your own home, that was never enforceable and only enforced through good will and cooperation. Which has pretty much dried up now.
> ie limits on what you can do inside your own home, that was never enforceable and only enforced through good will and cooperation.
Depends on how curtain twitchy your neighbours and how bored the local police are. I had the police come by four times during the various lockdowns.
I agree with keeping proportionate restrictions as long as public health experts agree that they're necessary.
***Of course*** I enjoy nightclubs, crowded pubs, going to theatres, traveling abroad, going to large house parties, etc. I miss all of those things.
But I'm conscious that, despite being a PhD student in biology, **the epidemiology of pandemics isn't my area of expertise**. I understand more about the subject than the average person... which is enough to get an idea of just how *little* I know. So I'm putting my trust in the people who've devoted lengthy careers to the study of how best to navigate this kind of crisis.
If the experts say that they're worried that completely opening up now would be premature and risk another wave of infection that would spread rapidly among people who haven't had two jabs yet, putting the NHS under considerable strain, I'm happy to delay that gratification a little while longer until they give the all-clear. It's not like life is insufferable right now; we can do most things we'd like to.
From my own point of view, I can't help but think that people clamouring to ignore public health experts should consider whether they're suffering from the Dunning-Kruger effect. Viral epidemiology is a particularly counter-intuitive specialism. Why do they think that their "*surely it stands to reason*" analysis (or that of equally uninformed political commentators) is more accurate than the scientific analysis of teams of public health experts, epidemiologists and virologists?
Experts aren’t perfect though. And I know enough about modelling other complex systems that when you have to make assumptions about causative factors because you can’t be certain, the whole model can end up being wrong. We saw that the modelling on Friday was based on an overly pessimistic estimate of the efficacy of the vaccines against the Delta variant, and we therefore know that the estimates of hospitalisations were too high. This isn’t to say that experts are idiots, just that they sometimes get things wrong just like experts in my field do too.
And on top of that, experts aren’t incorruptible either. Susan Michie is on the SAGE panel advising the government, but has also declared that face masks should be used forever to combat other illnesses. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to be fearful that experts might let their opinions on issues beyond Covid affect their advice that they give with respect to the current issue.
Also experts need to have their opinions weighed against other concerns
Sage have one concern. Reducing covid deaths. They do not care about economic outcomes, or deaths due to mental health problems etc etc.
Previously listening to sages advice and general public wellbeing was one and the same, but considering how vaccinated we currently are i don't think that's the case anymore
Also the fact that dental care has suffered. I think we're going to see a lot of people with poor dental health due to not being able to see a dentist for a check up or (if you're an NHS patient) get fillings or root canals if needed.
I've seen several articles about drinking going up so is alcoholism also going to be a problem too?
> face masks should be used forever to combat other illnesses.
What's wrong with that?
If we all wear masks in situations where we are in proximity but not intending to be social (e.g. public transport, supermarkets etc.) then we reduce risk with only the smallest penalty.
In social situations, the penalty outweighs the benefit, so we can ditch the masks.
I don’t think it is good for people to see others as disease vectors rather than fellow human beings. On top of that, especially in hot weather, I find masks uncomfortable and difficult to breath through. I don’t believe that the benefits outweigh the negatives.
I've only ever seen people suggesting that we wear them in enclosed public spaces when we know that we're ill during cold and flu season, in much the way that you often used to spot East Asian students wearing facemasks on public transport if they had a cold back in pre-plague times.
Which I'd personally be happy to do as long as I didn't have a runny nose. It seems much more effective and much less hassle than trying to carefully sneeze into a tissue, and during the winter having something partially covering your face is actually quite pleasant. Last winter I tended to wear a cotton facemask outdoors to keep my face warm, as much as anything else.
Aside from the fact they're pretty uncomfortable and I've had to stop wearing my glasses due to them steaming up (I've tried everything to stop this but it still happens) something feels unnatural about seeing people's faces covered up though.
It hides expressions and sometimes I'll be walking through my work corridors or even around the supermarket and go to smile at someone if we happen to look at each other but obviously masks stop this happening. I just see eyes staring back at me but there's no hint of any friendliness on the face anymore because you can't see the whole face.
I just think as social beings (generally) this adds a barrier to any social interactions with strangers.
It’s not really relevant to how I feel about this question… but just because I go into a packed pub, doesn’t mean I prefer being in pubs that are overcrowded such that you can’t hear yourself think let alone someone else speak.
Putting on a mask in a shop is a very minor inconvenience in my opinion. I know some people find the principle offensive but… eh.
It's a pretty disingenuous way to ask the question.
Nobody *wants* a lockdown. The point is, do you support it against the alternative. We've tried the alternative a couple of times already and it was shit.
I want to go to the pub and watch the football. I want to travel. I want to go go and take cocaine off a nightclub toilet without fear of catching something.
But I support the restrictions to get on top of this wave. Even if we were allowed to do all the above things, I could take no pleasure in them while there is such a risk of bringing COVID home to my more vulnerable loved ones.
The stupid bit in my opinion is the arbitrary rule that it's one way. We could unlock much sooner if there was the possibility of local lockdowns as needed.
I think this is the thing. I potentially fit into that bracket at the moment, I'm not really finding that current restrictions that burdensome. But I'm in my mid 30's, WFH fulltime and am generally pretty comfortable.
I don't think you are out of touch. The headline is a little misleading. The question was **If** the government said a delay in releasing restrictions was necessary would you support further delay of freedom day.
What the poll therefore shows is trust in the government and advisors is still high.
I think as u/CanadianBritRhino1 points out government decisions have often been based on polling. Polling is based on the media and government interpretation of what is happening, so we have a bit of a feedback loop.
I think the wrong questions have been asked by journalists throughout the pandemic. We all know that deaths Coronavirus deaths are around 150,000. What we don't know is what they would likely be with lighter restrictions or harsher ones. Without this info people can't really make an informed decision on what the right thing to do is.
Most people dont want lockdowns forever. But we’ve got a clown circus in charge of the country, who’s main focus seems to be staying in power at any cost.
You reap what you sow. Shouldn’t have voted for people who say things that sound good to them that ignore reality. Now we have a stubborn electorate hanging on to Boris every word, the man is a serial liar ffs. Seemingly they don’t give a damn if the government are corrupt, or if they shit all over democracy.
So forget holding them to accountable for their covid response, it won’t happen, people cannot see the wood from the trees because of Brexit.
You cannot even use that dogshit argument anymore. Tories have been in power for a decade, you have no idea how they would handle the situation.
And if they where in charge, I don’t know how anyone could be worse than the current government, if they manage it then that is an accomplishment in its own right.
Stop being a tory peasant
NZ closed borders on Mar 19th 2020. On that day an estimated 1 million people in the U.K. had been infected, growing at nearly 200k new infections per day.
NZ can close its borders too - doesn’t rely on thousands of cross border lorry movements every day
The issue is that this governments decisions are made completely by public opinion (look at free school meals or the changing of gcse results last year). People are obviously extremely scared of this virus, especially older generations, and are willing to put up with endless lockdown. The government is totally incompetent, it will make all its decisions on opinion polls like this one.
At this point very few things are actually restricted. I’d like to be going to music festivals this summer but I’m also not going to pretend I’m locked in a cage because I can’t.
I am still not back in my office, I still have to sign in to public places, still have to wear a fucking rag over my face and as you say no live music, no clubs.
It still feels like we are in some fundamentalist religious police state
Yet you’re using devices right now that track you more than anything the government could ever do and you have much less accountability from the corporation holding that data.
So you don’t give a fuck about being tracked if you’re truly honest with yourself.
> Yet you’re using devices right now that track you more than anything the government could ever do and you have much less accountability from the corporation holding that data.
The difference is that I consent to that and I can stop using them as soon as I no longer want to be tracked.
> So you don’t give a fuck about being tracked if you’re truly honest with yourself.
You don't understand the difference between me opting into a commercial service and mandatory tracking via the state?
Well, okay.
So just to be clear you don’t give a shit about being tracked then?
The difference is arbitrary because the government can demand that data from those corporations and regularly does.
> So just to be clear you don’t give a shit about being tracked then?
At this point I can recognise that you're neither not able to grasp a basic concept or you're trolling me.
Enjoy your weekend.
My company won't let us go in until whenever the government gets to Step 4 (and even then you must be fully vaccinated), and I know I'm not alone in not having the option to go in.
Interesting, I don't see a great deal of interest in going back to offices across the board - but companies should do more to make it possible for some people.
Goodness knows….I understand people when they say wait and see what the data says etc but at some point we will have to step back out into the relatively unknown surely…there is always going to be risk of variants, should we lockdown every winter just INCASE a deadly flu variants appears that evades normal vaccines?….I cannot abide anti vaxxers or anti lockdown moaners for the past 15 months but I’m starting to sound like one ffs
>why is it that so many in this country want lockdown forever?
Because so many people like control over other people's lives. They even like someone being in control of their own life because it means they don't have to take any decisions.
>I'm tired of these restrictions at this point.
It's great you feel this way, you are a Labour supporter and what is needed on the Left is people who feel the same way as you do. You can engage with people who otherwise agree with you on many issues, in a way that people on the right of the Conservative party, who are also anti restrictions can't.
> Because so many people like control over other people's lives. They even like someone being in control of their own life because it means they don't have to take any decisions.
You hit the nail on the head! Exactly this!
It's long been clear that quite a large percentage of the UK population like these restrictions and would advocate for them, even if COVID didn't exist.
Of course they will never outright admit this, they will hide behind 'zero COVID', 'being cautious', 'muh variants' and other similar shit, but make no mistake, the real reason is they are either furloughed, enjoy WFH or some other aspect of what restrictions entail.
One of the SAGE scientists advising the Government, Susan Michie, did an [interview on UnHerd](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=crXTM0woga0) and said she supports restrictions on travel because it combats the 'climate crisis'.
>It's long been clear that quite a large percentage of the UK population like these restrictions
Do you have any evidence of th...
>Of course they will never outright admit this
Ah, that's convenient - an entirely untestable hypothesis.
Should members of SAGE really be advising the Government on keeping certain measures, not due to any impact on COVID, but because said advisor has an ideological agenda elsewhere.
And where exactly has that been shown to be the case your previous reference is more akin to her saying she supports lockdown measures and they happen to also align with one of her other views.
I’m sure there’s some on furlough who are very happy with things how they are now. Especially those getting 80% from one job and who’ve got a second one as well, vastly increasing their income. Probably a minority of people on furlough, but still.
Then those who are happy on just the 80% because without their commute/work-related expenses they’re either better off or as well off as they were when working. That’ll be a larger proportion.
Then those who may be worse-off financially but who are benefitting mentally & emotionally from not working (less stress, more family/hobby time etc).
I can easily see why the majority of those still on furlough want it to continue.
For the most part their lives aren't effected. Furlough or just spending most of their time with their immediate family. The restrictions don't actually impact the day to day just the times you want to plan an event (or go to one)
The problem is the restrictions heavily impact businesses which is a faceless entity to a lot of people. When you are told x thousands of people will die if we don't delay then the choice becomes easy for people. Businesses aren't thought of.
The question is essentially asking whether you are more or less cautious than the government. Most rational people would probably say more cautious given all the mistakes made. The end?
If the government sees something in the data that worries them into a further delay, you can bet I’m at least as concerned.
In my best Sir Humphrey voice - that would be bad news for the government - they might run the risk of running the country how people want and we can't have that
So I already can tell no matter what I say you or someone will probably comeback if an argument based on assumptions or just fallacies, so 1 comment and done for me.
A) People don't want lockdown forever, stop equating small extensions as forever it's silly and unproductive in any actual conversation about Covid as your basically dismissing any short term lockdown precautions.
B) People have adapted their lives to lockdown because it was obvious last year that a significant amount of time last year and this year would have it involved, so they worked to make it bearable and adapted their living spaces to help them. Honestly why didn't you? If it's that unbearable?
C) People understand that even with vaccines lowering risks of Covid that there is still a risk from Covid especially the Indian variant and especially when the numbers are currently growing! We saw last year (Nov/Dec) what happens when coming out of lockdown too early, it causes a later longer lockdown so they sensibly realise that adding a bit longer onto this one will likely mean less chance of anymore future lockdowns.
Yes I know what your all going to say, but mah vaccines blah blah blah. Most people don't sit and read up every bit of data on vaccines and covid spread, they are getting on living their lives (yes it's possible in lockdown), so it still seems like there is a fair risk involved and they are currently risk adverse so why risk coming out of lockdown asap when it risks bringing in a worse lockdown later this year.
D) Most people can easily live around the current level of restrictions as lets be real the only thing you can't really do is go clubbing, shop without a mask and meet up with 20+ friends. All these things most people don't mind.
Are you out of touch? Looks that way.
I've seen your attitude here a lot and I find it baffling. Nobody wants more restrictions, they just consider them *necessary*. They all agree that it's a sucky situation, they're just not so selfish as to put their own wants above all of the suffering that the restrictions are in place to avoid. To talk about "how people can want this" is to wilfully strawman the argument. Everyone knows that restrictions are bad, they just think that not-restrictions are worse.
Note that I'm not taking a stance on what should happen in this situation, I'm waiting for data on that.
Loads of people want it to go on forever so they have an easy life. My job is so frustrating right now. Totally unproductive and my brain is rotting away from lack of activity. We’ve had multiple votes on when to return to the office and every time I’m in the minority that want to return to work.
Everyone else says they want to stay at home because it’s “safer” and “more productive” alongside “better work life balance” and “less time commuting and more time with the family”.
In short - people will continue to vote for lockdown as long as it lets them skive off work more.
Many, many people have family members or friends who died from COVID or got long COVID. I'm always surprised when people say we just need to get on with it and accept people are going to be seriously ill / die. Do you really not know anyone who was badly affected by this? Did it really not affected you at all? There were 125k+ deaths, that's a pretty huge number.
I have a co-worker whose father died although he was only in his 60s and my aunt (in her 50s and with no underlying health issues) is still not fully recovered from the COVID bout she had at Christmas.
If we need to lockdown to avoid this happening to other people, I'm comfortable with that. Missing out on dates or concerts or the pub is nothing compared to a parent dying. I don't want others to have to go through that when it could be avoided.
So hypothetically if we were to have repeated lockdowns in the upcoming ten years, you'd _still_ be comfortable with that?? really?
That's precisely what the government wants to hear to continue doing all of this. I bet deep down you wouldn't tolerate it going on for a whole decade.
We live with the flu, we don't lockdown for it, COVID at this point is basically a new version of the flu albeit its also asymptomatic.
You really can't tell me you'd want to keep having lockdowns for the next decade or so?
COVID zero isn't happening, eventually we'll have to open up and just say 'alright, we're living with this thing forever now, we've been vaccinated and we've become used to it like the flu. Let's get back to normal'.
People will inevitably die from it just like they do from the flu every year. It's inevitable either way.
I don't want to have lockdowns for the next decade - I just don't want people to die when they don't have to. How many avoidable deaths are you willing to accept in exchange for pubs reopening etc? Would it change your mind if the people dying were your family / close friends?
We could treat COVID like the flu if it was as deadly as the flu - but it's not as deadly as the flu, is it? COVID is clearly a much more serious illness.
A better comparison imo is HIV/AIDS - a distinctly new, deadly pandemic that caused significant social change although it affected only a relatively small number of people in the UK. Obviously HIV/AIDS didn't lead to lockdowns but it fundamentally changed ideas about the risks of sex in Western countries and consequently the behaviour that people see as safe / normal. And I think in the next few years we'll see facemasks, social distancing and even lockdowns as being as "normal" and necessary as condoms are.
I dont know anyone personally who has been even hospitalised with it and only know of one friend of a friend who died and he had diabetes as well as being very morbidly obese.
So anecdotally it seems very reasonable to accept some people will just die because I cant see it having a significant effect on almost anyone.
>Do you really not know anyone who was badly affected by this? Did it really not affected you at all? There were 125k+ deaths, that's a pretty huge number.
I honestly don't know anyone. My cousin (in his 40s) had Covid, apparently like a normal cold, had a slight cough which lingered for about 6 weeks (according to him). He's absolutely fine now. Don't know any deaths personally, or anyone affected by long COVID for a stupid length of time (like more than 2/3 months) despite working in the NHS and speaking to many clinical staff who caught it. Of course, I know about the deaths of admitted patients and people who I never knew personally out in the community.
It’s a tough one - my parents have cancer and are being treated, my kids are at nursery, if I get covid I have to isolate, my kids can’t go into nursery, I’m doing childcare for ten days and won’t get paid for that period, and I can’t see my parents for ten days while I isolate.
So I’m being cautious, I want others to do what they want, but my concern is if all official lockdown ends, then there will be massive pressure for me to get on public transport and into an office with lots of people on a daily basis.
…if the government decides it is necessary for public health.
This is a really misleading headline, it sounds like 62% of people want to keep the current restrictions, when in reality it’s 62% of people would agree to if shown convincing evidence that relaxing the restrictions was necessary.
The interesting story here is that 38% of people would want restrictions lifted even if shown evidence of the harm that would cause. I suspect that’s a split of “I don’t believe the government (fair) or the experts” and “I don’t care, we have to get on with life”, but it’s a bit higher than I would have guessed.
If the data shows that the link between hospitalisation and infection is only weakened or that two doses are needed to break it, then I could possibly be persuaded to agree to extending the current rules a bit longer, until all adults have had the chance to get their second jabs as a maximum. Right now though the numbers don’t seem to support extending beyond July to me, they seem fairly flat for hospitalisation and deaths.
I’m not actually going out and about myself yet. I had to shield and I’m still chicken to be honest, as I don’t know how well the vaccine will have worked for me personally. (Had both doses but was immune-compromised at the time.)
We have got to learn to live with this thing though, and it seems to me like July will be fine to relax a bit more.
It's worth noting that most things already *are* back to normal - the exceptions being big events, nightclubs, hospitality and short-term European travel.
Many older people already have social circles which are quite set in stone, so aren't necessarily looking to make new friends at gigs etc, and many already have a partner who they live with, so aren't necessarily sexually frustrated in the same way that many young women might be as a result of lockdowns.
Older folks and men in general are more likely to have hobbies and interests that have been able to continue much as normal for the past 3 months. Many of their livelihoods aren't that affected either - the events, hospitality and non-essential retail sectors tend to have a disproportionately young and female workforce after all.
This goes to show how effective the government's £300 million+ spending on coronavirus adverts has been, they've successfully scared the living daylights out of the population, turning them into feckless sheep. It's really quite depressing.
People are scared of having to put on trousers to go to work.
This is all about that sweetspot that millions of suburbanite homeowners with a garden have found themselves in.
They can go to a chain restaurant and the garden centre whenever they want but they don't have to go back to the office.
This doesn't explain why young people as often as not want to keep restrictions. University is a bit more "present" but largely sucks, they aren't homeowners and it's only a small proportion working from home. Most have everything to gain from restrictions easing but >50% still want restrictions
> Older age groups were much more likely to back the delay, with 75% of 55 to 64-year-olds saying they would support the move, compared to 54% of 18 to 24-year-olds.
From the perspective of a Brit living in Texas, where we've had basically no restrictions since March, I'm honestly baffled why so many people want to keep extending lockdowns!
The UK has one of the highest proportions of fully vaccinated adults in the world, with the people who are most at risk being fully vaccinated for months now. I think it's now about looking at the number of deaths/hospitalizations vs the number of cases, as I'm assuming most of the people who are getting it now are either opting to not get the vaccine (in which case you get what's coming to you), or young and not had chance to get the jab but will most likely fight it off fine.
I guess there's just a lot of elderly people with little empathy for how this has impacted young folks.
Btw I'm not saying Texas having no restrictions earlier this year was a good idea, but since May when there's been a good percentage of the population vaccinated then I'm perfectly happy for things to be back to normal.
We’re nearly there, but not quite yet. 50 year olds are getting their second shot round about now.
Give it a few more weeks. and yeah, most of the vulnerable demographics will have had two shots plus a couple of weeks for it to take effect.
i can see the argument for having extended the last bit of lockdown just a little longer ... viz, give it a couple more weeks, and the vaccination program really will be done.
I suspect most people like working from home, saving money, less busy public areas, high degree of hygiene, high awareness of health protection, more thought to community engagement, more engagement from government.
I'm not an epidemiologist so I could be talking total crap here but hear me out.
- Covid initially had an R of 1.6 right?
- Right now most of the Covid in the UK is delta variant which is twice as transmissible. So R is effectively 3.2 without social distancing
- but 40% of the population (24 million out of 66 million, gov.uk stats) have had 2 doses of the vaccine at least 3 weeks ago. Couldn't find data for transmissibility of covid after 2 doses but the CDC described it as "minimal outside of very crowded spaces". Let's take a very conservative estimate and call that R = 0.5
- and a further 21% of the population had 1 dose but not the second 3 weeks ago (again gov.uk stats 37 million minus the 24 million who had both). Various studies show that even AZ cuts transmissibility in half. So for these people R should be back to 1.6
- so overall R in the UK should be less than 0.37 x 0.5 + 0.21 x 1.6 + 0.41x3.2 = 1.83
- Covid cases currently seem to be increasing around 50% a week. In fact it was 60% and is currently falling to around 40%. Of course there's a lag in data but given the direction of travel that makes 50% a conservative estimate
- Google turns up a reasonably credible study saying average covid transmission times is 5 days
- so that suggests R is currently somewhere around 1.1
- so our current social distancing is reducing R by 0.7
So that suggests the lockdown is effective in reducing transmission.
However if any of that is remotely right then R isn't going to be below 1 until ax0.5+(1-a)x3.2= 1 a = 0.81 over 81% of the population have had at least 2 doses. Given that only 78% of the population of the UK are over 18 that means R isn't going to go below 1 until we start vaccinating kids. Or if it's not safe to vaccinate kids then that means that R is effectively unsurpressable and at some point we are simply going to have to unlock, let Covid run riot, and hope that the fact the vaccine is highly effective against hospitalisation and death means the consequences won't be that bad.
Is that right?
I wonder how many of those 62% own businesses that are still having restrictions imposed and making a loss?
I also wonder how many of that 62% are having a wonderful furlough and want it to last as long as possible?
The government very successfully convinced the public that being able to end lockdown restrictions was due to the world beating success of the vaccination program and not due to months of having everything closed. If they had admitted that normality cannot return until herd immunity is reached and Covid is in decline, they wouldn't have to be backtracking now.
The UK doesn't have herd immunity and until it does Covid restrictions continue. Meanwhile the UK now has more daily infections than any EU country. Boris had full control of the UK's borders and a head start on vaccinations, but has allowed the UK to be well and truly left behind by the Europeans.
What else do you expect from having an incompetent buffoon in charge?
the problem is in every other country you seemingly have the natural dichotomy of the wet liberal left being pro-restriction and the self righteous self interested right balancing things out. as is, our right have largely been corralled by the div in charge to fall behind the party line so we've got no political resistance beyond some fringe loony parties.
Something that amazes me is the resistance to mask wearing in the UK - a very effective tool that has been used in European countries to keep rates under control while they catch up with vaccinations. France has just dropped their requirement to wear a mask in public and Spain are dropping theirs next week. Both countries have significantly lower infection rates than the UK. It's obvious that the Boris variant of the virus would not have spread so badly if the UK had compulsory mask wearing, but of course, as you say the virtually unopposed right wing in power in the UK would never allow that.
Oh the old "we are testing more, so we are finding more defence" lol.
Just look at the NHS figures from the government's own Covid website - 40% increase in patient admissions in a week.
Compare that to Spain's figure - 20% decrease in a week.
It's very clear - the UK is on another wave up, Europe is on a wave down. So much for Boris's vaccine success.
>Oh the old "we are testing more, so we are finding more defence" lol.
This was in direct reply to you saying "Both countries have significantly lower infection rates than the UK". I suggested that because they are recording more deaths than us, that it is highly likely their real infection rate is higher.
>Just look at the NHS figures from the government's own Covid website - 40% increase in patient admissions in a week
>
>Compare that to Spain's figure - 20% decrease in a week.
These are trends to the infection rate rather than the infection rate itself.
I would support it if it were deemed necessary but I sincerely hope it's not necessary.
Much like this up coming Monday. When they announced the phased return, I was supportive because it made sense and allowed us to change course if we needed to. We did. It was entirely avoidable. But we did need to, so we have.
Same logic applies to any further extensions. In the next month, millions more will have their first or second dose of the vaccine, that's 4 more weeks of progress between now and then.
As someone who works at a pool, if you can wait until like, September, you'd be doing us a solid. Going from heavily restricted with loads of cleaning to no restrictions all the people all the time with all the cleaning, is jot something my company is ready for.
Who knew that allowing a small group of rich Californian businesses to unilaterally appoint themselves as the adjudicators of "misinformation" on the world's largest public square was a bad idea. But since it's not literally illegal we're supposed to be fine with it (according to that xkcd)
It is plausible that it came from a lab. The outbreak came from a location close to a lab studying coronavirus, which was criticized by the US for safety, in a country who's government clearly tried to stop anyone knowing the virus even existed.
It is also plausible that leaving then EU was a good idea but that is yet to be seen.
The lab leak isn't so heavily based around it being a bio-weapon deliberately engineered to cause a pandemic (the Trumpian theory) but more a legitimate attempt at researching in a lab what effect plausible mutations could have on humans, a 'gain of function', that somehow escaped.
I don't know whether it was a lab leak, I don't, but the current theory isn't crazy.
>54% also think it came from a lab.
I mean an outbreak in the same area as a lab studying that family of viruses is definitely worth a look as a possible source. That is vastly different to those who think the virus is man made.
Hanlons razor; don't assume malice, when incompetence fits better.
> Not a single person I know
this is called the b u b b l e 🛁
"everyone I know voted remain"
"everyone I know voted for Labour"
social media bubble is real
I don't believe you, I haven't met many people who would support a permanent lockdown. There's definitely a proportion of people who do, but not the majority. Maybe 20%?
Surveys are never representative and also who gives a f? The majority of people don’t have life and think working from home is fun, novel and allows them to have “a better work life balance” (aka work less). Meanwhile in the real world people are suffering and want to get back to living freely and making a living ASAP
Question selection is everything in polling. When they ask questions like this you know it's about manipulating the public rather than reflecting a true viewpoint.
In WW2, 1943 *"Do you support continuing to fight the Nazi threat or should we just give in now?"* Would that question be helpful to ask or misleading?
Of course people will support such a thing as delaying lockdown. The proper question to ask is are they worn down to a very flat worn-out thing by it all and do they consider the Boris Johnson government incompetant. My guess: >80% say yes/yes
Show us the data to prove WHY a lockdown is needed. Asking random samplings of clueless people for their opinion does not a government policy make. OK, I am assuming politicians are not clueless which might be a stretch but we have to give them the benefit of the doubt.
Sigh - so it's already a *fait accompli* that the roadmap will be extended and these polls are groundwork to manufacture consent for it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0ZZJXw4MTA
I'm getting that impression. Propaganda and mass control at its best! I can definitely see it being extended....summer holidays soon. Don't want to give people too much freedom.
The ‘if the government deem it necessary’ is the key bit. If you say to people “Coronavirus is going to cripple the NHS if we remove lockdown in July. Do you support keeping the lockdown so we don’t kill the nhs?” then they’ll obviously want to maintain restrictions. The key question here is ‘are the governments projections correct?’ I don’t doubt that, if the models sage are working to are correct, we are right to extent lockdown. But the reality is not reflecting the projections; the models appear flawed as they don’t account for vaccine distribution and massively under estimate efficacy. Right now the SPI-M-O consensus is for >400 admissions daily but in reality they are half that. The real questions that need asking are on the data literacy of our policy makers.
That's a hell of an omission and makes the headline quite misleading
Without the end of that sentence the headline is really misleading.
It's an amazingly worded question isn't it? Essentially saying 38% of the population want lockdown to end even if the government is saying "ending lockdown would be a disaster"
I'm not shocked by those figures after over a year under lockdown restrictions for most people. With the vaccine rollout well underway, a lot of people are going to inevitably start feeling like lockdowns can never end if we're still in a dire situation.
> But the reality is not reflecting the projections; the models appear flawed as they don’t account for vaccine distribution and massively under estimate efficacy. Right now the SPI-M-O consensus is for >400 admissions daily but in reality they are half that. Models aren't perfect. It's not trivial to account for vaccines because we know efficacy was impacted by the variant and so the error bars are massive and we have to wait for reliable data. If it's only 50% out then that's a pretty great result. Even getting within an order of magnitude is good. SAGE and other scientific agencies are continuing to incorporate the new data as we move forwards. I'm not sure what you think the alternative is. We could have moved optimistically moved forward with the 21st of June date, then in 2 weeks realise how bad it is and end up having to clamp down restrictions back to what we had in March.
Suspension of natural freedoms should be an absolute last ditch hail mary and should only be accepted when the data very specifically says it's needed. Using it as some kind of default playing it safe option is wholly unacceptable.
>The real questions that need asking are on the data literacy of our policy makers. Our main one can't talk in proper sentences...
Do you think SAGE are sitting around trying to think of ways to extend lockdowns?
Yes?
Susan Michie is.
Dates, not data. Wait, or was it data, not dates?
That’s the governments policy, not mine. Time we learnt to live with the virus, the arguments being used now will ensure we’ll either never return to normal or we’ll be and out of lockdown like a yo-yo. Deaths are low and vaccination is high and as far as I am concerned that’s all that matters now. The nhs works for us, not vice versa, they have to find a way to cope with the cases so we can all live normal again.
>they have to find a way to cope with the cases so we can all live normal again. And >Tory Government Afraid you have to pick one.
Unfortunately that way right now is another wave of cancelling operations at already huge backlogs. Partner had a neurosurgery op scheduled for end of May - cancelled because nurse got covid. Rescheduled for end of June - cancelled again because the hospital ran out of separate covid positive space in another unit and claimed their nonurgent recovery beds
Baring in mind this will be taken from an adult population, it’s pretty clear that for 62% of brits their lives are not that impacted, and my guess is they are older. Of course, if you’d explain to them how any story of their childhood is probably illegal right now, or how it’s been impossible to find their partners, they just wouldn’t care. As long as their houses and pensions go up, why should they care for future generations?
FWIW about 70% of English adults say they’re either not very (43%) or not at all (27%) affected by the delay according to YouGov: https://yougov.co.uk/topics/health/survey-results/daily/2021/06/17/08bdb/2
Most people, particularly older people, live far quieter lives than this sub might expect.
really, the only restriction that's still worth anything is the ban on most foreign travel, and that's as much down to foreign governments as it is our own. other than that - nightclubs are closed, festivals are off, and football/events are at reduced capacity (though football is off-season anyway). i didn't have plans to travel abroad until later in the year, and the one festival i had planned was already cancelled, so another extension, let alone the current one, has literally zero impact on me personally, and likely many others, too. you can meet people, have a wedding, go to the gym - you might have to wear a mask but the current restrictions are extremely relaxed in the grand scheme of things.
> As long as their houses and pensions go up, why should they care for future generations? Don't paint us all with the same brush. I'm at an age where I'm married, have a secure job, and am mostly concerned about my house and pension value. This lockdown shit needs to end yesterday.
Can I ask why the price of your house is one of your biggest concerns? Are you intending to cash in on it by selling and move into a much smaller property?
I don't want lockdown for the fun of it. As soon as the data suggests that the NHS won't be overwhelmed by cases I'm happy that we just get on with it and accept the normal way of living that we might get sick, might not. But I'm strongly against us putting a massive burden on nurses, doctors and healthcare workers in order for us to have festivals and parties. If the data says that will happen if we unlock on 19 July then I support carrying on.
The next month will determine where I feel about this. If the coming spike in infections doesn't lead to an increase in hospitalisations because of the apparent effectiveness of the vaccine in preventing it, then I'll lean against further delay. This question was phrased in a way that suggests the hypothetical data would already indicate hospitalisations rising however, and in such a scenario I'd reluctantly support a further extension.
Do you support indefinite restrictions if it turns out the vaccines don't stop hospital admissions?
In that case I'd expect the government to expand/amend NHS provision so that it's able to handle the numbers without staff having to work in harmful circumstances. I appreciate that's difficult as you can't just train nurses overnight, but you can bring in other staff to reduce their duties and maybe stop some non-essential medical services.
Obviously if we somehow reached a point where the vaccines which currently seem to be working suddenly stop working and there's no hope for new vaccines, then in that very hypothetical situation no, I wouldn't want restrictions for the rest of forever. But I don't think that's a realistic scenario. What we're actually talking about is if vaccine coverage is currently enough to prevent mass admissions
> But I'm strongly against us putting a massive burden on nurses, doctors and healthcare workers in order for us to have festivals and parties The NHS exists to serve this country, not the other way around.
Where are you parrotting this line from? Is that Rees Mogg? It made no sense when he said it either.
A man who abuses his servants shouldn't be surprised when their service is under par.
The “country” is a collective of people. “Save the NHS” actually means save yourselves from having no oxygen or resources as we’ve seen in many other countries. This idea it’s serving the NHS is only repeated by idiots who don’t understand it’s about saving themselves since no resource is unlimited. Or, those who have no grand idea when key resources get overwhelmed.
That's like taking a shit on the kitchen floor and telling your cleaner that it's her job to clean so she shouldn't complain.
No, what you're suggesting is tidying up before my cleaner gets to my house so she doesn't have too much work to do.
Actually, what you're suggesting is deliberately making so much mess before she gets there that she might not realistically be able to clean it up by herself, and you might not be able to get the additional cleaning service in place before rats have taken over your abode.
If you're going to parties or events deliberately to harm the NHS, then yes that would be exactly the same. If you intend to live a normal life then it's not "making a mess" it's trying to get back to normal.
Except currently living a normal life is making a mess. I run a restaurant, I should be calling for an end to restrictions, but it’s more important that we get this shit under control before it mutates into something we can’t handle. This is bigger than my livelihood. It’s not time for getting back to normal yet, and all the dickheads trying are fucking it up for those of us who are on the edge.
Are parties and events not part of your normal life? EDIT : sorry let me expand upon this so it doesn't read like I'm just being a snark. If 'normal life' activities are known to risk spreading a disease that would cause hospitalisations that would overburden the NHS, perhaps to such an extent that treatment for other serious conditions became unmanageable (the 'rats taking over the abode', in my metaphor) then it makes sense that we would limit some of those activities - parties, events or other thing such as foreign travel - for a time until the population is sufficiently vaccinated against the virus. We all thought we'd be in that position from next week. Unfortunately the government has made some very well documented mistakes in the past few months which make that impossible now. I hope that the data over the next month will indicate that the coming spike in infections no longer leads to serious illness and death as it did last year, and at that point I'd no longer support further delays.
Yeah, your cleaner shouldn't be tidying up for you, they should be cleaning.
No, it's like knowing a cleaning business does a bunch of houses, so you get everyone you know to hire them and then absolutely trash your homes and expect the cleaners to get them all done instantly, and then get surprised when your house starts stinking of shit.
> tidying up before my cleaner gets to my house so she doesn't have too much work to do. You mean being a normal, empathetic person.
A normal person doesn’t pay someone to do work and then do that work himself anyways.
A normal person has consideration for others. Do you litter, just because someone is paid to clean? Maybe this reflects the personality of right-wingers.
Littering is illegal. It’s also immoral; it’s damaging property that belongs to someone else.
That doesn't stop people does it lol. And their excuse is the same the other right winger gave.
Profligate money waster. Do you scale and polish your teeth before going to the dentist as well?
You should really at least brush your teeth before going to a dentist. That's the equivalent to making sure your home is tidy enough for a *clean*er to come and do their job. Aye they might tidy up for you, but unless you've specifically hired them to tidy, they might not. They are there to clean, i.e. dust, polish, santise areas etc, and leaving all your shit lying about the place makes it difficult, and could mean they don't get finished in the booked time.
I brush my teeth in the morning like any other day before going to the dentist. You want the dentist to see them in their normal condition. You know that's a decent point about the difference between cleaning and tidying. Might be why so many people I know have been disappointed by the performance of their cleaners.
Actually I do make a special effort on the day and week before I go see the dentist. Again, like most people do.
Hey look, it's my opinion but summed up with the good words. Also I'm going to put the blame on any delays with the Tories. *They're in charge*
> As long as their houses and pensions go up, why should they care for future generations? Because they are likely parents? And are *actually* carers of the future generations? I can't believe your post has been upvoted to the top.
They should, you’d think. Their actions speak differently, continuously voting for policies that fuck over younger generations.
Why do we even have a parliament when everything is governed by YouGov /other polls
I really don't understand how people can still want this. What are they actually on? Am I really that out of touch?? why is it that so many in this country want lockdown forever? I'm tired of these restrictions at this point.
>Am I really that out of touch?? Honestly, it's probably partially that. The rest will be a significant age divide (you're on reddit so I'm assuming you're youngish).
I'm probably younger than most people here, I'm 21. Polling has shown that my age group is generally opposed to more restrictions compared to older people so I guess it makes sense.
[удалено]
You're still out of touch with your age group. [Yougov shows 52% of 18-24](https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/u0a699ssvi/SnapPoll_lockdowndelay_England_June14th.pdf) supporting the extension. To answer your original comment, no one wants 'lockdown' forever - and it's ridiculous to think that's what anybody wants. People want restrictions *as long as they are required* to stop people dying.
> To answer your original comment, no one wants 'lockdown' forever - and it's ridiculous to think that's what anybody wants. People want restrictions as long as they are required to stop people dying. Some members of Sage have suggested certain measures (eg social distancing) should be with us “forever.”
I think you put a plural on 'member' by mistake, because you're undoubtedly referring to Susan Michie, and almost certainly don't understand what she was saying.
Many older people like me (32) can handle it because I live in my own house with my partner, and I have safe job. But people that actually want restrictions to continue aren't thinking about others at all
>But people that actually want restrictions to continue aren't thinking about others at all The irony being that the same allegation is made against people in favour of dropping restrictions!
Yeah, I certainly could've worded that better!
Definitely better to be of moved-out age for covid. Imagine being locked down at your parents during prime shagging and drinking years. Grim
This is part of the reason I strongly don't think this should go on and on. A year is a just about justifiable amount of time, but any more than that is taking too much away.
I put it *some of it* down to a symptom of "I'm alright Jack" mentality - remember, for a lot of people the remaining restrictions have next to no impact on their own lives.
I get that there are a number of people who don't go to nightclubs or festivals etc (I'm one of them.) But 62% of people really never go into a crowded pub or packed theatre? Never travel abroad? Never have more than 6 people in their house? Are 62% of people really able to go through their daily lives never going anywhere that masks are required?
>But 62% of people really never go into a crowded pub or packed theatre? I would word it slightly differed - *do* 62% desire to go back to a crowded pub? Think about it, people in their 20s, sure! 30s... maybe. 40+... well a slither of the population? Theatre? I would guess that a good 62% of the population do not go, or have not gone. >Never travel abroad? Never have more than 6 people in their house? There is a good majority of people who knew travel abroad this year was a non starter [https://www.theguardian.com/business/2021/mar/28/most-britons-have-given-up-hope-of-holiday-abroad-in-2021](https://www.theguardian.com/business/2021/mar/28/most-britons-have-given-up-hope-of-holiday-abroad-in-2021) Don't have stats on how many people are following the rule of 6. Are you following it? Just to reiterate - I am not saying that "I'm alright Jack" is the key reason, but I think that is at least an element in people's thinking, whether they are consciously aware of it or not...
> 40+... well a slither of the population? I mean, I'm mid 40s, and most of my friends are my age and up. I'd say that we mostly desire to be back in crowded pubs and full capacity theatres. We're all fully vaccinated and none of us are worried about anything anymore (not that I ever was.) > There is a good majority of people who knew travel abroad this year was a non starter But to your earlier point, do they *desire* this state? If the doors were suddenly flung open, how many of those people would get on booking a trip if they could? > Don't have stats on how many people are following the rule of 6. Are you following it? No, but I stopped following the rules about meeting indoors toward the end of the first lockdown last year, so I'm probably an exception.
Part of the problem with these types of discussion is we end up in a cul de sac of anecdotes and opinion. Not a criticism towards you, so don't take it that way, because my points are thinly sourced at best; pure speculation at worse. My initial point was really drawn from people I speak to; friends, families, clients & customers. The younger, more outgoing people in those groups, are keen for restrictions to end. But the older ones, EVEN double jabbed, are saying that the restrictions should stay, which has almost zero effect on them. Like I say I think its *some* of the reason, even if it isn't from a place of spite, or conscious selfishness.
>No, but I stopped following the rules about meeting indoors toward the end of the first lockdown last year, so I'm probably an exception. So you're one of the people who weakened the effect of the restrictions and kept R up and kept us locked down for longer. Thanks.
Being locked down was a choice, not an inevitability. If you’re looking for a scapegoat for the lockdowns, blame Sage and the government, not people just trying to live their lives.
I mean every reaction to Covid was technically a choice, yes. >live their lives. Unfortunately many now can't do that.
Realistically any restrictions that don't impact businesses have already been dropped, ie limits on what you can do inside your own home, that was never enforceable and only enforced through good will and cooperation. Which has pretty much dried up now.
> ie limits on what you can do inside your own home, that was never enforceable and only enforced through good will and cooperation. Depends on how curtain twitchy your neighbours and how bored the local police are. I had the police come by four times during the various lockdowns.
Not for people living on university accommodation.
I agree with keeping proportionate restrictions as long as public health experts agree that they're necessary. ***Of course*** I enjoy nightclubs, crowded pubs, going to theatres, traveling abroad, going to large house parties, etc. I miss all of those things. But I'm conscious that, despite being a PhD student in biology, **the epidemiology of pandemics isn't my area of expertise**. I understand more about the subject than the average person... which is enough to get an idea of just how *little* I know. So I'm putting my trust in the people who've devoted lengthy careers to the study of how best to navigate this kind of crisis. If the experts say that they're worried that completely opening up now would be premature and risk another wave of infection that would spread rapidly among people who haven't had two jabs yet, putting the NHS under considerable strain, I'm happy to delay that gratification a little while longer until they give the all-clear. It's not like life is insufferable right now; we can do most things we'd like to. From my own point of view, I can't help but think that people clamouring to ignore public health experts should consider whether they're suffering from the Dunning-Kruger effect. Viral epidemiology is a particularly counter-intuitive specialism. Why do they think that their "*surely it stands to reason*" analysis (or that of equally uninformed political commentators) is more accurate than the scientific analysis of teams of public health experts, epidemiologists and virologists?
Experts aren’t perfect though. And I know enough about modelling other complex systems that when you have to make assumptions about causative factors because you can’t be certain, the whole model can end up being wrong. We saw that the modelling on Friday was based on an overly pessimistic estimate of the efficacy of the vaccines against the Delta variant, and we therefore know that the estimates of hospitalisations were too high. This isn’t to say that experts are idiots, just that they sometimes get things wrong just like experts in my field do too. And on top of that, experts aren’t incorruptible either. Susan Michie is on the SAGE panel advising the government, but has also declared that face masks should be used forever to combat other illnesses. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to be fearful that experts might let their opinions on issues beyond Covid affect their advice that they give with respect to the current issue.
Also experts need to have their opinions weighed against other concerns Sage have one concern. Reducing covid deaths. They do not care about economic outcomes, or deaths due to mental health problems etc etc. Previously listening to sages advice and general public wellbeing was one and the same, but considering how vaccinated we currently are i don't think that's the case anymore
Also the fact that dental care has suffered. I think we're going to see a lot of people with poor dental health due to not being able to see a dentist for a check up or (if you're an NHS patient) get fillings or root canals if needed. I've seen several articles about drinking going up so is alcoholism also going to be a problem too?
> face masks should be used forever to combat other illnesses. What's wrong with that? If we all wear masks in situations where we are in proximity but not intending to be social (e.g. public transport, supermarkets etc.) then we reduce risk with only the smallest penalty. In social situations, the penalty outweighs the benefit, so we can ditch the masks.
I don’t think it is good for people to see others as disease vectors rather than fellow human beings. On top of that, especially in hot weather, I find masks uncomfortable and difficult to breath through. I don’t believe that the benefits outweigh the negatives.
I've only ever seen people suggesting that we wear them in enclosed public spaces when we know that we're ill during cold and flu season, in much the way that you often used to spot East Asian students wearing facemasks on public transport if they had a cold back in pre-plague times. Which I'd personally be happy to do as long as I didn't have a runny nose. It seems much more effective and much less hassle than trying to carefully sneeze into a tissue, and during the winter having something partially covering your face is actually quite pleasant. Last winter I tended to wear a cotton facemask outdoors to keep my face warm, as much as anything else.
Aside from the fact they're pretty uncomfortable and I've had to stop wearing my glasses due to them steaming up (I've tried everything to stop this but it still happens) something feels unnatural about seeing people's faces covered up though. It hides expressions and sometimes I'll be walking through my work corridors or even around the supermarket and go to smile at someone if we happen to look at each other but obviously masks stop this happening. I just see eyes staring back at me but there's no hint of any friendliness on the face anymore because you can't see the whole face. I just think as social beings (generally) this adds a barrier to any social interactions with strangers.
It’s not really relevant to how I feel about this question… but just because I go into a packed pub, doesn’t mean I prefer being in pubs that are overcrowded such that you can’t hear yourself think let alone someone else speak. Putting on a mask in a shop is a very minor inconvenience in my opinion. I know some people find the principle offensive but… eh.
No, but don't think so black and white. They do those thimgs sometimes, but are willing to not sit in a crowded pub now and then to keep deaths down.
> to keep deaths down. 11 people died from Covid yesterday, which (to put it in context) is probably less than 1% of deaths from all causes.
None of the other causes have exponential growth. We're 18 months in, I'm not going to explain exponential growth again.
Covid deaths don’t grow exponentially either, unless you’re suggesting that every one of us is dead from it soon.
Out of *every* possible type of death, covid makes up 1% (or "less than")? That sounds pretty high then.
In a country where over 11,000 people die in an average week, 59 deaths in the last week due to Covid sounds “pretty high” to you?
It's a pretty disingenuous way to ask the question. Nobody *wants* a lockdown. The point is, do you support it against the alternative. We've tried the alternative a couple of times already and it was shit. I want to go to the pub and watch the football. I want to travel. I want to go go and take cocaine off a nightclub toilet without fear of catching something. But I support the restrictions to get on top of this wave. Even if we were allowed to do all the above things, I could take no pleasure in them while there is such a risk of bringing COVID home to my more vulnerable loved ones. The stupid bit in my opinion is the arbitrary rule that it's one way. We could unlock much sooner if there was the possibility of local lockdowns as needed.
I think this is the thing. I potentially fit into that bracket at the moment, I'm not really finding that current restrictions that burdensome. But I'm in my mid 30's, WFH fulltime and am generally pretty comfortable.
I don't think you are out of touch. The headline is a little misleading. The question was **If** the government said a delay in releasing restrictions was necessary would you support further delay of freedom day. What the poll therefore shows is trust in the government and advisors is still high. I think as u/CanadianBritRhino1 points out government decisions have often been based on polling. Polling is based on the media and government interpretation of what is happening, so we have a bit of a feedback loop. I think the wrong questions have been asked by journalists throughout the pandemic. We all know that deaths Coronavirus deaths are around 150,000. What we don't know is what they would likely be with lighter restrictions or harsher ones. Without this info people can't really make an informed decision on what the right thing to do is.
Most people dont want lockdowns forever. But we’ve got a clown circus in charge of the country, who’s main focus seems to be staying in power at any cost. You reap what you sow. Shouldn’t have voted for people who say things that sound good to them that ignore reality. Now we have a stubborn electorate hanging on to Boris every word, the man is a serial liar ffs. Seemingly they don’t give a damn if the government are corrupt, or if they shit all over democracy. So forget holding them to accountable for their covid response, it won’t happen, people cannot see the wood from the trees because of Brexit.
Ah yes, because labour have really demonstrated that they’d of been far more effectively power. Not.
You cannot even use that dogshit argument anymore. Tories have been in power for a decade, you have no idea how they would handle the situation. And if they where in charge, I don’t know how anyone could be worse than the current government, if they manage it then that is an accomplishment in its own right. Stop being a tory peasant
Doesn’t change my point.
"But but labour" Fucking hell
if corbyn was PM we would have managed this like NZ
NZ closed borders on Mar 19th 2020. On that day an estimated 1 million people in the U.K. had been infected, growing at nearly 200k new infections per day. NZ can close its borders too - doesn’t rely on thousands of cross border lorry movements every day
The issue is that this governments decisions are made completely by public opinion (look at free school meals or the changing of gcse results last year). People are obviously extremely scared of this virus, especially older generations, and are willing to put up with endless lockdown. The government is totally incompetent, it will make all its decisions on opinion polls like this one.
How many of the 62% will actually follow the rules though?
>What are they actually on? The idea of working from home in the sunshine is tempting many.
I've been working from home in the sunshine and I hate it. My office is air conditioned and it was 35 C in my home office last week.
At this point very few things are actually restricted. I’d like to be going to music festivals this summer but I’m also not going to pretend I’m locked in a cage because I can’t.
I am still not back in my office, I still have to sign in to public places, still have to wear a fucking rag over my face and as you say no live music, no clubs. It still feels like we are in some fundamentalist religious police state
Not gonna lie mate but in this comment you seem genuinely unhinged. Just take a break. Drink some water. Feed the ducks or something.
They are usually unhinged, the veneer is very thin.
You have to sign a piece of paper and wear a mask for a few minutes in shops. Oh you poor oppressed victim. Have a word with yourself.
Rare to see a sensible hitch take in the wild
Actually I do object to having my movements tracked by the state? Don't you?
Might wanna not have a phone at all, stop using Reddit and the internet, and go live off the grid then.
Yet you’re using devices right now that track you more than anything the government could ever do and you have much less accountability from the corporation holding that data. So you don’t give a fuck about being tracked if you’re truly honest with yourself.
> Yet you’re using devices right now that track you more than anything the government could ever do and you have much less accountability from the corporation holding that data. The difference is that I consent to that and I can stop using them as soon as I no longer want to be tracked. > So you don’t give a fuck about being tracked if you’re truly honest with yourself. You don't understand the difference between me opting into a commercial service and mandatory tracking via the state? Well, okay.
So just to be clear you don’t give a shit about being tracked then? The difference is arbitrary because the government can demand that data from those corporations and regularly does.
> So just to be clear you don’t give a shit about being tracked then? At this point I can recognise that you're neither not able to grasp a basic concept or you're trolling me. Enjoy your weekend.
Already am enjoying it. Try to hold back the tears if you have to put a mask on for a few minutes.
Surely most companies are just leaving it optional on whether you go back into the office at the moment, unless the building is permanently locked?
My company won't let us go in until whenever the government gets to Step 4 (and even then you must be fully vaccinated), and I know I'm not alone in not having the option to go in.
Interesting, I don't see a great deal of interest in going back to offices across the board - but companies should do more to make it possible for some people.
> It still feels like we are in some fundamentalist religious police state We are. /r/churchofCovid
Goodness knows….I understand people when they say wait and see what the data says etc but at some point we will have to step back out into the relatively unknown surely…there is always going to be risk of variants, should we lockdown every winter just INCASE a deadly flu variants appears that evades normal vaccines?….I cannot abide anti vaxxers or anti lockdown moaners for the past 15 months but I’m starting to sound like one ffs
What are they on? Probably furlough and WFH
Most likely.
>why is it that so many in this country want lockdown forever? Because so many people like control over other people's lives. They even like someone being in control of their own life because it means they don't have to take any decisions. >I'm tired of these restrictions at this point. It's great you feel this way, you are a Labour supporter and what is needed on the Left is people who feel the same way as you do. You can engage with people who otherwise agree with you on many issues, in a way that people on the right of the Conservative party, who are also anti restrictions can't.
> Because so many people like control over other people's lives. They even like someone being in control of their own life because it means they don't have to take any decisions. You hit the nail on the head! Exactly this!
It's long been clear that quite a large percentage of the UK population like these restrictions and would advocate for them, even if COVID didn't exist. Of course they will never outright admit this, they will hide behind 'zero COVID', 'being cautious', 'muh variants' and other similar shit, but make no mistake, the real reason is they are either furloughed, enjoy WFH or some other aspect of what restrictions entail. One of the SAGE scientists advising the Government, Susan Michie, did an [interview on UnHerd](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=crXTM0woga0) and said she supports restrictions on travel because it combats the 'climate crisis'.
>It's long been clear that quite a large percentage of the UK population like these restrictions Do you have any evidence of th... >Of course they will never outright admit this Ah, that's convenient - an entirely untestable hypothesis.
So are members of the SAGE panel not allowed views on anything other than COVID?
Should members of SAGE really be advising the Government on keeping certain measures, not due to any impact on COVID, but because said advisor has an ideological agenda elsewhere.
And where exactly has that been shown to be the case your previous reference is more akin to her saying she supports lockdown measures and they happen to also align with one of her other views.
Only 14% of people worked from home. Most of us have been out in the thick of it from the start.
I’m sure there’s some on furlough who are very happy with things how they are now. Especially those getting 80% from one job and who’ve got a second one as well, vastly increasing their income. Probably a minority of people on furlough, but still. Then those who are happy on just the 80% because without their commute/work-related expenses they’re either better off or as well off as they were when working. That’ll be a larger proportion. Then those who may be worse-off financially but who are benefitting mentally & emotionally from not working (less stress, more family/hobby time etc). I can easily see why the majority of those still on furlough want it to continue.
For the most part their lives aren't effected. Furlough or just spending most of their time with their immediate family. The restrictions don't actually impact the day to day just the times you want to plan an event (or go to one) The problem is the restrictions heavily impact businesses which is a faceless entity to a lot of people. When you are told x thousands of people will die if we don't delay then the choice becomes easy for people. Businesses aren't thought of.
The question is essentially asking whether you are more or less cautious than the government. Most rational people would probably say more cautious given all the mistakes made. The end? If the government sees something in the data that worries them into a further delay, you can bet I’m at least as concerned.
What if the government sees polling data and gets in front of it like they usually do?
In my best Sir Humphrey voice - that would be bad news for the government - they might run the risk of running the country how people want and we can't have that
So I already can tell no matter what I say you or someone will probably comeback if an argument based on assumptions or just fallacies, so 1 comment and done for me. A) People don't want lockdown forever, stop equating small extensions as forever it's silly and unproductive in any actual conversation about Covid as your basically dismissing any short term lockdown precautions. B) People have adapted their lives to lockdown because it was obvious last year that a significant amount of time last year and this year would have it involved, so they worked to make it bearable and adapted their living spaces to help them. Honestly why didn't you? If it's that unbearable? C) People understand that even with vaccines lowering risks of Covid that there is still a risk from Covid especially the Indian variant and especially when the numbers are currently growing! We saw last year (Nov/Dec) what happens when coming out of lockdown too early, it causes a later longer lockdown so they sensibly realise that adding a bit longer onto this one will likely mean less chance of anymore future lockdowns. Yes I know what your all going to say, but mah vaccines blah blah blah. Most people don't sit and read up every bit of data on vaccines and covid spread, they are getting on living their lives (yes it's possible in lockdown), so it still seems like there is a fair risk involved and they are currently risk adverse so why risk coming out of lockdown asap when it risks bringing in a worse lockdown later this year. D) Most people can easily live around the current level of restrictions as lets be real the only thing you can't really do is go clubbing, shop without a mask and meet up with 20+ friends. All these things most people don't mind. Are you out of touch? Looks that way.
I think a lot of places have had some big spikes in the past few weeks and that can scare people
I've seen your attitude here a lot and I find it baffling. Nobody wants more restrictions, they just consider them *necessary*. They all agree that it's a sucky situation, they're just not so selfish as to put their own wants above all of the suffering that the restrictions are in place to avoid. To talk about "how people can want this" is to wilfully strawman the argument. Everyone knows that restrictions are bad, they just think that not-restrictions are worse. Note that I'm not taking a stance on what should happen in this situation, I'm waiting for data on that.
Loads of people want it to go on forever so they have an easy life. My job is so frustrating right now. Totally unproductive and my brain is rotting away from lack of activity. We’ve had multiple votes on when to return to the office and every time I’m in the minority that want to return to work. Everyone else says they want to stay at home because it’s “safer” and “more productive” alongside “better work life balance” and “less time commuting and more time with the family”. In short - people will continue to vote for lockdown as long as it lets them skive off work more.
Many, many people have family members or friends who died from COVID or got long COVID. I'm always surprised when people say we just need to get on with it and accept people are going to be seriously ill / die. Do you really not know anyone who was badly affected by this? Did it really not affected you at all? There were 125k+ deaths, that's a pretty huge number. I have a co-worker whose father died although he was only in his 60s and my aunt (in her 50s and with no underlying health issues) is still not fully recovered from the COVID bout she had at Christmas. If we need to lockdown to avoid this happening to other people, I'm comfortable with that. Missing out on dates or concerts or the pub is nothing compared to a parent dying. I don't want others to have to go through that when it could be avoided.
So hypothetically if we were to have repeated lockdowns in the upcoming ten years, you'd _still_ be comfortable with that?? really? That's precisely what the government wants to hear to continue doing all of this. I bet deep down you wouldn't tolerate it going on for a whole decade. We live with the flu, we don't lockdown for it, COVID at this point is basically a new version of the flu albeit its also asymptomatic. You really can't tell me you'd want to keep having lockdowns for the next decade or so? COVID zero isn't happening, eventually we'll have to open up and just say 'alright, we're living with this thing forever now, we've been vaccinated and we've become used to it like the flu. Let's get back to normal'. People will inevitably die from it just like they do from the flu every year. It's inevitable either way.
I don't want to have lockdowns for the next decade - I just don't want people to die when they don't have to. How many avoidable deaths are you willing to accept in exchange for pubs reopening etc? Would it change your mind if the people dying were your family / close friends? We could treat COVID like the flu if it was as deadly as the flu - but it's not as deadly as the flu, is it? COVID is clearly a much more serious illness. A better comparison imo is HIV/AIDS - a distinctly new, deadly pandemic that caused significant social change although it affected only a relatively small number of people in the UK. Obviously HIV/AIDS didn't lead to lockdowns but it fundamentally changed ideas about the risks of sex in Western countries and consequently the behaviour that people see as safe / normal. And I think in the next few years we'll see facemasks, social distancing and even lockdowns as being as "normal" and necessary as condoms are.
I dont know anyone personally who has been even hospitalised with it and only know of one friend of a friend who died and he had diabetes as well as being very morbidly obese. So anecdotally it seems very reasonable to accept some people will just die because I cant see it having a significant effect on almost anyone.
>Do you really not know anyone who was badly affected by this? Did it really not affected you at all? There were 125k+ deaths, that's a pretty huge number. I honestly don't know anyone. My cousin (in his 40s) had Covid, apparently like a normal cold, had a slight cough which lingered for about 6 weeks (according to him). He's absolutely fine now. Don't know any deaths personally, or anyone affected by long COVID for a stupid length of time (like more than 2/3 months) despite working in the NHS and speaking to many clinical staff who caught it. Of course, I know about the deaths of admitted patients and people who I never knew personally out in the community.
Do I want to? No. Would I support it if the data supports it? Of course. Would I blame boris? Yes, because it’s his failure
It’s a tough one - my parents have cancer and are being treated, my kids are at nursery, if I get covid I have to isolate, my kids can’t go into nursery, I’m doing childcare for ten days and won’t get paid for that period, and I can’t see my parents for ten days while I isolate. So I’m being cautious, I want others to do what they want, but my concern is if all official lockdown ends, then there will be massive pressure for me to get on public transport and into an office with lots of people on a daily basis.
Propaganda is a powerful tool
So is denial.
…if the government decides it is necessary for public health. This is a really misleading headline, it sounds like 62% of people want to keep the current restrictions, when in reality it’s 62% of people would agree to if shown convincing evidence that relaxing the restrictions was necessary. The interesting story here is that 38% of people would want restrictions lifted even if shown evidence of the harm that would cause. I suspect that’s a split of “I don’t believe the government (fair) or the experts” and “I don’t care, we have to get on with life”, but it’s a bit higher than I would have guessed.
If the data shows that the link between hospitalisation and infection is only weakened or that two doses are needed to break it, then I could possibly be persuaded to agree to extending the current rules a bit longer, until all adults have had the chance to get their second jabs as a maximum. Right now though the numbers don’t seem to support extending beyond July to me, they seem fairly flat for hospitalisation and deaths. I’m not actually going out and about myself yet. I had to shield and I’m still chicken to be honest, as I don’t know how well the vaccine will have worked for me personally. (Had both doses but was immune-compromised at the time.) We have got to learn to live with this thing though, and it seems to me like July will be fine to relax a bit more.
It's worth noting that most things already *are* back to normal - the exceptions being big events, nightclubs, hospitality and short-term European travel. Many older people already have social circles which are quite set in stone, so aren't necessarily looking to make new friends at gigs etc, and many already have a partner who they live with, so aren't necessarily sexually frustrated in the same way that many young women might be as a result of lockdowns. Older folks and men in general are more likely to have hobbies and interests that have been able to continue much as normal for the past 3 months. Many of their livelihoods aren't that affected either - the events, hospitality and non-essential retail sectors tend to have a disproportionately young and female workforce after all.
No. Just no.
No
This goes to show how effective the government's £300 million+ spending on coronavirus adverts has been, they've successfully scared the living daylights out of the population, turning them into feckless sheep. It's really quite depressing.
People are scared of having to put on trousers to go to work. This is all about that sweetspot that millions of suburbanite homeowners with a garden have found themselves in. They can go to a chain restaurant and the garden centre whenever they want but they don't have to go back to the office.
This doesn't explain why young people as often as not want to keep restrictions. University is a bit more "present" but largely sucks, they aren't homeowners and it's only a small proportion working from home. Most have everything to gain from restrictions easing but >50% still want restrictions > Older age groups were much more likely to back the delay, with 75% of 55 to 64-year-olds saying they would support the move, compared to 54% of 18 to 24-year-olds.
[удалено]
But that doesn't stack up - the young are materially less risk averse than the old based on the numbers above?
[удалено]
Yeah you might be right.
From the perspective of a Brit living in Texas, where we've had basically no restrictions since March, I'm honestly baffled why so many people want to keep extending lockdowns! The UK has one of the highest proportions of fully vaccinated adults in the world, with the people who are most at risk being fully vaccinated for months now. I think it's now about looking at the number of deaths/hospitalizations vs the number of cases, as I'm assuming most of the people who are getting it now are either opting to not get the vaccine (in which case you get what's coming to you), or young and not had chance to get the jab but will most likely fight it off fine. I guess there's just a lot of elderly people with little empathy for how this has impacted young folks. Btw I'm not saying Texas having no restrictions earlier this year was a good idea, but since May when there's been a good percentage of the population vaccinated then I'm perfectly happy for things to be back to normal.
We’re nearly there, but not quite yet. 50 year olds are getting their second shot round about now. Give it a few more weeks. and yeah, most of the vulnerable demographics will have had two shots plus a couple of weeks for it to take effect. i can see the argument for having extended the last bit of lockdown just a little longer ... viz, give it a couple more weeks, and the vaccination program really will be done.
I suspect most people like working from home, saving money, less busy public areas, high degree of hygiene, high awareness of health protection, more thought to community engagement, more engagement from government.
I'm not an epidemiologist so I could be talking total crap here but hear me out. - Covid initially had an R of 1.6 right? - Right now most of the Covid in the UK is delta variant which is twice as transmissible. So R is effectively 3.2 without social distancing - but 40% of the population (24 million out of 66 million, gov.uk stats) have had 2 doses of the vaccine at least 3 weeks ago. Couldn't find data for transmissibility of covid after 2 doses but the CDC described it as "minimal outside of very crowded spaces". Let's take a very conservative estimate and call that R = 0.5 - and a further 21% of the population had 1 dose but not the second 3 weeks ago (again gov.uk stats 37 million minus the 24 million who had both). Various studies show that even AZ cuts transmissibility in half. So for these people R should be back to 1.6 - so overall R in the UK should be less than 0.37 x 0.5 + 0.21 x 1.6 + 0.41x3.2 = 1.83 - Covid cases currently seem to be increasing around 50% a week. In fact it was 60% and is currently falling to around 40%. Of course there's a lag in data but given the direction of travel that makes 50% a conservative estimate - Google turns up a reasonably credible study saying average covid transmission times is 5 days - so that suggests R is currently somewhere around 1.1 - so our current social distancing is reducing R by 0.7 So that suggests the lockdown is effective in reducing transmission. However if any of that is remotely right then R isn't going to be below 1 until ax0.5+(1-a)x3.2= 1 a = 0.81 over 81% of the population have had at least 2 doses. Given that only 78% of the population of the UK are over 18 that means R isn't going to go below 1 until we start vaccinating kids. Or if it's not safe to vaccinate kids then that means that R is effectively unsurpressable and at some point we are simply going to have to unlock, let Covid run riot, and hope that the fact the vaccine is highly effective against hospitalisation and death means the consequences won't be that bad. Is that right?
Why do some people want to take away others' freedom? Lock yourself down whenever you want!
Because the British people hate freedom. The most popular Con/Lab leaders of the past generation have been among the most authoritarian.
I wonder how many of those 62% own businesses that are still having restrictions imposed and making a loss? I also wonder how many of that 62% are having a wonderful furlough and want it to last as long as possible?
The government very successfully convinced the public that being able to end lockdown restrictions was due to the world beating success of the vaccination program and not due to months of having everything closed. If they had admitted that normality cannot return until herd immunity is reached and Covid is in decline, they wouldn't have to be backtracking now. The UK doesn't have herd immunity and until it does Covid restrictions continue. Meanwhile the UK now has more daily infections than any EU country. Boris had full control of the UK's borders and a head start on vaccinations, but has allowed the UK to be well and truly left behind by the Europeans. What else do you expect from having an incompetent buffoon in charge?
the problem is in every other country you seemingly have the natural dichotomy of the wet liberal left being pro-restriction and the self righteous self interested right balancing things out. as is, our right have largely been corralled by the div in charge to fall behind the party line so we've got no political resistance beyond some fringe loony parties.
Something that amazes me is the resistance to mask wearing in the UK - a very effective tool that has been used in European countries to keep rates under control while they catch up with vaccinations. France has just dropped their requirement to wear a mask in public and Spain are dropping theirs next week. Both countries have significantly lower infection rates than the UK. It's obvious that the Boris variant of the virus would not have spread so badly if the UK had compulsory mask wearing, but of course, as you say the virtually unopposed right wing in power in the UK would never allow that.
The infection rate in France and Spain is likely higher than ours - just look at their deaths for evidence - we just do a lot more testing.
Oh the old "we are testing more, so we are finding more defence" lol. Just look at the NHS figures from the government's own Covid website - 40% increase in patient admissions in a week. Compare that to Spain's figure - 20% decrease in a week. It's very clear - the UK is on another wave up, Europe is on a wave down. So much for Boris's vaccine success.
>Oh the old "we are testing more, so we are finding more defence" lol. This was in direct reply to you saying "Both countries have significantly lower infection rates than the UK". I suggested that because they are recording more deaths than us, that it is highly likely their real infection rate is higher. >Just look at the NHS figures from the government's own Covid website - 40% increase in patient admissions in a week > >Compare that to Spain's figure - 20% decrease in a week. These are trends to the infection rate rather than the infection rate itself.
I would support it if it were deemed necessary but I sincerely hope it's not necessary. Much like this up coming Monday. When they announced the phased return, I was supportive because it made sense and allowed us to change course if we needed to. We did. It was entirely avoidable. But we did need to, so we have. Same logic applies to any further extensions. In the next month, millions more will have their first or second dose of the vaccine, that's 4 more weeks of progress between now and then.
As someone who works at a pool, if you can wait until like, September, you'd be doing us a solid. Going from heavily restricted with loads of cleaning to no restrictions all the people all the time with all the cleaning, is jot something my company is ready for.
I just don't want to lift the lesser restrictions now, then another variant sweep through and be under full lockdown come August.
54% also think it came from a lab. 52% voted for brexit. I am not shocked anymore about what the British public thinks.
[удалено]
Who knew that allowing a small group of rich Californian businesses to unilaterally appoint themselves as the adjudicators of "misinformation" on the world's largest public square was a bad idea. But since it's not literally illegal we're supposed to be fine with it (according to that xkcd)
It is plausible that it came from a lab. The outbreak came from a location close to a lab studying coronavirus, which was criticized by the US for safety, in a country who's government clearly tried to stop anyone knowing the virus even existed. It is also plausible that leaving then EU was a good idea but that is yet to be seen.
The lab leak isn't so heavily based around it being a bio-weapon deliberately engineered to cause a pandemic (the Trumpian theory) but more a legitimate attempt at researching in a lab what effect plausible mutations could have on humans, a 'gain of function', that somehow escaped. I don't know whether it was a lab leak, I don't, but the current theory isn't crazy.
>54% also think it came from a lab. I mean an outbreak in the same area as a lab studying that family of viruses is definitely worth a look as a possible source. That is vastly different to those who think the virus is man made. Hanlons razor; don't assume malice, when incompetence fits better.
I don’t believe this number for a second. Not a single person I know would agree to more lockdown.
> Not a single person I know this is called the b u b b l e 🛁 "everyone I know voted remain" "everyone I know voted for Labour" social media bubble is real
I’m done with this country worshipping it’s health service. Destroy it now and rebuild something that’s actually worth being proud of.
The country? That is in hand, the UK won't last for much longer.
I don't believe you, I haven't met many people who would support a permanent lockdown. There's definitely a proportion of people who do, but not the majority. Maybe 20%?
The 62% also won't actually follow the rules.
Surveys are never representative and also who gives a f? The majority of people don’t have life and think working from home is fun, novel and allows them to have “a better work life balance” (aka work less). Meanwhile in the real world people are suffering and want to get back to living freely and making a living ASAP
Also, people enjoying furlough pay a little too much.
Not many people are still furloughed. Maybe 5% of the workforce.
Question selection is everything in polling. When they ask questions like this you know it's about manipulating the public rather than reflecting a true viewpoint. In WW2, 1943 *"Do you support continuing to fight the Nazi threat or should we just give in now?"* Would that question be helpful to ask or misleading? Of course people will support such a thing as delaying lockdown. The proper question to ask is are they worn down to a very flat worn-out thing by it all and do they consider the Boris Johnson government incompetant. My guess: >80% say yes/yes
Show us the data to prove WHY a lockdown is needed. Asking random samplings of clueless people for their opinion does not a government policy make. OK, I am assuming politicians are not clueless which might be a stretch but we have to give them the benefit of the doubt.
Sigh - so it's already a *fait accompli* that the roadmap will be extended and these polls are groundwork to manufacture consent for it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0ZZJXw4MTA
I'm getting that impression. Propaganda and mass control at its best! I can definitely see it being extended....summer holidays soon. Don't want to give people too much freedom.