Should there be protests against another lockdown?

[yorkie]

This thread remains the anti-mask, anti-lockdown, echo chamber it was when I last checked-in. Out in the rest of the country, the latest polling supports a second national lockdown. 66% for, 27% against. 6% don't know. And 1% presumably lost in the rounding.

Source: YouGov Poll 14 September Would you support or oppose a second national lockdown, similar to that in April and May, in the event that coronavirus cases were to continue to rise?

It was worded "in the event that coronavirus cases were to continue to rise" which is so open-ended it's very difficult to quantify what people think.

I strongly disagree with the suggestion that 64% of people would support a lockdown; 64% of the sort of people that have the time to spend doing those polls is quite a different prospect.

You'll find support for lockdowns will be greater among people who fit any of the following categories: people with work from home jobs that are perceived as secure; people who are in reasonably proportioned homes (many of whom may also have a garden too); people who are retired; people who are elderly; people who have been scared into thinking the actual case fatality rate is higher than it really is.

Support will be much lower among poorer/disadvantaged people; people who work in sectors that could be harmed by lockdowns; people who cannot easily work from home or do not have the right sort of home working environment etc.

So it will really depend on who you ask. But of the people I speak to, who tend to be working people who care about the prospects of younger people, the view is very different to portrayed in that poll. Very few of the people I know would have had the time to answer a poll carried out on 14 Sep 2020 as they would have been too busy.

I suspect a lot of the people who did that poll are people with plenty of time on their hands, probably retired, or enjoying furlough, or enjoying working in their secure, cushy, work from home job in a well proportioned house.

Meanwhile, in the real world...#

I also find this suspicious

Daily Question | 07/08/2020 | YouGov

Do you think that workers who can capably do their job from home should or should not return back to the office?

yougov.co.uk

Do you think that workers who can capably do their job from home should or should not return back to the office?

There was no answer for a blend of home & office working; why not?

Only 36% of respondents said "It should be up to them"; do 64% of respondents really believe they should be forced into an option they do not like?

I did a few YouGov polls before I realised they were a total waste of time; they take so long that only people with a lot of time on their hands can do them and the lack of appropriate answers skew the results.

Believe me, the real world is very different to what those polls say.

 

[Puffing Devil]

I'm sure the usual suspects will pop up to say the poll was wrong

The "66%" I suspect weren't in this group and still haven't grasped the effect lockdown had on others.

It was worded "in the event that coronavirus cases were to continue to rise" which is so open-ended it's very difficult to quantify what people think.

I strongly disagree with the suggestion that 64% of people would support a lockdown; 64% of the sort of people that have the time to spend doing those polls is quite a different prospect.

Thank you (and goodnight) for so speedily and beautifully illustrating my point.

 

[BJames]

Thank you (and goodnight) for so speedily and beautifully illustrating my point.

*usual suspect here*

2690 subjects surveyed in that poll.

Doesn't exactly make it the majority of the UK population either? Certainly not "the rest of the country" as if the forum is one bit and youGov is the other...

That doesn't necessarily make this forum right either (in my opinion we are but that's another thing), we definitely swing one way. But it just seems that we take account of the economic and social impacts of a lockdown and continued restrictions, something which those who support a second lockdown of the same kind as in March appear to have overlooked.

 

[Ianno87]

Thank you (and goodnight) for so speedily and beautifully illustrating my point.

I have a massive problem with anybody that bangs on about "Let's lockdown again" when it had few profound consequences for themselves.

I didn't say the poll was wrong. I'm saying people didn't understand the consequences of their response.

 

[yorkie]

I have a massive problem with anybody that bangs on about "Let's lockdown again" when it had few profound consequences for themselves.

I didn't say the poll was wrong. I'm saying people didn't understand the consequences of their response.

Absolutely; the people I talk to tend to be very aware of the consequences. Of the few people I talk to who are not, then I start telling them...

 

[Richard Scott]

Thank you (and goodnight) for so speedily and beautifully illustrating my point.

So you quote one poll, what do you expect?

 

[Camden]

I would point out that this thread is not about what the next steps should or shouldn't be from national government, but whether there should be a protest organised against the government's perceived trajectory.

I haven't said I would favour another "national lockdown", only that there should be no protest and that I think people should cooperate with the collective effort, whatever that turns out to be.

If you want the government to draw from a wider ideas pot, then you need to give them your cooperation and understanding. Refusal just narrows their options, lowers effectiveness, and makes things worse.

Ultimately, if people refuse to cooperate, on other peoples' heads be it. But a society that selfish, to sacrifice the old, weak and unlucky out of a distaste for temporary personal restrictions or a perceived personal gain, doesn't fit with one that continues to have universal healthcare, free education, and benefits.

 

[yorkie]

But a society that selfish, to sacrifice the old, weak and unlucky out of a distaste for temporary personal restrictions or a perceived personal gain, doesn't fit with one that continues to have universal healthcare, free education, and benefits.

Sacrificing the wellbeing, education & livelihoods of the young and disadvantaged is not acceptable; yet that is what we have been doing...

 

[crablab]

But it just seems that we take account of the economic and social impacts of a lockdown and continued restrictions, something which those who support a second lockdown of the same kind as in March appear to have overlooked.

It is a balance.
Tragically, in some cases, it is a decision between life and death.

This is, unfortunately, the nature of human fragility. There are tradeoffs to everything and as resources, time and knowledge are not infinite we have to do our best, and trust our elected representatives to do their best (which is obviously somewhat up for debate).

The "no one must die from covid" is simplistic and ignores those who die from not getting medical interventions for treatable conditions, those who suffer from mental health conditions worsened by isolation and lack of normal routine, elderly people who lose local support networks and cannot see their loved ones, families crammed into bedsits, people losing their jobs and livelihoods...The list goes on.

There are so many tradeoffs. It is difficult, and deeply sad.

 

[yorkie]

The "no one must die from covid" is simplistic and ignores those who die from not getting medical interventions for treatable conditions, those who suffer from mental health conditions worsened by isolation and lack of normal routine, elderly people who lose local support networks and cannot see their loved ones, families crammed into bedsits, people losing their jobs and livelihoods...The list goes on.

There are so many tradeoffs. It is difficult, and deeply sad.

So far the trade-off has very much been to the detriment of younger and more disadvantaged people; that needs to change from now onwards.

I think there is growing recognition of that.

 

[trebor79]

What Yorkie said.

I think lockdown was necessary in March. Given what we've learnt since then and the way we're now controlling and mitigating covid, I think a national lockdown now is unnecessary. It therefore follows that one would be executive overreach and authoritarianism (imho).

I too am deeply worried about the current government's attitude towards the law and the people they serve.

At the time I supported the March lockdown, I now believe it was a mistake.
Leaving aside the question of whether surpassing cases actually achieves anything long term, if another lockdown becomes necessary to achieve this add-on, it's another indictment of this pathetic government.
It's becoming abundantly clear that sweet FA has been since to our in place a proper, joined up, functioning test and trace. And sweet FA since to ensure there isn't another disaster in care homes.
This is all about limiting the savage to Boris Johnson ego now. A lockdown allows him to be portrayed as having taken action, and hopeful (for him) diverts attention from the litany of failure, inaction, incompetence, crap communication and day dreaming (moonshots) from him and his cabinet.

Yes, I'd protest, having never been on a protest in my life. But I won't associate with conspiracy theorists and anti-vaccers. I think they are bonkers and their involvement measures it to eat to dismiss valid arguments about government policy and performance and the erosion of our economy, quality of life and democracy.

Also, why the big panic? If you rebase positive tests, assuming 200,000 tests a day right from the start, it looks very different:

Chart showing recent rise in positives would barely discernable if testing capacity had been constant thorough the pandemic.

 

[Yew]

But a society that selfish, to sacrifice the old, weak and unlucky out of a distaste for temporary personal restrictions or a perceived personal gain, doesn't fit with one that continues to have universal healthcare, free education, and benefits.

Your argument works until you realise that the NHS makes value judgements all the time, NICE decide on whether a treatment is worthwhile, and that's before we consider the "ceiling of care". As for " temporary personal restrictions" your attempt to denigrate the current situation is disingenuous at best, this situation is vastly damaging to the people of this country, mentally, physically and economically. In this nations history we have thought nothing of sacrificing millions of lives to protect our way of life, yet when those who are at risk are already at deaths doorstep, we throw that sacrifice away. And that's before we consider the real nature of this illness, this is not some major killer, some calculations of IFR put it in the range of seasonal flu.

Ultimately, your present a false dichotomy that is either we ruin the country in a vain attempt to play god and stop all death, or we live in some hyper-capitalist selfish wasteland. Which is clearly insane.

 

[Bletchleyite]

So far the trade-off has very much been to the detriment of younger and more disadvantaged people; that needs to change from now onwards.

I think there is growing recognition of that.

I was listening to LBC earlier debating the proposed lockdown, and pretty much everyone who called in was pro the Swedish approach, interestingly.

 

[NorthOxonian]

I was listening to LBC earlier debating the proposed lockdown, and pretty much everyone who called in was pro the Swedish approach, interestingly.

Was that on Maajid Nawaz's show (to which I'm listening now, coincidentally)? I've found him to be very level headed and realistic throughout this, including in the first lockdown - he understands the huge impact these measures can have on disadvantaged communities and individuals, while also not denying the risks of the virus.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Was that on Maajid Nawaz's show (to which I'm listening now, coincidentally)? I've found him to be very level headed and realistic throughout this, including in the first lockdown - he understands the huge impact these measures can have on disadvantaged communities and individuals, while also not denying the risks of the virus.

I can't remember who was presenting but it was about 4-5pm this afternoon or so? I think it might well be.

 

[NorthOxonian]

I can't remember who was presenting but it was about 4-5pm this afternoon or so? I think it might well be.

No, Nawaz was on a bit earlier, 1-4. David Lammy would have been on after that, and while I'd love to hear that he opposes a hypothetical lockdown (since he's quite a senior figure in Parliament), I doubt that he actually would.

 

[bramling]

This thread remains the anti-mask, anti-lockdown, echo chamber it was when I last checked-in. Out in the rest of the country, the latest polling supports a second national lockdown. 66% for, 27% against. 6% don't know. And 1% presumably lost in the rounding.

Source: YouGov Poll 14 September Would you support or oppose a second national lockdown, similar to that in April and May, in the event that coronavirus cases were to continue to rise?

It shows me that this little corner of the forum continues to be very out of touch with the majority.

I'm sure the usual suspects will pop up to say the poll was wrong, what about the margin of error, 5 days is far too long ago to even be considered valid. We seek out support and friends, in the main, whose views align with our own. We apply our own confirmation bias to much of what we take in and this is aided and abetted by those social media companies that pander to our previous selections. Many of the threads in the COVID subform are a testament to this.



Quite a few looking at that poll.

Doesn’t really fill with confidence that many of these people would have been fighting over toilet rolls in the lead-up to the last lockdown.

Of course a lot of people like the idea of a lockdown. Many will get time off work, possibly think they will be back on furlough or their existing furlough might be extended, and it will be back to a rolling bank holiday where they can go on cycle rides each day or perhaps even visit the beach, or just sit at home enjoying their garden. What’s not to like? Meanwhile we were out today and happened to visit the hotel we’d planned to be on back in May - now boarded up, having closed down thanks to Covid.

It’s one thing using a lockdown to buy some time to get things in order (though one wonders how much this government have actually got in order over the last six months). I was happy to support that on the basis of things like building up NHS capacity, getting a grip on things, however we shouldn’t be in that position now.

 

[trebor79]

It’s one thing using a lockdown to buy some time to get things in order (though one wonders how much this government have actually got in order over the last six months). I was happy to support that on the basis of things like building up NHS capacity, getting a grip on things, however we shouldn’t be in that position now.

Yep, the fact is even being considered is just exposed the complete and utter failure within government.
The best option they think they have is to give us a double whammy of economic, mental and educational hardship. Says it all.

 

[Bletchleyite]

No, Nawaz was on a bit earlier, 1-4. David Lammy would have been on after that, and while I'd love to hear that he opposes a hypothetical lockdown (since he's quite a senior figure in Parliament), I doubt that he actually would.

It wasn't the presenter who opposed it, it was the people who called in. It was David Lammy based on comments he made about his background.

 

[Camden]

So far the trade-off has very much been to the detriment of younger and more disadvantaged people; that needs to change from now onwards.

I think there is growing recognition of that.

All the elderly and vulnerable people who have had to shield for months have endured an incredible burden.

On top, middle aged people have fought to keep things going, adopting new working arrangements, losing their jobs, keeping on going to jobs even though it puts them at risk.

Young people have merely had a year off school. Exams results have largely been generously allocated, rather than having to be worked for. Those of working age may have lost jobs, sure. But then they tend to be mortgage and obligation free anyway. The older population has underwritten furlough to keep as many in pay as possible.

If there is a growing recognition of anything, it seems to me of a disproportionate amount of a few particular demographics that thumb their noses at all the real sacrifices others have made, have made no effort themselves, have lived the life of riley as if they've been on one long holiday and, through their selfishness, undone all the hard work others have put in.

And, to boot, who complain as if they are hard done to by those putting the effort in.

Increasing the amount people can be fined for not cooperating would suggest I am correct.

 

[yorkie]

All the elderly and vulnerable people who have had to shield for months have endured an incredible burden.

That's not been forced upon anyone; but in any pandemic people who are most at risk would be advised to take extra precautions.

Young people have merely had a year off school. Exams results have largely been generously allocated, rather than having to be worked for. Those of working age may have lost jobs, sure. But then they tend to be mortgage and obligation free anyway...

This is an absurd comment which does not take into account the realities of the situation, but I refer you to existing threads, such as https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...reasonable-justification.205343/#post-4620199 (there are many more) as this has been done to death previously.

The number of people whose mental health I've become worried about lately is of major concern to me; I am in no doubt what the biggest risks are - for the vast majority of the population - in the months ahead, and it's not the virus itself but the effects of potentially devastating measures to reduce the spread of it.

 

[LOL The Irony]

As long as it's kept civil, I see no problem with a protest against our civil liberties being infringed upon. Only problem is I know the media will try and spin the narrative that these people are responsible for the lockdown, should it happen. Also we're getting the infection rates but are no longer getting the death rates that were all the rage back in April. Funny that.

 

[Bletchleyite]

All the elderly and vulnerable people who have had to shield for months have endured an incredible burden.

On top, middle aged people have fought to keep things going, adopting new working arrangements, losing their jobs, keeping on going to jobs even though it puts them at risk.

Young people have merely had a year off school. Exams results have largely been generously allocated, rather than having to be worked for. Those of working age may have lost jobs, sure. But then they tend to be mortgage and obligation free anyway. The older population has underwritten furlough to keep as many in pay as possible.

If there is a growing recognition of anything, it seems to me of a disproportionate amount of a few particular demographics that thumb their noses at all the real sacrifices others have made, have made no effort themselves, have lived the life of riley as if they've been on one long holiday and, through their selfishness, undone all the hard work others have put in.

And, to boot, who complain as if they are hard done to by those putting the effort in.

Increasing the amount people can be fined for not cooperating would suggest I am correct.

That is comedic to the point of grossly insulting to young people, I'm afraid.

It's not the "boomers" who will be paying for young peoples' furlough - they will keep getting their final salary pensions and state pensions. It's them - for many, many years to come. Young people are already far worse off than middle-aged people in life - they deserve your support, not your complaints.

(From a Gen-X sat in the middle - and not someone who is anti-measures, either)

 

[Bantamzen]

This thread remains the anti-mask, anti-lockdown, echo chamber it was when I last checked-in. Out in the rest of the country, the latest polling supports a second national lockdown. 66% for, 27% against. 6% don't know. And 1% presumably lost in the rounding.

Source: YouGov Poll 14 September Would you support or oppose a second national lockdown, similar to that in April and May, in the event that coronavirus cases were to continue to rise?

It shows me that this little corner of the forum continues to be very out of touch with the majority.

I'm sure the usual suspects will pop up to say the poll was wrong, what about the margin of error, 5 days is far too long ago to even be considered valid. We seek out support and friends, in the main, whose views align with our own. We apply our own confirmation bias to much of what we take in and this is aided and abetted by those social media companies that pander to our previous selections. Many of the threads in the COVID subform are a testament to this.



Quite a few looking at that poll.

Another "usual suspect" here to help along with your confirmation bias. As has already been pointed out, the question itself is rather loaded but then there are the responses like "somewhat support" or "somewhat oppose". I mean vague or what? So what are the 34% that voted for "somewhat support" actually saying. Clearly they are not fully supportive of a similar lockdown to that imposed in March, otherwise they would have gone for "strongly support", so what are they actually voting for? I'd hazard a guess that they would support some measures imposed so long as they weren't negatively impacted. I also suspect that if you loaded the question slightly differently to something like "Would you support another lockdown where the government may not be able to guarantee 80% of your wage, and may not be able to support your business", those 34% would quickly drop into the "strongly oppose" category. Because as I'm sure many people have come to realise, those that are supportive of lockdown measures tend to be people negatively affected by them.

Its really easy to support something that affects others more than yourselves.

 

[37424]

That is comedic to the point of grossly insulting to young people, I'm afraid.

It's not the "boomers" who will be paying for young peoples' furlough - they will keep getting their final salary pensions and state pensions. It's them - for many, many years to come. Young people are already far worse off than middle-aged people in life - they deserve your support, not your complaints.

(From a Gen-X sat in the middle - and not someone who is anti-measures, either)

There are many people in their 50 and 60 that have a crap pension or no pension not everyone is lording it up on their final salary pension, and while the current employment situation isn't good their are many people in that age group who may have had to endure high unemployment of both the early 80's and early 90's especially if they don't live around London and the South East.

Clearly any support for lockdown or not will be driven by how much you may affected by the virus and how much your job may be affected.

 

[Richard Scott]

All the elderly and vulnerable people who have had to shield for months have endured an incredible burden.

On top, middle aged people have fought to keep things going, adopting new working arrangements, losing their jobs, keeping on going to jobs even though it puts them at risk.

Young people have merely had a year off school. Exams results have largely been generously allocated, rather than having to be worked for. Those of working age may have lost jobs, sure. But then they tend to be mortgage and obligation free anyway. The older population has underwritten furlough to keep as many in pay as possible.

If there is a growing recognition of anything, it seems to me of a disproportionate amount of a few particular demographics that thumb their noses at all the real sacrifices others have made, have made no effort themselves, have lived the life of riley as if they've been on one long holiday and, through their selfishness, undone all the hard work others have put in.

And, to boot, who complain as if they are hard done to by those putting the effort in.

Increasing the amount people can be fined for not cooperating would suggest I am correct.

Remember it's those young people who'll be earning the money that pays your pension!

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

@Camden you are entitled to that view, but it is not one shared by many people I speak with. I think you're very out of touch with what the majority want.

Depends what the view is.

Most people that I know are thoroughly hacked off with Covid and the attendant restrictions.

However, does that translate into a simple Logan's Run "lets go back to normality, let the virus rip through the population, let a few old and disabled people who are gonna die in a couple years anyway pop their clogs" belief....? I don't think it does.

Given that we've had around two months of economic activity which haven't coincided with a large rise in in infection rates up until very recently

You wouldn't - that's how exponential infection works.

 

[trainophile]

One group I feel some sympathy (and empathy) with are those who had to cancel holidays (not necessarily abroad) due to lockdown, then finally believed they had the go-ahead to re-book, and are now finding their new arrangements may also be canned. I took full advantage of the Travelodge two nights for price of one offer, which only applied on non-cancellable Saver rates, and now find myself potentially having to scrap four or five short breaks, complete with relevant train ticket costs. The first time round we were lucky enough to be reimbursed by hotels and train operators, this time I fear it will be "well you took a gamble, now live with it".

 

[birchesgreen]

Yeah one of my colleagues is in this predicament, been slogging her guts out without much of a break since March finally booked a 2 week holiday in late October...

 

[317 forever]

One group I feel some sympathy (and empathy) with are those who had to cancel holidays (not necessarily abroad) due to lockdown, then finally believed they had the go-ahead to re-book, and are now finding their new arrangements may also be canned. I took full advantage of the Travelodge two nights for price of one offer, which only applied on non-cancellable Saver rates, and now find myself potentially having to scrap four or five short breaks, complete with relevant train ticket costs. The first time round we were lucky enough to be reimbursed by hotels and train operators, this time I fear it will be "well you took a gamble, now live with it".

If there is only advice to avoid areas such as Bolton, we might be able to keep to plans. If we merely feel it unwise, unpleasant or fraught, then it is our own decision to cancel.

Back to protests, and ironically the virus could spread more among people protesting than if they just got on with the same activities as they would without government intervention. Virus spread during these protests could also, in terms of raw figures, cancel the saved spread by people who are co-operating.