Coronavirus in the UK - news, lockdown and discussion

[teuchter]

Personally I've flooded my house as a pre-emptive measure. Can't burn moist wood. If we all do the same, we can reduce the load on the fire service.

You could just have invested in a smoke alarm instead.

But the lockdowns in the UK haven't been used as preemptive measures. They have been used as firefighting measures after things have got out of hand.

The situation we now have is an argument about whether the firefighters should leave the scene before or after the fire has been put out.

 

[elbows]

Sorry, the last straw today, Elbows. I've been following this thread for a year now because you and other posters such as LynnDoyleCooper have given very informative replies to various questions, plenty of useful data etc. But lately I can't help but notice you're on the insult bus all the time. Just stop it. Please.

Insults are part of the package people get from me, and this has always been the case. I can do bloody reasonable too, but I do find that when I do too much of that and not enough expression of anger or ridicule in regards some peoples stances, the reasonable starts to lose its reason, too much room is given to exactly the sort of bullshit I am here to counter. Because cutting away some layers of bullshit where I can is very much what causes me to commentate on things like pandemics, nuclear reactors melting and certain revolutions with quite a lot of intensity.

Some but not all of my insults are designed to make people think. If what they think is that I am an arse then so be it. Very few of my insults have been directed at peoples behaviour in this pandemic, there are all sorts of judgements and perceptions about peoples behaviour which I have tried to stay clear of. The big exception is when people come out with bullshit to justify their stance. I will attack the bullshit without apology, and perhaps at times I hit the wrong target in which case, if I notice, I will apologise.

Todays insult was not based on that single post, it was based on the posters recent history. People that brag about they and their associates breaking public health guidelines are not a pure representation of all the feelings of lockdown fatigue that people have. They are a related but somewhat distinct phenomenon, and their words often seem designed to provoke, especially on a forum like this one where there is quite a high degree of consensus about what attitude to take in this pandemic so far. There are various special and sentitive moments, often where the announcements and politics of the matter are heating up, where the occasional grubby freak seems to come out of the woodwork on this forum, taking stances that they absolutely know are going to go down badly here. And their posts also go down badly because they are often judged in isolation due to a lack of them being part of the community of this forum in any broader, non-pandemic sense.

Not that I expect things to remain like that forever. The game will change, since in addition to the genuine fatigue that many feel (including me), the equations in regard level of hospitalisations should change, which will change how far government ends up having to go. Theres a whole bunch of reason Johnson and the government are using words like irreversible and irrevocable this time. If they fuck up the exit strategy or something goes terrible wrong with the vaccine-based approach, and we end up needing another lockdown etc in future, then concerns will grow about whether the public will put up with it again. How many of them actually put up with it will depend on more detail about the threat we face at the time. The first lockdown was backed by the massive shock the pandemic was to everyone. The government made noises about never doing it again after the first time but I doubt they were sincere, since they knew the chances of an autumn/winter wave were high. This time they are banking on a gradual return to something resembling business as usual via vaccinations. And some setbacks can be tolerated under normal conditions so long as the numbers game is changed so that hospitalisation levels dont go off the charts. I know how many flu deaths society tolerates, and I will move with the times, I wont be ranting and taking an unwavering stance on how this virus should be surpressed if we get to a point where things remain within bounds that society and healthcare systems are used to coping with.

I'd ask to be judged on my stance last summer for a start. I wasnt entirely comfortable with pubs reopening when they did, but I recognised the economic and morale aspects and so was prepared to begrudingly go along with it, on the condition that such steps were reversed if the situation deteriorated. And on the occasions later where I started throwing insults about 'pandemic pub wankers', its because the situation had deteriorated but some were resisting the idea of closing the pubs again. I tried to make it clear that I was referring to people who felt the need to deny obvious epidemiological reality in order to justify a 'keep the pubs open' stance at a time where the situation called for strong measures to mitigate the second wave. Not people who were simply sad and feeling like they would struggle with the pubs closed, but people who were trying to invent their own reality to justify keeping them open.

People that cant stand lockdown should have even more interest in doing everything they can to ensure the success of careful relaxation of lockdown, everything they can to make it the last lockdown. Its February, its only just a few days over a month since we hit the peak of deaths in the second wave. The wave timing compared to the seasons is better than it was in 2020, we will be able to start to do a few things in spring so long as there arent any setbacks.There is lots of good vaccine news. I know people who find the strength to carry on a bit longer this time, and to be ok with the easing being slow, because they do sense light at the end of the tunnel now and dont want to see that light blotted out via premature missteps. Do not implode the tunnel when people are still travelling down it. Do not make the tunnel too short and run the risk of popping out in the middle of nazi virus guards rather than the safety of the forest well beyond the barbed wire.

 

[elbows]

People are under a lot of stress and are lashing out. I've been there too, on here and elsewhere.

Insults don't change the fact that my friends and family have been declining in compliance as time goes on, this year especially (and in particular due to vaccination; my neighbours two jabs in are back in Feb 2020).

I'll be glad to pass on the information to my grandmother that someone on the internet thinks she's a "threat to public health" for wanting to cuddle her grandson after a year of isolation, it'll get a good laugh out of her.

To be honest, the more people on the internet and telly waffle on calling me a cunt for living my life, the more interest I have in getting off the internet and getting out in the real world. Can't imagine why.

And yet here you find yourself at this time. Why have these conversations here now, if you've reached the point where the voices on the internet are part of the problem? If spouting your manifesto of a free man and his Covid insecure gran makes you feel better able to cope with what you've had to go through then by all means, carry on with the dulls script of Indiana Moans and the Last Charade.

 

[elbows]

 

[elbows]

That isnt a prediction, by the way, I hope that the vaccination-based return to business as usual goes mostly according to plan but I cannot entirely exclude other possibilities. I might take a similar stance on mutation vaccine escape risk to my stance of last June, where I said I was taking a holiday from immediately worrying about a 2nd wave, and advised others to try to take a mental break during the summer. An approach that mostly worked for a few months, except for things like Leicester ending up with a local lockdown that didnt seem to achieve sufficient results. I hope we dont see anything like that again, but I suppose there is some chance that there is something vaguely reminiscent of that situation if the number of cases continue to show signs that we might get stuck with rates that are relatively low compared to the peak, but relatively high in the grand scheme of things.

Things will get messy if the relaxation plan, which they've said will be data driven not date driven (partially true, partially very much not true), has to deal with unwelcome data at all the wrong moments. So I'll judge Mondays announcements on the day, and then again whenever there are data revelations of interest to the plan. And as I probably already said the other day, there are some signs that the timing might be awkward. The falls have been impressive, as have the number of vaccines given. But the falls in case numbers might have stopped being impressive at just the moment the government would like to be confident and optimistic. This should become a bit clearer over the next week or two, just in time for the rumoured return to school. If the data news isnt good then that could become an especially awkward moment, if March 8th rumours are true.

 

[Raheem]

Meanwhile back at the ranch

Whitty at odds with Johnson over 'big bang' reopening of schools in England

It's a negotiating tactic, innit? Pretend to want something unrealistic so when you get what you wanted all along the loons will say you at least tried and the wets will say you at least compromised.

 

[elbows]

It's a negotiating tactic, innit? Pretend to want something unrealistic so when you get what you wanted all along the loons will say you at least tried and the wets will say you at least compromised.

We were told that Camerons negotiating tactic was to hold his piss in for too long to add a sense of urgency to the situation. If he'd still been in charge in this pandemic then I dont know how the lockdown timing might have varied. But unlike Johnson I suppose Cameron would have ended up hospitalised not for Covid, but for a bladder infection.

 

[editor]

I've always been behind the science and have done my best to follow the guidance but - fucking hell - I haven't worked for nearly a whole year, I've barely met anyone in months and I'm starting to seriously fray around the edges to the point where I'll probably take a minor risk sooner or later (like visiting a couple of friends in their house while trying to keep my distance).

I'm pretty sure there's people far worse off than me too, but this government can't keep playing catch up with their half cocked strategies. So if that means schools don't open for another month or two - or we go into a two week/month mega-actual-lockdown - I'd rather that than prolong the agony of a never ending lockdown and constantly fading hope.

 

[elbows]

Theres nothing worse than feeling trapped with no end in sight. But vaccines are supposed to bring fresh hope to make up for the hope that drained away due to government bungling of the situation at many moments. Even with a bunch of theoretical risks related to mutations, the picture is still changed, there are reasons to be more hopeful now than there were before we had a decent sense of vaccination timescales.

 

[hypernormalized]

And yet here you find yourself at this time. Why have these conversations here now, if you've reached the point where the voices on the internet are part of the problem? If spouting your manifesto of a free man and his Covid insecure gran makes you feel better able to cope with what you've had to go through then by all means, carry on with the dulls script of Indiana Moans and the Last Charade.

But someone is wrong on the Internet!

Is there ever a reason for a good old flamewar?

I'll pass on "covid insecure" as well, we can try and work out what that means. My strain's bigger than your strain?

 

[MJ100]

FYI: You're not going to get banned for politely disagreeing with someone, but you may find people will robustly counter your claims.

Good, that's how it should be! Fair's fair and given the strength of feeling on this board I'd expect nothing less anyway. It's definitely an emotive subject.

 

[MJ100]

Plenty of people in food poverty before the pandemic in this country, see the rise in use of foodbanks for one. Lockdown has only exposed the cracks in our society even further, cracks widened deliberately by the party in power witht the systematic reduction in safety nets over the years.

When businesses stop avoiding tax ,pay their share, stop bitching about minimum wages, costs and "burdans" then I'll take your point. The majority of covid relief money has been thrown at businesses, not individuals. They are still hoping to get thier massive 20 quid a week after March.

Absolutely there was food poverty in the UK before, but the UN report (or whoever it was; UNICEF perhaps, I don't remember but it's easily found online I'm sure) was takling worldwide. Admittedly that part is probably more applicable to the other worldwide thread, but that's why I specified "in a global sense." It's easy to say that lockdowns are the definitive one and only option when you're more capable, as a nation, of affording the astronomical monetary burden than others. There's a reason Pakistan, India, much of Africa etc, eased their lockdowns early. The interesting part (especially India as mentioned on the worldwide thread) is why they aren't knee deep in bodies, which some vehemently pro-lockdown folk insist would be the only outcome of a premature easing.

 

[MJ100]

Surely the people are in poverty because of the pandemic, and not the lockdowns themselves...? Even if no government in the world had enforced a lockdown, because of the correspondingly appalling death toll wouldn't people still be afraid to venture outside and work/shop/socialise as per usual?

Again, I can only speak from what I've seen of the UK government (and to a much lesser degree, the west as a whole); some governments have tried to cushion the inevitable blow to the public better than others, but I don't see how the blow could have been avoided entirely by either avoiding or prematurely ending lockdowns.

From what I remember, the article which I think was on the BBC said that the UN report implied or explicitly stated that they were in poverty as a direct result of lockdowns, for example India's migratory workers, anyone in the tourism sector in places like Bali, those kinds of people and places. You can put the blame on the pandemic to some extent, of course, but governments still took the action to close everything down for months on end, so I'd say the blame lies with them.

Interestingly in places that haven't locked down, or had a very half-hearted or short lockdown, the death tolls have not skyrocketed to the moon like some feared. Look at India, Pakistan, Brazil, Florida and certain other US states, Belarus, Japan, Sweden and others for examples of that. Obviously there are huge differences between demographics, climate, accurate recording of deaths, general health etc, as well as what measures they DID instigate and for how long, but nowhere is ovverun with dead. Here in the UK we've been under varying forms of restrictions for just shy of a year, and we still have one of the worst death tolls in the world.

 

[MJ100]

Insults are part of the package people get from me, and this has always been the case.

I've noticed! Like I said that's fine in general. There are people and institutions out there who deserve the insults, for sure. I certainly agree that the government are mostly useless and the majority of them are a complete shower, for example. I guess it's just the whole ethos of "anyone who disagrees with strict, long lockdowns wants to kill people" that annoys me. It's nonsense, but I can see the reasons behind someone thinking like that. Equally though, the reverse could apply. "Anyone who wants lockdowns wants to kill people, just different people, through suicide, poverty etc." Nothing is that black and white and like you said, there are moments when people come out of the woodwork for whatever reason. I guess it's just that we've had a year of everything about this pandemic dividing people, even people who would have got along perfectly well before, even families in some cases.

I hadn't noticed a recent history in regards to the person you insulted in this particular case, so thanks for the explanation. I just saw "person says their friends have had enough=insult from Elbows" and felt that was a step too far. Like I said initially, I definitely appreciate the work you've put in since I came across this forum a year ago to give so much useful data (right back from when there was that fake news picture of military trucks "getting ready to seal off London"). It's been consistently informative, regardless of the extent to which one might agree or disagree with your views on specific aspects of the pandemic response. Guess I just take exception to the generalisations around people who want to ease lockdown sooner than others might like. It's not confined to this site, that's for sure. There's a lot that could be said about such things and to be honest I have been shocked throughout (and a little perturbed, in some ways) about just how supportive the public seem to be of the measures taken. I just can't help but think that history will show us that we went too far in our response (in terms of many aspects and many problems it has caused and will continue to cause). Time will tell and I hope I'm wrong. I hope lockdowns really were the best option available, but I won't be convinced for many years to come, I suspect.

 

[hypernormalized]

From what I remember, the article which I think was on the BBC said that the UN report implied or explicitly stated that they were in poverty as a direct result of lockdowns, for example India's migratory workers, anyone in the tourism sector in places like Bali, those kinds of people and places. You can put the blame on the pandemic to some extent, of course, but governments still took the action to close everything down for months on end, so I'd say the blame lies with them.

Interestingly in places that haven't locked down, or had a very half-hearted or short lockdown, the death tolls have not skyrocketed to the moon like some feared. Look at India, Pakistan, Brazil, Florida and certain other US states, Belarus, Japan, Sweden and others for examples of that. Obviously there are huge differences between demographics, climate, accurate recording of deaths, general health etc, as well as what measures they DID instigate and for how long, but nowhere is ovverun with dead. Here in the UK we've been under varying forms of restrictions for just shy of a year, and we still have one of the worst death tolls in the world.

The worst case predictions in the "frictionless plane model" of completely removing all restrictions are obviously unrealistic because lots of people are modifying their behaviour. You're not going to end up with (e.g.) 1% of the population dying, because loads of individuals are choosing to reduce their interactions well in excess of the current (very strict) guidelines. I have relatives that genuinely haven't left the house for months at a time, and then only to drive to an empty area and go for a walk.

However, if, say, you incorporate the risk of a mutation that escapes existing immunity and also raises the IFR to 10%, then forcing people to avoid catching the virus makes more sense because there's a tail risk that blows up your model.

If the risk of that were deemed to be sufficient enough, then it might make sense to enact draconian restrictions.

 

[MJ100]

If the risk of that were deemed to be sufficient enough, then it might make sense to enact draconian restrictions.

I certainly think the first lockdown was justified, from a panic sense if nothing else. Nobody really knew what it would be like or exactly how bad it would be. I think they left it too long to reopen, though, which might well have helped push the second peak back into winter and thus make it worse. The scientists said all along that was something they would try to avoid if possible, and then...just did nothing to avoid it, thus making this current lockdown inevitable, and that again is fair enough because the NHS was coming under severe strain. I think as a general rule I'd say that I would agree with lockdowns without any immediate caveats IF AND ONLY IF the government can afford to, and does, adequately compensate those whose lives they are ruining. The stricter the lockdown, the more compensation they should be paying out. but when you get into the realms of the local council in my town this week taping off all the benches in the town square "because covid" (when people have been able to sit on them all year, apart from last March-April when they were again taped off I seem to recall), it just loses a lot of credibility because there's no actual logic to some of the restrictions that are in place. That's the issue many people have with it. Banning mass gatherings= makes sense. Telling granny she has to hobble along home and can't sit for a five minute rest "because covid" even though she's been vaccinated is just petty and pointless.

 

[hypernormalized]

I certainly think the first lockdown was justified, from a panic sense if nothing else. Nobody really knew what it would be like or exactly how bad it would be. I think they left it too long to reopen, though, which might well have helped push the second peak back into winter and thus make it worse. The scientists said all along that was something they would try to avoid if possible, and then...just did nothing to avoid it, thus making this current lockdown inevitable, and that again is fair enough because the NHS was coming under severe strain. I think as a general rule I'd say that I would agree with lockdowns without any immediate caveats IF AND ONLY IF the government can afford to, and does, adequately compensate those whose lives they are ruining. The stricter the lockdown, the more compensation they should be paying out. but when you get into the realms of the local council in my town this week taping off all the benches in the town square "because covid" (when people have been able to sit on them all year, apart from last March-April when they were again taped off I seem to recall), it just loses a lot of credibility because there's no actual logic to some of the restrictions that are in place. That's the issue many people have with it. Banning mass gatherings= makes sense. Telling granny she has to hobble along home and can't sit for a five minute rest "because covid" even though she's been vaccinated is just petty and pointless.

Absolutely agree with that.

I respect the utility and impact of a lot of the restrictions we've been living under for almost a year now, even if I choose not to comply with them in their totality (other people might call this 'bending' the rules - let's call a spade a spade).

When it comes to stuff like "it's illegal to visit one person in their home" or the comical "you can be outside, but don't sit down", though, I'm proudly contemptuous, and frankly suspicious of the aims of people advocating such.

Other countries aren't going this far and have similar outcomes. Not just the Floridas of the world, as far as I'm aware most of mainland Europe haven't banned people from meeting in small groups.

I'd be interested to learn whether any other countries in the world have made it illegal to visit a single individual in their home for 100 days and counting. That's in London, I think in some parts of the country we're talking half a year at this point.

 

[Sunray]

Israel are going all in with post vaccination opening up. They are issuing issuing an electronic card to people after the second dose for places like gyms

Israel eases restrictions following vaccine success

Shops, libraries and museums are now open to the public, following easing of Covid rules.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[andysays]

The point seems pretty clear to me. Those people are in poverty because of lockdowns. Yes, this is more applicable to places like Africa and Asia than to the UK, but as I mentioned in that point, it's on a global scale that I'm not at all convinced lockdowns will save more than they cost, in lives, health, money or anything else. I hope I'm wrong, as I said before, but only time will tell.

Ultimately, people are in poverty because of the capitalist system which persists throughout the world, and because the responses to the covid epidemic (including ill thought out lockdowns with insufficient real support offered) have all focused on maintaining and propping up that capitalist system, rather than truly protecting people's health and wider well being.

 

[existentialist]

Sorry, the last straw today, Elbows. I've been following this thread for a year now because you and other posters such as LynnDoyleCooper have given very informative replies to various questions, plenty of useful data etc. But lately I can't help but notice you're on the insult bus all the time. Just stop it. Please.

Calling someone a "pathetic little threat to public health" because they commented about something being the "last straw" for many people is just offensive and ignorant in equal measure. It shows that you really, really don't understand (or perhaps don't care about) the toll these lockdowns are taking on millions of people. Despite what you seem to think, Covid is NOT the only issue facing this country. I'm sure you know that really, but again, it's not showing through. I know that studying the epidemic is your area of expertise but the fact remains that there are innumerable other issues that lockdowns raise.

Whether or not that will cause more harm than good in the long run remains to be seen. I personally think that lockdowns will do more harm than good, certainly on a global scale, but of course I hope it isn't the case and I'm perfectly willing, in five or ten years, to stand corrected. But all you need to do is look at UN reports of x million kids entering food insecurity, or 200 million (I think?) people entering extreme poverty as a direct result of lockdowns to start having doubts. It's reasonable to have doubts, especially if you, your family or your friends are being impacted severely by the effects of lockdowns. Jumping directly to call someone a cunt because they have doubts about the cost-benefit analysis (which, incidentally, the fast food guy who I'd never heard of before is quite right about, since we the public have not seen any such thing from government) is just childish and stupid, and frankly from what I've seen of your level-headed analysis earlier in the pandemic, I'd expect better from you. I understand that you hate the government, which is reasonable, and you're no fan of big business, which is also reasonable, but when you start hurling insults around left right and centre, calling anyone who opposes or simply believes in the downsides of lockdown a "pandemic cunt" or a "lockdown shithead" then you start losing respect fast.

Standing by for the inevitable flaming and/or banning, but I had to make my point. I hope you can tone down the insulting of random posters and random members of the public and just stick to your useful and informative updates and data analysis.

Welcome, surprisingly well-informed new poster.

 

[hypernormalized]

Ultimately, people are in poverty because of the capitalist system which persists throughout the world, and because the responses to the covid epidemic (including ill thought out lockdowns with insufficient real support offered) have all focused on maintaining and propping up that capitalist system, rather than truly protecting people's health and wider well being.

Agree with this.

The most ridiculous part of the current situation has been the failure to cancel or drastically reduce rents.

It would have been of immense use to tenants, kept businesses afloat, encouraged knowledge-based companies to retain their offices, and had a ton of other benefits besides. We've legally forced people to stop trading, yet the rent must go on.

Not that this is surprising, land prices seem to be the #1 concern of every UK government since I was born.

Everything else seems to be a sticking plaster, tailored towards ensuring that very few seriously question that constant flow of funds. Banning labour whilst keeping rents is a brazen wealth grab.

 

[existentialist]

And yet here you find yourself at this time. Why have these conversations here now, if you've reached the point where the voices on the internet are part of the problem? If spouting your manifesto of a free man and his Covid insecure gran makes you feel better able to cope with what you've had to go through then by all means, carry on with the dulls script of Indiana Moans and the Last Charade.

Yes. I was also going to point out that leaving Urban is a lot simpler than setting up an account, choosing a specific avatar , learning how to use the boards, etc. If it's really that bad.

Although, in my experience, those who roll up and swiftly start grinding axes have usually turned out to have carefully selected the axe before they even started. Our mutual friend, of course, might be the honourable exception.

 

[og ogilby]

Not for me - I'm waiting for my vaccination(s) to have built up enough immunity, and even then, I'm going to be excessively careful for months to come.

I've been very careful throughout but two weeks after my first jab I went to the supermarket and forgot to sanitise my hands when I got back in the car. Usually I would be thinking about my hands while walking back to the car, but yesterday it slipped my mind until I'd driven off. Have I let my guard slip? I don't want to relax but maybe that low level fear has begun to ebb and my concentration isn't what it was.

The two other people in my bubble have also been vaccinated so my close contacts are all "safe".

 

[Sue]

Sorry, the last straw today, Elbows. I've been following this thread for a year now because you and other posters such as LynnDoyleCooper have given very informative replies to various questions, plenty of useful data etc. But lately I can't help but notice you're on the insult bus all the time. Just stop it. Please.

Calling someone a "pathetic little threat to public health" because they commented about something being the "last straw" for many people is just offensive and ignorant in equal measure. It shows that you really, really don't understand (or perhaps don't care about) the toll these lockdowns are taking on millions of people. Despite what you seem to think, Covid is NOT the only issue facing this country. I'm sure you know that really, but again, it's not showing through. I know that studying the epidemic is your area of expertise but the fact remains that there are innumerable other issues that lockdowns raise.

Whether or not that will cause more harm than good in the long run remains to be seen. I personally think that lockdowns will do more harm than good, certainly on a global scale, but of course I hope it isn't the case and I'm perfectly willing, in five or ten years, to stand corrected. But all you need to do is look at UN reports of x million kids entering food insecurity, or 200 million (I think?) people entering extreme poverty as a direct result of lockdowns to start having doubts. It's reasonable to have doubts, especially if you, your family or your friends are being impacted severely by the effects of lockdowns. Jumping directly to call someone a cunt because they have doubts about the cost-benefit analysis (which, incidentally, the fast food guy who I'd never heard of before is quite right about, since we the public have not seen any such thing from government) is just childish and stupid, and frankly from what I've seen of your level-headed analysis earlier in the pandemic, I'd expect better from you. I understand that you hate the government, which is reasonable, and you're no fan of big business, which is also reasonable, but when you start hurling insults around left right and centre, calling anyone who opposes or simply believes in the downsides of lockdown a "pandemic cunt" or a "lockdown shithead" then you start losing respect fast.

Standing by for the inevitable flaming and/or banning, but I had to make my point. I hope you can tone down the insulting of random posters and random members of the public and just stick to your useful and informative updates and data analysis.

I think a lot of this ^ is nonsense but whatever. Turning up and teling people how they should act and what they should and shouldn't say though? Makes you look a right tosser tbh.

 

[andysays]

Agree with this.

The most ridiculous part of the current situation has been the failure to cancel or drastically reduce rents.

It would have been of immense use to tenants, kept businesses afloat, encouraged knowledge-based companies to retain their offices, and had a ton of other benefits besides. We've legally forced people to stop trading, yet the rent must go on.

Not that this is surprising, land prices seem to be the #1 concern of every UK government since I was born.

Everything else seems to be a sticking plaster, tailored towards ensuring that very few seriously question that constant flow of funds. Banning labour whilst keeping rents is a brazen wealth grab.

"Land prices", you say.

Can anyone else remember who used to bang on about land prices in the past? It escapes me for the moment...

 

[Sunray]

I've been very careful throughout but two weeks after my first jab I went to the supermarket and forgot to sanitise my hands when I got back in the car. Usually I would be thinking about my hands while walking back to the car, but yesterday it slipped my mind until I'd driven off. Have I let my guard slip? I don't want to relax but maybe that low level fear has begun to ebb and my concentration isn't what it was.

The two other people in my bubble have also been vaccinated so my close contacts are all "safe".

Not too much to worry about.
I don't think I've seen any compelling evidence put forward which says people are catching covid-19 from surfaces.
It's technically possible if someone highly infectious coughed onto your bacon packet, after you put it into the fridge you ate some olives that are sitting in the fridge and then licked your fingers. Very much a case of "We're not sure, wash your hands just in case."

Chance of catching Covid from surfaces 'very small' scientists claim | ITV News

The chance of catching coronavirus from doorknobs and light switches may be less than previously thought, scientists have suggested. | ITV National News

www.itv.com

 

[lazythursday]

I do wish that sometimes the anti-lockdown people would, rather than just highlighting the downsides of lockdown, actually put forward an alternative approach that would avoid NHS overload. It's an interesting point that disaster hasn't always happened in countries / states with lesss severe restrictions, but we clearly don't understand why yet - it would be a big gamble to say the least to assume a similar pattern everywhere in societies with different densities / climates etc. I suspect though that people change their behaviour to such an extent when the virus reaches a certain point in a community that it is basically a voluntary lockdown anyway - but without any of the associated government support and so even more unfair than the situation in this country where many people are forced to work while others get furloughed or work from home. i

 

[two sheds]

Space suits for everyone of course. We'll all be able to wander freely with our own oxygen supply, shops and work and cinemas and theatres and pubs will open safely again. Plus of course the huge boost to the manufacturing economy and the possibility of massive export market when they catch on

 

[agricola]

I do wish that sometimes the anti-lockdown people would, rather than just highlighting the downsides of lockdown, actually put forward an alternative approach that would avoid NHS overload. It's an interesting point that disaster hasn't always happened in countries / states with lesss severe restrictions, but we clearly don't understand why yet - it would be a big gamble to say the least to assume a similar pattern everywhere in societies with different densities / climates etc. I suspect though that people change their behaviour to such an extent when the virus reaches a certain point in a community that it is basically a voluntary lockdown anyway - but without any of the associated government support and so even more unfair than the situation in this country where many people are forced to work while others get furloughed or work from home. i

So do I, but of course they can't - the only alternative approach that would genuinely prevent future lockdowns (from this or anything else) is to have a properly funded, properly staffed public health system that can rapidly detect and contain outbreaks.

There is, of course, no money in that so they cannot propose it; it would remind people of how the state often provides better, cheaper, more socially vital services. Lets not forget that many of the right's anti-lockdown crowd want to see the fire brigades replaced by some form of insurance system.

 

[lazythursday]

So do I, but of course they can't - the only alternative approach that would genuinely prevent future lockdowns (from this or anything else) is to have a properly funded, properly staffed public health system that can rapidly detect and contain outbreaks.

There is, of course, no money in that so they cannot propose it; it would remind people of how the state often provides better, cheaper, more socially vital services. Lets not forget that many of the right's anti-lockdown crowd want to see the fire brigades replaced by some form of insurance system.

Agree, but I meant posters on here, who perhaps believe they are not coming at this from a right-perspective, even if they have swallowed many of the same talking points.