I doubt there is 100 Tory MPs doing that.
Really? Did you see the speeches in parliament last week? Plenty of them were.
They’re absolutely unhinged, the lot of ‘em!
They’re not doing it to save the NHS or support the care sector however much we like to think that.
Well, we all know different people.
They’re absolutely unhinged, the lot of ‘em!
Not all of them. Just the ones who worked together to replace May with Johnson. The thing is, they really aren’t the MPs he wants to be playing chicken with… they love a good car crash… the possible damage doesn’t worry them at all… they positively revel in the ruin they might cause.
Well, we all know different people.
And many of us don't live in ivory towers.
It was your use of the word “hiding” to describe people prepared to act to reduce transmission. Echoing the language used by Piers Corbyn and the like. Depressing to hear it from you. I expected better, to be honest. What’s next…? Some “pant wetters” jibes?
It was your use of the word “hiding” to describe people prepared to act to reduce transmission.
Christ man stop being so bloody sensitive and looking for reasons to be offended where there are none. I was describing what I thought many people were thinking, not what I think or what my friends think. I don't think anyone's hiding, and don't think any less of those wishing to be uber-cautious. Neither do I think any less of those who are trying to lead a normal life within the rules. I'm sure when the rules change their behaviour will change accordingly.
Fair enough. That’s much clearer. Nice one. I couldn’t have gleaned any of that from the original post, and it’s much more like what I’d expect from you. My faith in you is restored… 😉
The thing is, they really aren’t the MPs he wants to be playing chicken with…
It's an opportunists demise, unfortunately Boris hadn't thought about the amount of effort needed to stay in front of a pitchfork wielding mob. At heart he's wafter not a worker and seems to have mistaken mob rule for a wave of public option that he could ride to victory. His chameleon tendencies seem to have finally caught him out with the true believers.
Exit Frosty suggests Boris might actually of being going for earlier restrictions. Those chameleon tendencies and another wave of opinion to surf being too enticing a distraction from the rest of it. It is a strange world where the forces shaping our futures seem to be PM's need to be loved, desire to distract from the ever present shadow of carnage past and a spurned mob wanting to purge the unbelievers.
Live by the sword, die by the sword… but it’s not just Johnson’s fate they hold in their hands right now, sadly.
Really? Did you see the speeches in parliament last week? Plenty of them were.
They’re absolutely unhinged, the lot of ‘em!
Does that include the LibDems that voted with the Tory rebels?
The irony is that you are using hyperbole to allege hyperbole.
Opposition to increased restrictions to deal with the pandemic is not restricted to hysterical fruitcakes making absurd comparisons with nazi Germany, far from it. Approximately a third of the population according to polls and probably a similar amount of MPs.
And btw I have no idea why you posted of Piers Corbyn to make your point. He is neither a Tory MP nor a typical member of the public. Although granted he does appear to be a fruitcake.
And btw I have no idea why you posted of Piers Corbyn to make your point.
I suspect because he's been arrested this afternoon on suspicion of incitement of his supporters to set fire to offices of MP's who support increased measures.
"those scum who have decided to go ahead with introducing new fascism"
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-59717571
Ah I see, it was to make the point that there are some wackadoodles in our society. I didn't realise that was up for debate.
I suspect because he’s been arrested this afternoon on suspicion of incitement of his supporters to set fire to offices of MP’s who support increased measures.
I mean that wasn't even the tip of the iceberg his claims of the jab giving you "aids" and a "spazed immune system" were just as worrying. The guys an absolute idiot if that was my brother I would be so ashamed and embarrassed.
Oh dear, how embarrassing. He went to the same school as me, albeit probably 15 years earlier. I promise we didn't all come out as complete headtheballs.
And btw I have no idea why you posted of Piers Corbyn to make your point.
Because if you look at what he’s quoted as saying, regarding this somehow being fascism, it’s absolutely indistinguishable from what Desmond Swayne and the Tory headbangers were saying in parliament last week too. Two cheeks of the same arse.
So I’ll stick with with my original assertion that they’re all absolutely barking, and the only people they represent are a tiny minority of similarly unhinged swivel-eyed loons
I note Piers brother, arguably the slightly less hatstand sibling (and that’s a fiercely contested title), voted with the Tory rebels too. Who’d have thunk it?
Of the fairly large and diverse group of people I talk to (work, friends, family, clubs, etc.) I would definitely say there are a greater number who are against further restrictions than are for them, and include in the former group at least 2 who work in or near NHS ICU units. And I’d say a huge majority were in favour of restrictions last lockdown meaning a good chunk have changed their view.
It’s not just Tory headbangers and Piers Corbyn who are against them.
I said at the first lockdown and will again, people would get more behind it if there was a clearly stated end game. Vaccines were touted as that, the first lockdown was too, boosters now, and maybe a circuit breaker. Given none of them have worked then more people are going to say “we have to just live with it”.
Being told to protect the NHS by a government that’s tried to systematically destroy it and rip it apart doesn’t cut the mustard I’m afraid. And that’s ignoring last years soirée’s.
The people I know who are being cautious at the moment are only doing so as not to test positive for Xmas, though a good few are in the “can’t be positive if you don’t test” camp. Once Xmas is done they’ll be out and about as normal, and if the pubs shut they’ll do it in others homes.
Id agree, there's less appetite for restrictions, but that doesn't mean it's not the right thing to do.
Same as speed limits, taxes etc...
Given none of them have worked then more people are going to say “we have to just live with it”.
They have “worked”, and we are “living with it”. No one has promised that the pandemic would be ended by any of those tools you list in any particular timescale. Of course people are fatigued and frustrated, but the virus doesn’t care. We’re already in a much better place thanks to vaccines, knowledge and treatment.
They have “worked”, and we are “living with it”. No one has promised that the pandemic would be ended by any of those tools you list in any particular timescale. Of course people are fatigued and frustrated, but the virus doesn’t care. We’re already in a much better place thanks to vaccines, knowledge and treatment.
Whilst you're right, and I acknowledge that, I think it's naïve to not at least appreciate why a significant number of people don't see it that way. We aren't emotionless zombies, we are human and there are tens of thousands of people whose lives have been turned upside down by restrictions causing them or their family/friends to lose their businesses for good, lose their job in many sectors of the economy and therefore get into severe debt, lose relationships and marriages, become homeless, or severely harm their mental health, and to those people they rightly feel like they are making a disproportionate sacrifice.
On top of that the utter contempt those in charge have for the masses does nothing to strengthen their claims that we need to continue destroying parts of the economy.
You can't change people's opinions if you won't try to at least understand and acknowledge their side of the debate - to not do so is if nothing else just poor competency at debating.
there are tens of thousands of people whose lives have been turned upside down by [restrictions] the virus causing them or their family/friends to lose their [businesses] lives.
FTFY
It takes imagination… picture the damage alternative paths would have resulted in (of course there are also paths that would have reduced the damage). “Do nothing” was never really an option. People emotionally compare recent years to more “normal” years, rather than just how bad the last few years could have been. The same is happening now. People need to learn to “live with” the current (and overall improving) situation, rather than bemoaning that there are difficult decisions to make, where every outcome damages the economy, livelihoods and lives compared to the pre-pandemic situation.
Id agree, there’s less appetite for restrictions, but that doesn’t mean it’s not the right thing to do.
Precisely. Which is why rational argument is more constructive than hysterically dismissing all opposition as "unhinged swivel-eyed loons".
You think rational argument is going to win out with the Piers Corbyn’s and Desmond Swaynes of this world?
Good luck with that!
Maybe see if they can fit in a polite debate on the issue in between fire-bombings?
It takes imagination… picture the damage alternative paths would have resulted in (of course there are also paths that would have reduced the damage). “Do nothing” was never really an option. People emotionally compare recent years to more “normal” years, rather than just how bad the last few years could have been. The same is happening now. People need to learn to “live with” the current (and overall improving) situation, rather than bemoaning that there are difficult decisions to make, where every outcome damages the economy, livelihoods and lives compared to the pre-pandemic situation.
Not talking about past lockdowns, the issue being debated is the merit of moving into a new one now.
Do you know how many excess deaths a new lockdown will result in versus the economic harm that would result? Is there even a metric by which we can measure this? There's no transparency at all regarding this side of the science. So how can the public be expected to agree with it if there's no evidence being presented?
We don't even know if Omicron is as harmful as delta yet (the only evidence I've seen is from South African doctors saying it's less harmful but apparently we need to disregard this?).
Edit: excess deaths prevented*
I'll say again, I'm pro science, pro-vaccine, pro- restrictions and whatever we'd call it so far. But I'm also pro- reviewing the evidence as time passes and while I'm not yet in the let it rip camp, my appetite for more of the same is waning.
I'm not swivel-eyed or loony (but I would say that of course). Just trying to make sense of an ever-changing world.
That's a great post Mr V.
Do you know how many excess deaths a new lockdown will result in versus the economic harm that would result?
I don't know but if you can put a figure on acceptable cost per death maybe we can scribble something on a fag packet.
I don’t know but if you can put a figure on acceptable cost per death maybe we can scribble something on a fag packet.
Well someone somewhere is otherwise we'd just have gone into full lockdown until zero covid surely? If there are no other costs why wouldn't we.
Do you know how many excess deaths a new lockdown will result in versus the economic harm that would result?
I might be missing something, but how will a new lockdown cause excess deaths? The evidence of previous lockdowns showed lockdowns greatly reduced the spread of and deaths from Covid.
You think rational argument is going to win out with the Piers Corbyn’s and Desmond Swaynes of this world?
Why would I think that?
And why would I care? It's you that appears to be obsessed with "the Piers Corbyns and Desmond Swaynes of this world", not me.
Because lockdowns have health and social consequences- lost jobs and businesses, more sitting around WFH, domestic violence and the like- harder to identify and quite possibly fewer deaths than rampant Covid, but lockdowns are not without costs.
We don’t even know if Omicron is as harmful as delta yet
We could wait and then find it's twice as deadly. Which is unlikely, but not a good outcome.
lockdowns have health and social consequences- lost jobs and businesses, more sitting around WFH, domestic violence and the like- harder to identify and quite possibly fewer than rampant Covid, but lockdowns are not without costs.
All of which we're aware of. Like jonv, I'm open to considering and deciding at what point we decide that a lockdown will do more harm than good, but I'm not thinking it's right now.
I might be missing something, but how will a new lockdown cause excess deaths? The evidence of previous lockdowns showed lockdowns greatly reduced the spread of and deaths from Covid.
That's great then, Covid fixed...to hell with absolutely every other consideration mentioned. Let's have a permalockdown as Ken Livingstone suggested the other day!
By that logical then we should ban all forms of food to eliminate food poisoning...then just say that's what the Science suggests we should do.
I might be missing something, but how will a new lockdown cause excess deaths?
As a straightforward question - read the post properly, he has reflected he means excess deaths prevented.
As a more complex question. It's difficult to know absolutely. We will be preventing covid deaths but the cost in mental health, poverty and so on is not negligable. I was strongly pro lockdowns previously, despite fears for these collateral damages. I still think it was right at the time. But on a human level - "we can get through this and out the otherside" is do-able; we can endure hardships and loss of freedoms in a cause.
But only so much. It's a tactic in military training; the 30 mile yomp in kit; everyone knows it's hard but it's 30 miles - we can do it. And then as you come round the hillside, soaked and knackered you can see the lorries and the brew wagon. And then they pack it all up and drive off, and tell you tough, you've got to pick up your kit and carry on. And it breaks people, even if it's only another 3 miles. Because you thought that was it......
How many more times do we have to pick up the kit and carry on, is what has me wavering right now.
Whilst you’re right, and I acknowledge that, I think it’s naïve Whilst you’re right, and I acknowledge that, I think it’s naïve to not at least appreciate why a significant number of people don’t see it that way.
So you are admitting they are wrong then? Nobody is saying this is easy, but being swayed by emotion doesn’t actually help make a rational decision.
That’s great then, Covid fixed…to hell with absolutely every other consideration mentioned. Let’s have a permalockdown as Ken Livingstone suggested the other day!
By that logical then we should ban all forms of food to eliminate food poisoning…then just say that’s what the Science suggests we should do.
Except no one on here is suggesting that, which makes your whataboutery a bit pointless.
How many more times do we have to pick up the kit and carry on, is what has me wavering right now.
Nobody knows, because it's not an exercise. The enemy are chasing, and we don't know how far away they are.
How many more times do we have to pick up the kit and carry on, is what has me wavering right now.
And, the alternative? We do what we have to do. There is no NCO creating false horizons of achievement here, but a real virus that will do real damage if we choose to let it out of exhaustion or boredom. We have it so much easier than last year. And it’ll be easier again next year. We’re not at “do nothing” or “back to normal” yet though.
My thoughts?
Lock downs and the other measures (masks, distancing etc) are the least shite of some extremely shite options.
Other options would have made our current situation seem like nirvana.
This has been discussed time and time again and there has never been an alternative, viable option put forward that held up to even the most cursory scrutiny.
As far as I can make out, Ken Livingstone actually said "regular stints of lockdowns"
The "perpetual" but was from the interviewer (on GB News of all places).
No mention at all of permalockdowns
My thoughts?
Lock downs and the other measures (masks, distancing etc) are the least shite of some extremely shite options
I think that's the most common view I've encountered. Nobody I know wants a lockdown, it's just less awful than not.
I understand the need for another lockdown to prevent the NHS from been overrun. This last 2 years messed up my mental health, it’s also had a significant impact on my physical health as I injured my arm early in lockdown but couldn’t get it fixed until Jan as my surgeon just wasn’t available for months I’ve gone from a sub 3 hour marathon runner to someone who can barely climb the stairs. Im pretty sure it’s had a irreversible impact on my one of my sons education. But there was no choice those lockdowns were unavoidable to save people lives until the vaccines were here.
But this new situation was completely avoidable, the majority of patients in hospital are unvaccinated and that will be the case with Omicron too, even though the vaccinated will still catch it. So more damage to businesses, more domestic abuse, more not seeing loved ones, more damage to the kids education if the schools have to close.
Maybe it’s time to protect the NHS by not treating people have chosen not to get vaccinated then there’s be no need for a lockdown as the NHS wouldn’t get overrun. Before anyone says we treat obsese folk or whatever someone eating a donut isn’t keeping my kids out of school. It’s these selfish twunts that are sabotaging it for everyone else and there has to be consequences. 80% of Covid patients in Adenbrookes are unvaccinated, I bet they’ll be happy to take rapidly developed antibody or antivirals, bet they won’t ask if there’s a microchip in the drugs that cost a fortune to keep them alive. Just let them die, because treating them will probably result in people that have done the right thing dying.
This isn’t really my view but it’s an opinion I have heard voiced more and more over the past few days folk are fed up and can’t face another lockdown.
MoreCashThanDash
Full Member
That’s great then, Covid fixed…to hell with absolutely every other consideration mentioned. Let’s have a permalockdown as Ken Livingstone suggested the other day!By that logical then we should ban all forms of food to eliminate food poisoning…then just say that’s what the Science suggests we should do.
Except no one on here is suggesting that, which makes your whataboutery a bit pointless
No, but that would fix the covid deaths yes? So why shouldn't it be considered? This seems to be the current scientific approach.
I cant quite figure out exactly what it is your trying to say. Are you against lockdowns or want them considered?
Can you put a bit more detail into your position?
Maybe it’s time to protect the NHS by not treating people have chosen not to get vaccinated then
As much as I detest the anti Vax mob, if we started punishing people for stupidity, society would collapse pretty quickly
I think it would be pointless to do a lockdown during the Christmas period as a lot of people will just ignoor it. A lockdown in January would make more sense so people can spend Christmas with their family first. Plus, those who really value their family would be taking the care now to avoid any risks with Covid. For example, my grandad is in his 90's and very vulnerable with health issues, so I won't be going anywhere all week other than out for a ride. No pubs, restaurants, shops etc just in case.
