Isn't it just maths? You have how many friends and family? Me, being billy no mates, have a circle of maybe 50-75 people that I'm directed related to or know. Most are from the same area. So the odds of me knowing someone who is infected themselves or who even knows someone who is, is low - especially as I live in an area that has a low recorded infection rate anyway. BUT that is how you want it isn't it? If it was the other way round - ie a large percentage of the people you know have it, then (unless you have a massive social circle - and if so I wouldn't boast about it or worry toooo much - it can be sorted by your doctor) or live in a place with a very high incidence rate, everybody would be in major panic now. The 1917 flu killed what - 20 - 50,000,000 worldwide (and infected 10 times that number) when the population was vastly less than now (about 1.8 billion compared to nearly 8 billion). Is that what you want? Are you after a high death toll to justify the lockdown? But you have to realise the lockdown is to stop the high death toll caused by mass infection. They are trying to make sure most of us are never that unfortunate to know somebody affected/infected by this. So lucky (it's not lucky - it's due to people trying to mitigate the effects of this virus) you. Just be thankful if you can still say that tomorrow, next week, next month, next year.
I would argue that the effects of the lockdown on society are extremely harmful. Extremely! I worry that people just obey rules without questioning them. Many people I know feel exactly the same as me. I hate that people are so very frightened and I am just stating my own personal opinion that maybe for many people it’s not necessary to continue the lockdown indefinitely. If vulnerable people are to be protected others must work and pay the financial cost. I have to go to work to do my very small bit to help protect people not from the virus but from so many other diseases. What would happen if I and all my colleagues were so frightened we refused to go to work? What is achieved by imagining nightmare scenarios? Lockdown hasn’t protected me because I haven’t been able to participate in it. I repeat that I agree that anyone who is worried should be supported 100% to self isolate but those of us who are genuinely not worried at all should be allowed to return to normal life and work to mitigate the terrible effects of this situation.
Sorry @debs64, but lockdown has protected you, the buses are quieter, the old are not going out etc etc, so you are being protected. People who want to live a normal life, go out in groups, party etc are then putting others at risk and that is not fair.
How can you lie there and think of England When you don't even know who's in the team
People need to keep a sense of proportion. The population of the UK is around 66 million. To date, approx. 30,500 people have died. The hospital bed vacancy rate has dropped to around 39%. Young people under 40 have more chance of dying in a car accident on their daily commute than die of Covid. Please use your common sense and stop getting so hysterical.
I'm glad others have dismantled the argument in this post and I can see why people are getting angry at some of these posts. This one in particular ignores the fact that experts had predicted 250,000 deaths if a limited amount was done. And that's aside from the long-term health complications that might end up cutting short the lives later on of as many survivors, and the other prevent deaths caused because the health system had collapsed.
I'd like to think if as many as that died in car accidents over a short period your 'common sense' would make you think twice about how, where and how often you got in a car.
People have calmly responded that they agree and understand the damage lockdown is doing, but have laid out the arguments for why it is still better than the alternative. The accusations in this post are below the belt; don't make them and then be surprised or object when people accuse you of being selfish.
There are legitimate discussions to be had around how we weigh up the risks of lockdown vs any alternative But to have those we have to recognise (a) that there are risks, whether we've seen the consequences ourselves personally or not, and (b) the nature of the disease means that our decisions and actions will directly impact others.
I am sorry if any of my posts have upset anyone that was not my intention. I just wanted to show that there are 2 sides to every story but I now feel that I can no longer discuss this calmly. Lockdown is killing people. People I care about. I won’t be posting on this thread again. I will stick to gardening threads. Take care
It's not about being worried is it? I'm not that worried either. Whether you or I worry or not the effect of the virus is the same and it's about people dying. I totally see that lockdown has and will have an adverse effect on some people, the financial impact will be huge and potentially people with other illnesses suffer. But the infection rate of the virus, if left unchecked was stupidly high. You saw the rates doubling every 3 days - think about that - 1,2,4,8,16,32, 64,128,256,512,1024,2048,4096,8192,16384.... do you see what the numbers would be? - 365/3 = 120 give or take - that's 120 doublings in a year.. My dad used to ask us kids if we'd like to have £x or ther result of putting a halfpenny on the first square of a chess board, a penny on the next...doubling each square and have the money on the 64th square - we all opted for what appeared to be the large £x amount. Silly idiots eh?
So left unchecked the virus (assuming all the Gov science base is correct) would have killed hundreds of thousands and they would have been digging mass graves all over the country. Simply because they have done the job they have - you see minimalistic effects of the virus - so you think it's nothing to worry about - so think why are we bothering with lockdown. But lockdown is the reason the effects are minimalistic. And think on that minimalistic is still, at the moment, 30,000+ deaths. That's 30,000, a medium football ground of people who don't exist anymore. That's NOT minimalistic to the people who loved those 30,000 - who were the mothers, fathers, sons and daughters. They knew them - you didn't - but does your not knowing them matter?
I am sorry if any of my posts have upset anyone that was not my intention. I just wanted to show that there are 2 sides to every story but I now feel that I can no longer discuss this calmly. Lockdown is killing people. People I care about. I won’t be posting on this thread again. I will stick to gardening threads. Take care
Sorry to hear of the impacts lockdown has had on you personally.
I know feelings are running high on all sides of the argument, with good reason.
I guess I just wanted to say though that I don't think the differences are necessarily as big as you think and to most people you don't need to show them the other side of the story. I think most people on here agree that lockdown has terrible effects. Both now, in terms of mental health, people not getting help, domestic violence, etc, and in the future (long term damage to the economy, to relationships, to living standards and so on.). Saying that the consequences of the alternative (no or more limited restrictions) are worse does nothing at all to diminish yours or others suffering from the lockdown.
I think all that upsets people is the suggestion that people are overreacting, or that just because you haven't been personally impacted in the same way you have by lockdown other people's concerns are illegitimate.
Ultimately we're all on the same side here and should look out for each other, whether that means making the sacrifice of staying at home to protect others we don't know, or by looking out for those who are suffering through the lockdown. There's not an argument to be won here just a need for empathy and understanding on all sides.
Posts
People who want to live a normal life, go out in groups, party etc are then putting others at risk and that is not fair.
When you don't even know who's in the team
S.Yorkshire/Derbyshire border
I'd like to think if as many as that died in car accidents over a short period your 'common sense' would make you think twice about how, where and how often you got in a car.
People have calmly responded that they agree and understand the damage lockdown is doing, but have laid out the arguments for why it is still better than the alternative. The accusations in this post are below the belt; don't make them and then be surprised or object when people accuse you of being selfish.
There are legitimate discussions to be had around how we weigh up the risks of lockdown vs any alternative
But to have those we have to recognise (a) that there are risks, whether we've seen the consequences ourselves personally or not, and (b) the nature of the disease means that our decisions and actions will directly impact others.
I know feelings are running high on all sides of the argument, with good reason.
I guess I just wanted to say though that I don't think the differences are necessarily as big as you think and to most people you don't need to show them the other side of the story. I think most people on here agree that lockdown has terrible effects. Both now, in terms of mental health, people not getting help, domestic violence, etc, and in the future (long term damage to the economy, to relationships, to living standards and so on.). Saying that the consequences of the alternative (no or more limited restrictions) are worse does nothing at all to diminish yours or others suffering from the lockdown.
I think all that upsets people is the suggestion that people are overreacting, or that just because you haven't been personally impacted in the same way you have by lockdown other people's concerns are illegitimate.
Ultimately we're all on the same side here and should look out for each other, whether that means making the sacrifice of staying at home to protect others we don't know, or by looking out for those who are suffering through the lockdown. There's not an argument to be won here just a need for empathy and understanding on all sides.