I’m more concerned about the impact on people’s jobs and livelihoods, both short term and long term. Unemployment will soar and I genuinely fear for the long term future of our younger generation. People’s mental health will suffer badly too, not to mention the extra deaths we’ll get from non treatment of cancers etc. Yes I get the virus is serious but the impact on other aspects of our lives is far more serious in the long run I reckon. There’s no easy answer I know....
I'm against it in its current guise - where businesses and employees are shafted with no methods of paying mortgages, rent or bills. The money is there to pay private consultants over 6 grand a day, but it doesn't seem to be here to supplement people on minimum wage.
Selfish people went on holidays abroad during a global pandemic. I think those that are vulnerable need protecting and those that can shield should be supported to shield. I don't agree with lock downs. People should wear masks, sanitise and wash their hands. I don't agree with punishing the wider public because of a lack of common sense.
Well we are in lockdown in Wales. We were the last to come out and first to go back in.I really feel sorry for all businesses but this thing is real, the government are getting a slating with "they don't know what they are doing" but we are governed by labour so you could argue it's one upmanship. This is happening all over the world
Because the lockdowns in the format currently being implemented dont work. The largest drivers of transmission are schools colleges and care homes, followed by Workplaces The smallest ones are none essential shops and pubs and restaurants. to shut down the entire leasure industry for marginal gains putting tens if not hundreds of thousands of people out of work and not funding so there are jobs to return to long term does more harm than good A proper national lockdown like the one we had in March does slow down transmission and if properly funded buys time to properly address issues like testing and tracing - which are still broken has arguments in its favour, or even tiered lockdowns if they focused on the main causes of transmission could be argued but these are just not sensible
This is essentially it for me, as an idea the lockdown is a good way to go about things temporarily as it's proven to get the virus levels down and help out the NHS when it starts to become overwhelmed. In reality though these lockdowns need a proper financial support system for the people, businesses and overall sectors like the hospitality sector that will get impacted the most, and as it's currently being displayed - this simply isn't the case. Many people are going to suffer because of this and it's not even hard to find a solution to this, just offer the adequate financial support itll take to see these businesses through the pandemic. Also another concern for me is what's the actual plan when we leave the lockdown with no vaccine in sight? It feels like we're just kicking the can a mile down the road and thinking "yeah we'll deal with it when we get there" We enter lockdown = virus levels go down, we leave lockdown = virus levels go up. So whats the overall plan here apart from hope and pray we drop on a vaccine?
We'll continue to have this virus until the selfish people recognise that there is a problem. Tier 2/Tier 3/Full Lockdown whatever protocol we are under will have no effect as the selfish will just carry on regardless.
I think we should have had testing for people holidaying in this country too. Routine would kill the transmission. A lot of people have contracted the virus due to subtle breaks in their routine like going on holiday. If you have had a week in Skegness you should be tested when you return back to your area or back to work. I think testing is and was the key. Had we spent the money mass testing like China we would be better off.
I am in favour of lockdowns, and have been arguing for them since about February - but also proper quarantine on entrants to the country *from anywhere*. For me, public health is the first and foremost priority and lockdowns achieve two main things - they reduce the incidence of Covid in the community, and they delay deaths among those that haven't been infected. While no vaccine is available, different treatment options are available that offer a better prognosis *now* than in March and it is nearer to the potential development of a vaccine. It should also help to get Track/Trace & Testing running to the required capacity. We are bragging about 300000 tests per day, when China tested 3 million people in one city in 48 hours last week (and planned to test the other 6 million). However, I have also been arguing that it needs proper funding and support for business and people that are affected. There shouldn't be an argument about this - if someone is asked/told not to work because their industry is seen as a risk, then they should be given the money to live and not worry about their rent/mortgage and paying the bills. It doesn't matter whether they are self-employed, employed or unemployed, people need the financial support. It also needed more investment in mental health support and other initiatives to help those struggling through these dark times. We are going to be in this for the long-haul (likely 2-3 years) - so the government should have been honest from the start. IMHO it is far better to tell people that it might last a few years (and it doesn't) than it is to tell people that it will last a few months (and it doesn't). People are showing the signs of mental fatigue.
With respect Stephen. People went on holiday based on government guidelines at the time. If they’d have stopped all holiday flights in and out of the country. That would have helped those who booked hols. Prior to Covid. Cancel and not lose in some cases £000’s. As flights and destinations were open. They took the chance to take that holiday. As no options were given. Anyone who booked holidays after Covid knew the risk they were taking.
Also, I would have preferred a system of local lockdowns based on virus prevalence in the region, with surrounding areas affected by the rating of an area (so the authorities surrounding a Tier 3 authority are automatically Tier 2), with the highest level including closing schools, universities and non-essential shops.
Scoff, I disagree with pretty much everything you've posted in the last 9 months but you do put your points very well. Can I ask you a question - why do you think this will be over in 2-3 years? What's the event that you think will allow us all, for example, to get back to Oakwell?
I think like back in March the vulnerable and high risk should be told to shield and given as much help as they need. Care homes are causing some of the highest infections so they clearly aren't being shielded good enough. Shifting places to a worst tier with apparently no information given as to how to get back out of said tier isn't good enough. Having a national lockdown wouldn't be fair on places that are doing far better than others. The restrictions to the tiers are horrible when you cannot meet someone from another household indoors even for a one to one chat yet can get on public transport or in a shop with dozens of other households at a far higher risk. Tier 3 won't make much of a difference as it's not that different to tier 2 as the highest infection places like education aren't being shut. A proper 'circuit break' would be shutting everywhere but healthcare for a month. No shops open all month including supermarkets so get stocked up for 4 weeks. Warehouses shut, education all shut. Then a month later you should see your location back to tier 1 and the cash spent to do that (fully locked down) would be made back far quicker for the economy than dragging out tier 2 or 3 for months on end.
I agree I think the government should have bailed out affected industries saving lives and in turn money.
