Apparently this time around, travel agents and jewellery sellers have added themselves to the list, with a few barbers clearly operating illicitly behind half-drawn shutters.
I was bemused by the very chi-chi local middle class deli near my home insisting they'd be staying open when I enquired on Saturday evening. I mean, sure they sell food, but really - I'm unsure how vital to survival artisanal cheese and pasta is!
Bluntly, without the sincere threat of fines or whatever, no action will be taken. UK-dwellers' sense of entitlement to 'freedoms' seems drastically diluted compared to what I witnessed on the continent a few months back, when I was able.
We deserve everything we get.
- ed, whups - clearly I meant something like 'drastically inflated', not 'diluted'.
Let's not repeat the mistakes of the first lockdown. If you close down too many places, all that causes is everyone cramming into the same few places still open, causing superspreader events. At one point, LA shut down outdoor farmers markets and many cities including London slashed their public transit schedules, leading to overpacked busses and trains.
On the last point, there was almost always some psycho causing problems in the regular supermarket because it appealed to their sense of drama and got them attention. The extra %15-20 was worth avoiding the risk of an altercation.
The contempt some people have for local shopowners who provide services that are actually worth a premium is shocking, albeit typically british.
I'm not sure I do think it's a British thing to hate on local shopowners, if anything - the opposite, what with us being a nation of them, and all.
Sure major Supermarkets have captured most of the spend, but that's just the way things are. Convenience comes in different forms.
Equating people experiencing depression with those who have violent delusions and borderline tendencies creates a worse stigma on seeking treatment than recognizing that dangerous people are just plain dangerous. Sure, we're all people etc, but in an emergency, there are men and women you can trust, and there are ones you can't. A psycho is someone who threatens or harms others for gratification, and it is an epithet they earn. If that's "prejudiced," perhaps we're just from different cultures.
The stakes change when there was a reasonable threat that their actions could put people and their families at risk.
Obviously the etymology of the term comes from psychological illness via a certain famous Hitchhock movie, and that's one reason why the term du jour these days is "Karen" instead.
The health of the population, in general, is not the primary concern. We just need to stop the hospitals from collapsing.
We live with all manner of sickness and disease every day of the year without trying to eradicate them. Covid is only different from heart disease, lung cancer, and rabies in that it has the potential to swamp us.
Adjusting the throttle for spread might mean jewelry shops being open but sandwich shops being closed. It might just as well involve lockdown for anyone born in an odd month, or with a name ending in a vowel, or ginger hair. The measures are arbitrary and only used as a throttle for the inevitable spread.
This is how I sleep at night. The alternative is the worrying thought that no one in power really knows what they are doing.
* keeping schools open (mostly a success)
* avoiding economic disruption (mixed, tending towards failure)
* avoiding unnecessary deaths and long run health issues (failure)
* Avoiding a second lockdown and the related uncertainty and stress (failure)
* returning to normal life (failure)
* avoiding dangerous mutations (failure)
The UK is an island and could have fairly easily done a NZ/Australia strategy over the summer when seasonality made elimination easy. Jurisdictions that made that choice are doing better on all front.
I live in one such jurisdiction (atlantic canada) and we’ve spent less time in lockdown, had a good economy, and mostly avoided deaths and hospitalizations. Seems a clear winner.
Perhaps a country in the middle of europe couldn’t have done it but the Uk certainly could have.
And no, this pretty clearly shows govts had no long run or even medium run strategy. Europe will be in rolling lockdowns till april or so, because of a premature declaration of victory in the summer.
So once you exclude ireland, you have the channel tunnel, and a handful of ferries to france/belgium. All of which arrive at terminals and where you can do tests or register people for isolation requirements.
Australia and nz aren’t the only successes. You also have taiwan and vietnam. Very close to china, and vietnam has land borders. The biggest difference is these countries tried.
The lockdown in New Zealand had that goal to stop it completely, and achieved it.
Also, it is in general not impossible to eradicate a contagion and suppress it completely. For example, this was done with smallpox, which is about as transmissible SARS-COV2. Smallpox has been eradicated world-wide, for a quite modest price.
Seriously?
We (the West, I'm not from the UK) are losing our freedom at an unimaginable speed even a few years ago and you think freedom is negotiable? I find this appalling how easy we ease into a dictatorship everywhere in Europe.
ALL our freedoms are attacked: the social media censorship reached crazy levels lately, and let's not talk about democracy given the disgusting spectacle the US has shown this year (my country doesn't fare any better).
When someone is condemned to financial ruin because her shop is not allowed to open, this is not a matter of self entitlement, yes I think these are the beginnings of dictatorship.
As I said I'm not from the UK but as far as I know people in London had more freedom during the WWII aerial bombings.
Prior to the internet you could for the most part visually distinguish between the crazy and the legitimate - the crazy was in crayon on cardboard scraps, full of misspellings. The higher quality crazy was type written on a misaligned sheet of paper, thick with whiteout, still full of misspellings. The legit was professionally edited and published. Not 100% of the time, but a good fraction of the time.
Now we have spell checkers and grammar checkers and blog services like medium that make everything look really really good. That visual heuristic is gone. We need a way to invert our current equilibrium of "it is easy to get bad information out, and hard to get good information out" at least back to how it was: "it is hard to get good information out, but it is even harder to get really bad information out." That isn't censorship.
As for democracy in the US, as a US citizen I can tell you it is on the ropes, mostly due to social media, but it is better off today than it was four years ago just because people are at least starting to think about how to get social media under control.
Every freedom my parents, grandparents, and great grandparents had I have, and more. I'm hard pressed to identify a single one that is under attack.
And you should really familiarize yourself with the actual government response in the UK and US during World War II. The censorship regime was extensive, far more so than anything we've seen in recent memory:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_Censorship
Furthermore, rationing of food, fuel, and other commodities was extensive. In the UK, this included substantial control of the operating hours, prices, and even the menus of restaurants.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationing_in_the_United_Kingdo...
On the other hand, people are actually dying of Covid. Given the choice I'd take financial ruin over death.
There are massive costs associated with lockdowns, most of which we can probably only judge accurately once everything is over, and certainly there are second order effects which cost lives also. Such as suicides due to depression amplified by social isolation.
Those costs should be factored in. It's not as simple as a blanket "people are dying so everything is justified".
Perhaps you'd give up your life, or your child or partner or parent, to save a handful of jobs but that's quite weird in my opinion. Economies can be rebuilt. Dead people can't be brought back.
The flu also kills hundreds of thousands of people, and it does so each and every year. So should we be in permanent lockdown? After all, it's lives versus a handful of jobs.
Truth is we're not taking much time to measure the non-covid, non economic outcomes
That seems to be the most humane option. Make it illegal to evict people, provide them with a reasonable base income that allows them to lead a dignified life through the lockdown, and then shut everything down for a little while.
Suggesting that the lockdown is synonymous with loss of livelihood is exactly the problem here. Surely the same elected officials that have the power to close everything down also have the power to authorize emergency payments to those impacted by the lockdown.
Well, that's will just establish a beachhead for socialism, and that is reserved for big business.
I tend to communicate quite drily - that's often hard to put across online.
It drives me nuts when people talk about freedom, they have no actual idea what freedom is or takes and their actions undermine it. Freedom doesn't mean "I can do whatever I like with no consequences", but that's what people really want.
Freedom is just a better sounding word than selfishness these days :(
<Steps-down-from-soapbox>
Depends on your definition of freedom. The issue with this kind of freedom is that your freedom encroaches on other people's freedoms, so most societies agreed that we should have less freedom in favor of fairness.
Exactly where the trade-off is to be made is subjective and cannot be derived from facts alone.
We have a lot of freedoms that encroach on other people's freedoms, it's impossibly to make a clear cut on where fair ends and personal freedom begins.
Allowing people the freedom to sell sugar will inevitably lead to more diabetes and earlier death. It tastes good and it's addictive.
Sugar costs a lot of people some of their freedom to live and move. But if we didn't allow selling sugar we would take away the seller's freedom and the freedom to choose from the consumer.
I’m sure there are still better comparisons than drunk driving. If you are under 55, the risk is about the same as dying from a car accident.
In 1000 little steps you are suddenly miles away from a real lockdown. You're basically BAU, but the pub is shut ever other week (unless you buy a scotch egg in which case it is also essential).
I don't care if people are eating gourmet olives. But we need to realise that making excuses for doing nothing is still doing nothing.
Lockdowns have gone on long enough that people are deciding to risk it because they have far more pressing concerns.
I suppose we could close all food shops other than Asda, and restrict Asda to selling only their most basic range (and no sweets, chocolate, fizzy drinks, etc- after all, you can survive without those). On the other hand, that would mean that Asda would be more crowded as people who normally shop in your "chi-chi local middle class deli" now have to go there.
It's felt like this with all of the tiers to be honest.
They just don't go far enough and the populace is fed up with taking much heed of the rules too.
The November "lockdown" felt very, very different to March when the roads etc were quiet - and it actually felt like people were taking this seriously.
I'm fed up because so many people flout the rules with no consequences. I suspect that the lack of consequences is intentional. If everyone flours the rules, the economic hit will be smaller and Bojo can claim he did something and its not his fault no one listened. The government have created a situation where the only logical action for normal people is business as usual, that means large excess deaths, and the government has plausible deniability. Whoops.
/RantAndParanoia
Been that way since Barnard's Castle.
The latest decision that says MPs can see their siblings for Christmas Dinner on the 25th, but a Nurse working on the 25th can't see their parent with terminal cancer for dinner on the 26th, will hopefully be ignored.
I can't believe it hasn't made headlines yet...
Only assuming that there's no economic hit to a rampant pandemic spreading death, hospitalisation and illness. Which is a barking mad assumption. It never was "illness vs economy" you either have both good, or you have neither good. They can't be separated.
Depending on long term health effects if covid runs wild you can see as many benefits to average people at the end of it as you did after the black death.
It's not that simple. It's never that simple: i.e. you have simplified to the point of being flat wrong.
> Depending on long term health effects if covid runs wild you can see as many benefits to average people at the end of it as you did after the black death
I don't know what you mean there, for one thing prevalent Long COVID is really not going to be net benefit, for another you should perhaps rethink your economic argument for genocide / decimation. And your assumption about who is "in groups" / "average people" vs out groups. Your whole line of thinking is lacking in both logic and human decency.
And yet that didn't stop you from moralizing.
Sadly the rules are laxer than they should be but the government can’t enforce the rules effectively so are putting in enough grey-area that people can sort of decide for themselves.
Sadly people are very short term focussed and unable to make the most of the situation and instead complain and go about their normal lives with just enough changes that they “feel like they’re doing their bit”.
I love the gym but the move to “keep gyms open” was the best example of people not really getting it and being sad that their toys had been taken away.
The moto in our hose at the moment is “just because you can doesn’t mean you should”
I don't know your situation, but I have lived a very isolated existance for the last 9 months because I am able to. MANY people I know are not in this position.
However, if you look at the graphs the dynamic of virus growth did seem to be significantly changed by the intervention.
The impression that I get from my country (The Netherlands) is that we are doing a bit better than the UK for reasons that nobody quite understands yet. The best I can guess is that we ultimately make 'bigger' choices comparatively, even though compared to many other EU countries we're not doing particularly well despite being one of the richer ones.
The way I see it, our country is run by technocrats who are faced with something very different and new. Like with projects I've worked on as a programmer, the best solution often involved going way off course. And like with projects I've worked on, this usually didn't happen.
Solutions were conservative, even if something more drastic seemed prudent to almost everyone involved. It's really fucking hard to rewrite some of the core code. So instead we address things further away from that core with all sorts of special cases.
If anything, the pandemic has shown that our current way of doing things isn't quite equipped to deal with big upsets, and considering the future this is something we should probably prioritize dealing with somehow.
They've basically just shut restaurants. That's the only change I can see...
I've posted elsewhere that my cynical view of the UK gov approach is that they are talking tough and doing nothing. So maybe I'm biased?
Perhaps a move transmissible strain will force real action?