Explain how lockdowns eradicate the virus?

EllenVannin There were no lockdowns in 1346 or 1918, to name but two dates of pandemics. What does that have to do with whether we have a lockdown in 2020?

I don’t know about Mexico and alcohol, however (2012) everyday in Alice Springs, the only place you could buy alcohol was in the bottle shop where, you had to show your ID and wait, while the shop got the verification from the police, that they were allowed to sell you your order. Moreover, if you didn’t drink all the wine you had ordered with your meal in the resturant, hard luck you couldn’t leave with it. Think you could make your own, using a base from petrol (don’t fancy that personally ) that was also controlled, passports had to shown at the garage.

Life is so very different today, with people jumping on a plane and flying off to places all over the world, so infections can spread very rapidly. People also move around in their cars all the time, whereas years ago, people didn’t fly unless they were rich, and didn’t even travel around the country very much except for their annual holiday at the seaside. I think that’s why Coronavirus has spread so rapidly and continues to transmit so much. A complete lockdown slows the spread, but doesn’t eliminate it.

Growstuff, my view is that nationwide lockdown will destroy our economy. Local lockdown will slow the virus in areas where infection is high. If we are going to subsidise business in lockdown areas we need other areas to keep business running in order to pay taxes to support the locked down.
Personally I am sick to death of the politicking, we need to act as a nation to protect each other. This means every single person taking responsibility - hygiene, distance and face covering. It’s not rocket science.

LauraNorder

*Growstuff*, my view is that nationwide lockdown will destroy our economy. Local lockdown will slow the virus in areas where infection is high. If we are going to subsidise business in lockdown areas we need other areas to keep business running in order to pay taxes to support the locked down.
Personally I am sick to death of the politicking, we need to act as a nation to protect each other. This means every single person taking responsibility - hygiene, distance and face covering. It’s not rocket science.

By that logic, local lockdown will destroy Greater Manchester's local economy, but it seems you don't care about the lives of many millions of people.

No, you need to understand economics. The government can just get the Bank of England to "print" the money to support Greater Manchester, as it has done with the £13 billion for the ineffective Trace and Test. People will spend the money, be taxed on it and it will return to the Treasury.

You contradict yourself in your penultimate sentence. We do indeed need to act as a nation to protect each other, which is why Greater Manchester needs to be supported. 9 of the 27 council leaders in Manchester are Conservative and they are all backing Burnham.

mokryna

I don’t know about Mexico and alcohol, however (2012) everyday in Alice Springs, the only place you could buy alcohol was in the bottle shop where, you had to show your ID and wait, while the shop got the verification from the police, that they were allowed to sell you your order. Moreover, if you didn’t drink all the wine you had ordered with your meal in the resturant, hard luck you couldn’t leave with it. Think you could make your own, using a base from petrol (don’t fancy that personally ) that was also controlled, passports had to shown at the garage.

South Africa introduced an alcohol ban at the start of the pandemic. Alcohol was still available on the black market, but cost more. It was also produced illegally and has led to crime and deaths from people drinking the bootleg alcohol.

If everyone just did everything they could personally to prevent the virus from spreading we wouldn’t have to have imposed lockdowns etc. I’m just horrified ( but not surprised) how selfish many people are. It’s as if the human race has some kind of collective death wish.

There are people who genuinely believe that the whole thing is a hoax by some global conspirators to control the plebs.

There are others who think that Covid-19 isn't that bad and is no different from flu.

There are those who have swallowed the story that the damage caused by restrictions is worse than the virus itself (there are plenty of those!)

There are those who still believe "herd immunity" is possible and that the majority should get on with their lives as normal. That's nonsense because 20-30% of the population is at high risk and it's impossible to identify them all, never mind shield them all.

There are those who think they're "different" and should be allowed to break the rules, eg. by hugging their grandchildren.

There are those who would find it very difficult to self-isolate for genuine financial reasons.

There are some don't seem to understand the ever-changing rules.

There are those with libertarian beliefs, who despise the government and won't do as they're told.

There are those who are just selfish idiots - and always will be.

And so it goes on ...

Some people have more genuine reasons than others for not following the rules. The government needs to factor in all those kind of people, which is why it enlisted behavioural psychologists on to SAGE.

As with any large collective of people, there will always be those who don't follow the rules, so enforcement is needed. That's a fact of life, as anybody (such as a teacher or manager) will tell you.

It seems to me that the government is able to come up with rules to make itself look as though it's doing something, but doesn't think through what the effects of the rules will be or how to enforce them.

Johnson seems to think that everybody would be motivated by his clownish addresses, but the opposite is true. People have lost trust and know that they have to look after themselves. That's the very opposite of the collective approach which is so desperately needed.

Growstuff I feel that you and I agree on much more than we disagree about but I have to say that I don’t engage with you often as your posts are so long, so many quotes from so many posters and your tone is always that of an expert. For example your post addressing me “No, you need to understand economics”. I do have an understanding of economics which clearly differs from yours but I wouldn’t dream of treating you with such disrespect as to start my argument with “No you need to understand.....”.
I have given my view and anyone is free to oppose but please let’s show some respect for each other.

Growstuff I will not be accused of not caring about the lives of millions just because my views differ from yours.

LauraNorder

Growstuff I will not be accused of not caring about the lives of millions just because my views differ from yours.

So why do you think that the millions of people in Greater Manchester should suffer all the consequences of lockdown?

Burnham thinks (and I agree with him) that restrictions are needed, but he also recognises the damage to people's lives and wants financial support to help mitigate the damage.

PS. I don't pretend to be an expert, but when people come up with stuff like "other people would have to pay taxes" it's a natural assumption that you don't know how the economy works.

I don't think the new measures will damp down the infection rate as they don'r go far enough.

We should have had a full lockdown for a few weeks. A stitch in time saves nine.

A large proportion of (selfish idiotic) people just won't comply with the rules. Our government is too weak - just trying to please everybody.

Assume all you like. I beg to differ. As previously said I have stated my view and you are free to disagree without telling me that “I need to understand”, a little respect does no harm.

Sorry Hetty last post was for Growstuff.

I heard someone on the media (not sure who or which party they were allied to) say "This government is trying to prevent death." Hmmm ... is that even possible, or desirable?

The only way the CV19 virus can move about to infect people is through infected people carrying it from place to place and being in close proximity to others for a prolonged period.

The aim of lockdowns is to reduce the number of, and speed of, infections. If it is allowed a free hand then so many may become ill simultaneously that we might not be able to function as a society. Insufficient people fit to keep the basic infrastructure going.

I do wish people would stop calling other people idiots. And accuse them of selfish idiotic behaviour. Where do they get this idea that they are entitled to proclaim from the rooftops that THEY ARE BETTER THAN OTHER PEOPLE. It makes me despair and it will tear society apart. We are living in a totalitarian state where the idea of death is taboo.

M0nica, there was no lockdown in 1957/8 ! I didn't mention those dates that you put.

There's no need for lockdowns now !

What about the stupid 10pm bar closures ? Who comes up with these ideas that a lockdown is going to solve anything ?
It's going to create more spread by people pouring into each others houses finishing their drinking sessions and ignoring any spaces.

Yet you can visit a pub for a " large meal ?" and drink yourself into a stupor , closely greeting everyone as they enter {shock]
Gyms full of sweat and spit ? Oh joy !

Where are the wardens, who were going to police peoples actions?
None of the rules are being enforced.

LauraNorder

Assume all you like. I beg to differ. As previously said I have stated my view and you are free to disagree without telling me that “I need to understand”, a little respect does no harm.

Respect has to be earned.

MissAdventure

Where are the wardens, who were going to police peoples actions?
None of the rules are being enforced.

Good question! Where are they?

You could retrain as a Covid warden!

(You just don't know it yet!)