Covid 19 - how long will the public tolerate a lockdown?

Gamer 69

Old-Salt
With respective knob-heads still going around doing their own thing, an increasingly emasculated Matt Hancock has suggested he could order a complete lockdown.

Regardless of my comments below, I do think Johnson is doing a reasonable job. Hancock, in my opinion is trying to go down more of a prescriptive manner and risks being seen as a dictator, without having the conciliatory tone to balance this against the loss of human rights such as lack of freedom of movement.

I am aware that emergency legislation allows suppression of human rights. However if the public ratify this, that is a different matter entirely.

There's a few issues why this is a bad idea:

1) Those with medical ailments, need to exercise in order to remain healthy.

2) It will be seen as a punitive measure. There are 2 sub-groups. One group complying with government advice and the other group not complying. It's reasonable to assume that the latter group will still not comply, with Hancock just further trying to assert authority on a group already complying with the measures. Unless Hancock has misread the amount of police and army figures he has to enforce a a lock-down. Pretty much every psychological study has shown that punishment ends up escalating matters. In can work in very short term occasions, but mid term leads to greater delinquency, aggression and antisocial behaviour.

3) It doesn't help that Hancock, Kinnock, Boris and the Scottish CMO all are in the non-complying group. Boris and Hancock going around shaking everyone's hands, then contracting coronavirus, the Scottish CMO ignoring the advice herself, doesn't really show a good example of following the advice given.

4) The Government threatening the public, rarely tends to end well for the Government. Look at Brexit, where Cameron and Obama tried to threaten the public, or when Cameron doubled down on austerity (resulting in riots in the capital). At the moment the majority of the public are complying with the Government. Once the relationship between public and the state is eroded, pretty bad sh!t is going to go down.

Johnson and Sunak seem very switched on, reducing financial pressures on the population allowing cash to flow, protection for mortgages etc. Maybe it's me, but Hancock seems to be a more naive individual. Maybe it's an intellectual limitation, I don't know. The fact that a blind eye is being cast on the transgressions mentioned, doesn't help public confidence. Equitable actions are needed to be seen.

Which brings me to the main point. I can't see a lockdown lasting up until September, Regardless of the scientific evidence, or instruction from the Government, the public just won't tolerate it.

How long do you think it will last? Thoughts?
 
Last edited:
With respective knob-heads still going around doing their own thing, an increasingly emasculated Matt Hancock has suggested he could order a complete lockdown.

Regardless of my comments below, I do think Johnson is doing a reasonable job. Hancock, in my opinion is trying to go down more of a prescriptive manner and risks being seen as a dictator, without having the conciliatory tone to balance this against the loss of human rights such as lack of freedom of movement.

I am aware that emergency legislation allows suppression of human rights. However if the public ratify this, that is a different matter entirely.

There's a few issues why this is a bad idea:

1) Those with medical ailments, need to exercise in order to remain healthy.

2) It will be seen as a punitive measure. There are 2 sub-groups. One group complying with government advice and the other group not complying. It's reasonable to assume that the latter group will still not comply, with Hancock just further trying to assert authority on a group already complying with the measures. Unless Hancock has misread the amount of police and army figures he has to enforce a a lock-down. Pretty much every psychological study has shown that punishment ends up escalating matters. In can work in very short term occasions, but mid term leads to greater delinquency, aggression and antisocial behaviour.

3) It doesn't help that Hancock, Kinnock, Boris and the Scottish CMO all are in the non-complying group. Boris and Hancock going around shaking everyone's hands, then contracting coronavirus, the Scottish CMO ignoring the advice herself, doesn't really show a good example of following the advice given.

4) The Government threatening the public, rarely tends to end well for the Government. Look at Brexit, where Cameron and Obama tried to threaten the public, or when Cameron doubled down on austerity (resulting in riots in the capital). At the moment the majority of the public are complying with the Government. Once the relationship between public and the state is eroded, pretty bad sh!t is going to go down.

Johnson and Sunak seem very switched on, reducing financial pressures on the population allowing cash to flow, protection for mortgages etc. Maybe it's me, but Hancock seems to be a more naive individual. Maybe it's an intellectual limitation, I don't know. The fact that a blind eye is being cast on the transgressions mentioned, doesn't help public confidence. Equitable actions is needed to be seen.

Which brings me to the main point. I can't see a lockdown lasting up until September, Regardless of the scientific evidence, or instruction from the Government, the public just won't tolerate it.

How long do you think it will last? Thoughts?
Well if you are the CMO Scotland, not long at all!
 

StBob072

LE
Book Reviewer
With respective knob-heads still going around doing their own thing, an increasingly emasculated Matt Hancock has suggested he could order a complete lockdown.

Regardless of my comments below, I do think Johnson is doing a reasonable job. Hancock, in my opinion is trying to go down more of a prescriptive manner and risks being seen as a dictator, without having the conciliatory tone to balance this against the loss of human rights such as lack of freedom of movement.

I am aware that emergency legislation allows suppression of human rights. However if the public ratify this, that is a different matter entirely.

There's a few issues why this is a bad idea:

1) Those with medical ailments, need to exercise in order to remain healthy.

2) It will be seen as a punitive measure. There are 2 sub-groups. One group complying with government advice and the other group not complying. It's reasonable to assume that the latter group will still not comply, with Hancock just further trying to assert authority on a group already complying with the measures. Unless Hancock has misread the amount of police and army figures he has to enforce a a lock-down. Pretty much every psychological study has shown that punishment ends up escalating matters. In can work in very short term occasions, but mid term leads to greater delinquency, aggression and antisocial behaviour.

3) It doesn't help that Hancock, Kinnock, Boris and the Scottish CMO all are in the non-complying group. Boris and Hancock going around shaking everyone's hands, then contracting coronavirus, the Scottish CMO ignoring the advice herself, doesn't really show a good example of following the advice given.

4) The Government threatening the public, rarely tends to end well for the Government. Look at Brexit, where Cameron and Obama tried to threaten the public, or when Cameron doubled down on austerity (resulting in riots in the capital). At the moment the majority of the public are complying with the Government. Once the relationship between public and the state is eroded, pretty bad sh!t is going to go down.

Johnson and Sunak seem very switched on, reducing financial pressures on the population allowing cash to flow, protection for mortgages etc. Maybe it's me, but Hancock seems to be a more naive individual. Maybe it's an intellectual limitation, I don't know. The fact that a blind eye is being cast on the transgressions mentioned, doesn't help public confidence. Equitable actions are needed to be seen.

Which brings me to the main point. I can't see a lockdown lasting up until September, Regardless of the scientific evidence, or instruction from the Government, the public just won't tolerate it.

How long do you think it will last? Thoughts?
There's a specific forum for this tedious and unproductive speculation.
 
The head of the national police chiefs council declared last week that they favoured a softy softly approach with regard to the current lockdown. Ramping up the restrictions will be difficult if not impossible with the numbers of police we have, the military would have to assist to enforce a full lockdown and I don’t think anyone in government really wants that for several reasons.
Personally i think there’ll come a point soon where the economic damage may well begin to be the deciding factor and I think the government will be looking to lift restrictions, not increase them.
 
The head of the national police chiefs council declared last week that they favoured a softy softly approach with regard to the current lockdown. Ramping up the restrictions will be difficult if not impossible with the numbers of police we have, the military would have to assist to enforce a full lockdown and I don’t think anyone in government really wants that for several reasons.
Personally i think there’ll come a point soon where the economic damage may well begin to be the deciding factor and I think the government will be looking to lift restrictions, not increase them.
be natural selection at its finest, i walk the mutt once a day do i speak to anyone no, smile and a nod from far away as possible, would i go down the pub or q in maccys or go footy if things lifted on the 13th no alas whats missing is comman sence and a bit of self disiclipine
 

StBob072

LE
Book Reviewer
bubbles.jpg
 

Gamer 69

Old-Salt
There are various government and non governmental agencies that have given up chasing me for the time being, I'm loving it.
An ex colleague of mine was whinging that with all the appreciation of the army, NHS,retail workers etc, no one was giving any thanks to the civil service.

I asked what department he was in, he PM'd me with the CSA or whatever the fcuk they call themselves nowadays. Apparently they have all been told to get in to work, but can do social distancing because everyone is throwing sickies.
 
There are various government and non governmental agencies that have given up chasing me for the time being, I'm loving it.
Personally I find it amazing the places I can now walk into wearing a mask and gloves with no one batting an eyelid..........just got to build up to taking in a shotgun and asking to make an unsigned for withdrawl.
 
One big problem is when (if) widespread testing takes place and there's a bunch of people that have had it and then believe they can swan about carefree.

They can still be carriers, so they still present a problem to others if not themselves.

This, however, is unlikely to get through to some of them and I wouldn't be surprised if there is some civil disorder when the clash with the Police.

Initially, I was for the grown up approach of advising the best course of action - didn't work so we went down the full lock-down route but without any real jeopardy if still being a moron. Now we should enact level three. if you can't act like an adult still, pay the price - convert an Exhibition Centre into a makeshift prison and chuck them all in there for a night or two. That would focus a few minds.

Need to make it clear to everyone that the rules WILL be followed.

Then we just have to hope that the powers that be take the right course of action.
 

Gout Man

LE
Book Reviewer
I thought the thread title read..How long will the public toilet be locked down?

I for one don’t care, I won’t be using one of those for a very very long time thank you.
 

socialdespatch

War Hero
An ex colleague of mine was whinging that with all the appreciation of the army, NHS,retail workers etc, no one was giving any thanks to the civil service.

I asked what department he was in, he PM'd me with the CSA or whatever the fcuk they call themselves nowadays. Apparently they have all been told to get in to work, but can do social distancing because everyone is throwing sickies.
Karma.
 
With respective knob-heads still going around doing their own thing, an increasingly emasculated Matt Hancock has suggested he could order a complete lockdown.

Regardless of my comments below, I do think Johnson is doing a reasonable job. Hancock, in my opinion is trying to go down more of a prescriptive manner and risks being seen as a dictator, without having the conciliatory tone to balance this against the loss of human rights such as lack of freedom of movement.

I am aware that emergency legislation allows suppression of human rights. However if the public ratify this, that is a different matter entirely.

There's a few issues why this is a bad idea:

1) Those with medical ailments, need to exercise in order to remain healthy.

2) It will be seen as a punitive measure. There are 2 sub-groups. One group complying with government advice and the other group not complying. It's reasonable to assume that the latter group will still not comply, with Hancock just further trying to assert authority on a group already complying with the measures. Unless Hancock has misread the amount of police and army figures he has to enforce a a lock-down. Pretty much every psychological study has shown that punishment ends up escalating matters. In can work in very short term occasions, but mid term leads to greater delinquency, aggression and antisocial behaviour.

3) It doesn't help that Hancock, Kinnock, Boris and the Scottish CMO all are in the non-complying group. Boris and Hancock going around shaking everyone's hands, then contracting coronavirus, the Scottish CMO ignoring the advice herself, doesn't really show a good example of following the advice given.

4) The Government threatening the public, rarely tends to end well for the Government. Look at Brexit, where Cameron and Obama tried to threaten the public, or when Cameron doubled down on austerity (resulting in riots in the capital). At the moment the majority of the public are complying with the Government. Once the relationship between public and the state is eroded, pretty bad sh!t is going to go down.

Johnson and Sunak seem very switched on, reducing financial pressures on the population allowing cash to flow, protection for mortgages etc. Maybe it's me, but Hancock seems to be a more naive individual. Maybe it's an intellectual limitation, I don't know. The fact that a blind eye is being cast on the transgressions mentioned, doesn't help public confidence. Equitable actions are needed to be seen.

Which brings me to the main point. I can't see a lockdown lasting up until September, Regardless of the scientific evidence, or instruction from the Government, the public just won't tolerate it.

How long do you think it will last? Thoughts?
The lockdowns should last no longer than the end of April. Longer, and major unrest is likely.

There should be targeted measures against persistent offenders like the types riding quad bikes is a Welsh beauty spot, and robust sentences handed down by the courts.

Those who choose to assault NHS staff and members of the emergency services should be looking at sentences ranging from 20 years to life.
 
I miss Brexit
Normal service and proliferating Brexit threads will be resumed as soon as possible.

I know many on here have withdrawal symptoms on here (pun itended)
 
The lockdowns should last no longer than the end of April. Longer, and major unrest is likely.

There should be targeted measures against persistent offenders like the types riding quad bikes is a Welsh beauty spot, and robust sentences handed down by the courts.

Those who choose to assault NHS staff and members of the emergency services should be looking at sentences ranging from 20 years to life.
Those who choose to rape or murder NHS staff(or anybody else for that matter) are unlikely to be looking at 20 years to life behind the door, never mind assault.
 
Last edited:
Top