As you say, it will be interesting to see where all these people who preach about the necessity of doing this to 'Save Lives™' will look once the reality of what they've supported sets in over the years to come as the enquiries start rolling in and everyone in government now starts turning on the very same scientific advisors they are now following with wanton abandon, whilst also proclaiming that they only did what everyone else did as if that justifies their actions. Unfortunately it will be a very hollow victory given that the (possibly irreparable) damage done will by then just be a fact of life which is going to screw everyone whether you supported it or not.cdd wrote: I think it’ll be won in the years to come, when Covid is in the past and the numbers are added up and the deaths are not current, and people realise that lockdowns were not worth the price.
I think that social contract was broken a very long time again.cdd wrote: I therefore believe the position of protecting the NHS is the right one to argue from, because it is eminently achievable in the very near future, and simply asks those who called for lockdowns to stand by their own words and the social contract they got the nation to agree to back in March.
I feel incredibly naïve now, but I fully supported the first lockdown when it was introduced...on the basis that it was for 3 weeks as part of a package of 12 weeks of some of intervention. I genuinely expected that at the first 3 weekly review some (not all) things would be relaxed and that relaxation would continue gradually up to the middle of June when we'd be entirely back to normal. I believed (still believe actually) that was reasonable and proportionate given the risk from the virus vs the damage the lockdown would do.
On day 2 of the lockdown when it was being discussed (on This Morning I think) and I heard the suggestion that it would inevitably be extended, or indeed even tightened (which thankfully never actually happened) that genuinely was not a thought that had even entered my head until then.
And then when at the 3 weekly review (which I think was anticipated to be some great occasion of state by the media) the blasé way in which the extension was just swept away as a point not worth discussing the reality of what I had supported set in; we sleepwalked into something which had no end date and where the downside to the lockdown seemed to be totally irrelevant as long as the aim of beating Covid was achieved. That's not what I thought I was signing up for.
If a 3 week lockdown unlocked over the following 9 weeks wasn't enough (and I thought that we were trying to get some measure of control over an out of control situation, not trying to wait for the emergency to pass before we got our lives back), then we shouldn't have done it given the damage, or at the very least they should have been honest with us about what we were getting into before claiming the almost total public support which I believe they did have last March but may not have done if they were more honest.
What I found incredulous was that this did not spark large scale civil unrest but was just accepted and treated as necessary. Given that when we finally did unlock and got somewhere near normality in July & August I again felt sure that the moves towards reversing the reopening that led us down the very long path to where we are now would surely be met with huge amounts of public resistance...and again there wasn't really any.
So will there be any now once we get past the middle of March and the imposition of restrictions starts being measured in terms of years? Surely that should be the point at which this has gone too far? Again, I doubt it.
I guess I've just used a lot of words to suggest that the government will have no scruples in breaking any social contract that might have existed over a 3 week lockdown last March if the majority will accept an explanation that it must continue. Doesn't help get us out of this mess anyway.