cdd wrote:Meanwhile people will make their own decisions as to rules which have been imposed on them without explicit consent. Polling suggests support for restrictions, but people's behavior suggests otherwise. You talk of people needing to be treated like children but that's not realistic, rules on social mixing are effectively optional.
Although there has been much criticism of the timing of the original lockdown, I actually think it was perfectly in tune with the public mood. There wasn't really any en-masse shift away from normality until a week before the lockdown, then the support packages were announced, pubs were shut and by the Monday it actually happened people had pretty much already locked themselves down anyway. Then at the other end of it when we got to May just as the masses had reached the point of 'OK this has gone on long enough' (even if I thought that in April) then at almost exactly the same time the restrictions started to be eased, and done in such a way that they were able to take two months doing it without any real fuss at the pace. Whilst probably more luck than judgement, the UK govt managed to pull off a lockdown in a country which had not seen such restrictions for hundreds of years without the sort of mass civil unrest I feared would happen and I believe would have happened had they pursued an earlier and/or longer lasting lockdown.
The trouble is this time there is no sense of people restricting their activities until they are required to. That hasn't translated into mass protests or a lack of compliance once restrictions come into force, but it does show a lack of belief in them being necessary and an unwillingness to do them. Certainly no signs of 'sending ourselves into lockdown' like we did in March.
I know people on the side of restrictions will instantly come back with 'so that's why we need tighter restrictions'. But given how much of our normal system of government is able to be bypassed at present, proceeding without clear consent is very dangerous territory to be getting into.
And if (as I fear is already happening to some extent) the upper levels of democratic governments simply no longer care what the people (or the elected representatives) think because they've had a taste of ruling by decree and are quite happy to carry on doing so, that is frankly terrifying.
all new Phil wrote:
You’re absolutely right about COVID though, it’s not a black and white situation where one method works and the other doesn’t, every option has its rather significant downsides and the problem with this country right now is that people are so adamant one way or the other and anyone who disagrees clearly wants people to die etc etc. It’s all rather tiring.
There is no good option, and anyone who thinks full lockdown is the way to go ultimately wants exactly the same outcome as anyone who thinks the opposite - for minimal lives to be lost and normality to return as quickly as possible.
I think this situation has become divisive to the extent that we are no longer in a position of arguing two sides of the same coin. Instead we have ended up with two coins, and an argument in favour of one side each. There is no way of reconciling them that I can see. Whilst normally I will argue for centrism all the way, on this issue I do think it is pretty impossible to try and claim there is some sort of middle path through where we can achieve everything and sacrifice nothing. It really has come down to deciding on whether we are going to continue to prioritise the virus or not and through having a definite course of action at least getting something right in the process.
Whilst I doubt very much we will ever be trusted with a national referendum ever again, on a decision of such magnitude perhaps it is the way to go. Certainly it shouldn't be made in little tea parties between heads of government and scientific advisors.
