Ease the lockdown

I think the idea of people being allowed to shops like B + Q makes the lockdown seem senseless. People drive there then home, some people's argument being they need to shop at b and q. Nonsense. People need to be able to do some things to keep life in some sort of order. Why no fishing, golfing or other solitary sports where social distancing is the norm ? This helps thousands keep their life in some semblance of order which we all need in these difficult times. I would also benefit from visiting my family while keeping 6ft apart , maybe even a BBQ in the garden while sitting down with the chairs spread suitably apart

Why the contribution is important

I think that we all need to have some order in our life to keep a mental balance . I think the longer this tight lockdown goes on it will begin to have a very negative impact on possibly hundreds of thousands of people in Scotland

by ianflyadam on May 06, 2020 at 04:11PM

Current Rating

Average rating: 4.0
Based on: 42 votes

Comments

  • Posted by emmas1408 May 06, 2020 at 16:39

    I agree 100%

  • Posted by MaryDee May 06, 2020 at 16:47

    Strongly disagree - lockdown reduces the spread and protects the vulnerable.

  • Posted by Movingforward May 06, 2020 at 16:47

    I completely agree that we need to ease this lockdown now in a safe way.
    We cannot live like this indefinitely. The disease is dreadful in terms of its consequences however without in any way meaning to be callous or uncaring it is mainly affecting people over the age of 75 in terms of fatalities.
    Children and younger people are paying a heavy price as are mainly vulnerable children due to the lockdown.
    The negative health effects of the lockdown are significant. Increased deaths from none COVID; potentially 50,000 cancer deaths through lack of treatment.

  • Posted by camm May 06, 2020 at 16:51

    I would love for things to go back to some semblance of normality but I think the lockdown has to be eased very gradually as the impact of a resurgence of the virus will have a greater impact economically and in death rates. Using the wealth of evidence available from experts will help us to do this but in the meantime we need to stick to the current rules.

  • Posted by CatProvan May 06, 2020 at 17:10

    I think we have to do it gradually and safely - I will not feel happy about going into crowded places until infection rate has significantly reduced

  • Posted by Lors21 May 06, 2020 at 17:11

    You cant go for a walk and stay 2 metres apart on the same pavement.
    Supermarkets say they are following rules, go and shop in one, you will find this is not true. I had a staff member come up to me at a self checkout face to face to press a button which was totally unnecessary. Also aisles are marked with arrows and nobody follows them. What is the point.?
    I think the lockdown should be relaxed for close relatives to visit each other, not the shielded ones but other family members it is now too long to be apart.
    We will have obesity, alcohol,drugs,mental health to deal with on the way out of this. How are you going to deal with this...?
    Mental health help was a disgrace before the virus came, what will you do about this?
    When are you going to open dentists?
    People pulling out their own teeth is not acceptable, if a hospital can open and see people so can a dentist.

  • Posted by Angela May 06, 2020 at 17:14

    The lockdown worked for the first few weeks then people got bored. People were happy to be off work and still get some sort of pay, so want to do things. Find shops shut, so hit those shops that are open as cannot get anything online either. People also want to DIY/ home repairs if they are at home and not away on holiday. I'm sure delivery drivers have never been so busy.
    As a key worker, I have seen the transport on roads increase past couple of weeks and people being out and about more. However, the good weather has also increased the need for people who don't have gardens to go out walking/to parks etc.
    However, the farce of people heading to drive thru for food or coffee is ridiculous as they shut because managers felt that they could not keep their staff safe whilst working.

    I would welcome schools opening for 4,5 and 6th year pupils to get on with their school work as already missed out on vital exams and some are struggling to cope with remote working whilst undertaking new school work. Parents and carers who are key workers are not home during the day are finding it difficult to motivate a teenager out of bed to look at a powerpoint of Higher Biology or a Higher Maths questions when they have no instruction how actually to do the question. They have already been treated unfairly as swift closure with no exam, no end of year parties and still not allowed to meet up with friends. Whilst few of them have got ill with this virus, when the schools were open, they are still losing valuable and vital time in undertaking next years school work.

  • Posted by emcmur May 06, 2020 at 17:32

    Where I agree it has to be done gradually, I fully believe that you should be allowed to visit close family, providing no one is showing any symptoms or has been in contact with anyone who is. No one would want to risk their close families health, and those that wouldn't abide by this condition, are probably already visiting their families anyway. I feel this would greatly ease the mounting feeling of unrest that exists among even the most law abiding of citizens.

  • Posted by emwpaisley May 06, 2020 at 18:11

    Could not agree more Before we slip into a black hole we cannot escape from for years

  • Posted by lillega May 06, 2020 at 18:37

    I agree with easing. Especially schools.

    Children are the future of this country and denying them schooling does damage for their life times, partly the formal classroom education, partly the social skills they should gain in school. This impact, on top of the taxes them will have to pay to fund the response to this problem, represents an intergenerational travesty.

     Some teachers I am sure are doing all they can to help the children for whose education they have responsibility. However, it would appear that for whatever reason, many are delivering massively less than those in the private sector - so the cost of the lock down falls on the young at the bottom of the social scale rather than the old, who tend to also be better off.

    Opening the schools will also allow parents to work, possibly more effectively from home, but in some cases work at all. Others will have read the various studies on whether or not children can catch or carry this illness in sufficient numbers to change national policy. The answer seems to be not, but either way, the argument still holds.

    The decision here is essentially a balance of risk v cost (in the widest sense of cost) and I do not think it is heartless to say that we need to consider those currently unable to vote and on whom the impact will remain for decades as well as much older voters. it is worth noting that it is always possible to remove risk and be safer. That thinking leads to keeping all ships in harbours to avoid the risk of storms - a lower risk strategy, but one which misses the point of ships. Let's not miss the point of schooling.

  • Posted by Jmccon May 06, 2020 at 18:44

    Essentially it’s about what kind of country we want to live in. Do we value life, or do we value money. For me... life. We cannot throw the elderly and vulnerable under a bus. It’s that simple. Do not ease the lockdown.

  • Posted by darrenpake May 06, 2020 at 19:37

    Completely agree, the negative effects of a prolonged lockdown on people are enormous

  • Posted by codenamev May 06, 2020 at 19:43

    There's a reason the non lock-down countries are doing better than lock-down, lock-down does not work ! There is no scientific evidence in the literature to show lock-down is a valid strategy to contain a virus least of all the containment of healthy individuals has never been done before in modern history. The lock down already will be responsible for many more times the misery than the virus can do. The lock down must end soon, gradual in acceptable but we need to get back to what we know is true normal, not ''new normal'' which should be temporary.

  • Posted by WBRnotes May 08, 2020 at 00:11

    I think New Zealand is doing relatively well - they locked down hard and they locked down early there. Their priority was first to protect life and thereby the economy, I believe. Only time will tell whether their strategy works long term.

    Every country is different but our lockdown came late and hasn't been strictly enforced like some. We have - by some measure - the worst death rate in Europe AND we're experiencing a huge hit to our economy. If we come out of lockdown too soon we may well have a second peak which is likely to have an even worse impact than has happened so far.

    When it happens, I imagine that a gradual exit from lockdown will be best (see this article re a rolling age release from lockdown: Age, Death Risk, and the Design of an Exit Strategy: A Guide for
    Policymakers and for Citizens Who Want to Stay Alive - published by Warwick University).

  • Posted by Lynne_W May 08, 2020 at 10:13

    I would suggest a revisiting of how we are doing lockdown. There is emerging evidence that we should be focusing on the vulnerable and encouraging a greater return to normal movement for the majority. This would allow both a focus of effort and finances to where most needed.

  • Posted by Zaffarella May 11, 2020 at 17:16

    I fully appreciate there are difficult choices, however, social distancing continued much longer will ultimately kill more people than Covid 19 and certainly kill society. Government must be greatest good for greatest number.
    Now that lockdown has gained the time to put capacity in place the “stay safe” narrative will need to change to reflect;
    Fatal for less than 1%
    Vast majority (over 80%) asymptomatic or mild; relatively few have required hospitalisation.
    Current strain is fairly narrow in its target.
    People die; in Scotland 4,700 people, on average, each month every year (average 2001-2019 per NRS). There were 1,559 Covid deaths in Scotland as at 2 May. Many of those dying with Covid 19 on the death certificate (but not necessarily a contributory factor) would have died in any event this year.
    May never be vaccine; it would wrong and very costly to society at large to wait for one – accordingly we must manage this.
    Covid 19 now endemic and should be dealt with like any other perennial virus.
    Going forward Covid 19 can be managed by creating capacity (Infectious diseases hospitals?). Unfortunately, those in care homes are amongst the most susceptible to the virus, some form of gateway regime or system for entrance to care homes will be required.
    Fitness (substantially issues caused by obesity) makes a massive difference to outcome; this is an opportunity to reinforce that being fit will save lives and the NHS
    I am glad to see that the Swedish approach has now been commended by the WHO as an exemplar for moving forward. Although it has controls, it has allowed more social interaction. This approach will certainly have reduced any “future wave”. As at 11 May, the UK (with a population 6.56 times that of Sweden) has had 31,855 deaths. Sweden has recorded 3,225 deaths. That is 66.4% of the UK total. The Swedish approach has to be considered, as it is less damaging to society and the economy at large.
Log in or register to add comments and rate ideas

Idea topics