Things I miss about the old normal (loneliness/isolation)

[hollowone]

Before March this year, things were looking-up for me, things were taking-off socially. Here's some of the things I was getting-invoved with since last time I was active in 2018.

• Morris dancing
• folk sessions
• cycling club
• meetup events
• searching for work
• having interviews
• job clubs
• courses
• going out

All GONE & TAKEN AWAY! Replaced with FORCED ISOLATION. I've only met-up with 5 PEOPLE since MARCH. It's nearly the same as having NO FRIENDS AT ALL.

I found a good meet-up group, lovely small group in a pub quiz, great company, welcoming, lovely people, didn't even want to drink alcohol.

Look I never have had the opportunity to meet people my age (I don't have that circle with tons of friends and aquaintances that can introduce you to loads of people). This is the final nail in the coffin of a coffin that's already had a final nail put in.

I NEARLY GOT A JOB too back in March.

I am FURIOUS about lockdowns because, not only have they destroyed my (working on) social life, they've ruined lots of other people's. They've wrecked people's health, resulted in rising rates of alcoholism and suicides for all sorts of reason. I won't go into politics. I've chucked-out a few posts in the basement to let-off steam,

Lockdowns have NEVER been done on a GLOBAL scale in HISTORY. Not even in the 1918 flu which was deadlier (infection fatality rate) to working age people than COVID-19.

[limey123]

Did you keep in telephonic etc. contact with your friends during the lockdown? Why couldn't you? Why can't you meet with them again once the covid crap is over? If you do, you will probs appreciate your friendships even more?

I'm inclined to believe that things like a lockdown will merely amplify tendencies towards things folks likely already had, whether that be to drinking, domestic abuse/violence, or suicide.

Yeah, the lockdown is an extreme measure, and it's very sad for those who've lost their jobs and similar, but you wonder how many more would have died without it being imposed on us? if the govt hadn't imposed a lockdown they'd have been accused of precisely the wrong decision, so they are screwed either way.

[quietguy]

I hear you and I totally empathise I feel similar in a lot of ways feel free to message me if you want

[hollowone]

@ Limey;

I do appreciate the friends I have, I met two long term friends o fmine in the pub last night, had been nattering on the phone, it certainly does make you appreciate the friends you have. I haven't met with any of my friends since July.

May I quote (hope you don't mind being quoted)

I'm inclined to believe that things like a lockdown will merely amplify tendencies towards things folks likely already had, whether that be to drinking, domestic abuse/violence, or suicide.

Absolutely, although some of what you say doesn't directly affect me or us. It's important to have stuff & friends outside the household whether single or not.

Re

Yeah, the lockdown is an extreme measure, and it's very sad for those who've lost their jobs and similar, but you wonder how many more would have died without it being imposed on us? if the govt hadn't imposed a lockdown they'd have been accused of precisely the wrong decision, so they are screwed either way.

Check out Carl heneghan, Sunetra Gupta (Oxford University, cente for Evidence-based Medicine), Ivor Cummins from, Ireland. Check-out infection fatality rate vs. case fatality rate. Justification for this Soviet-like regime will quickly be destroyed.

National lockdowns have NEVER been done before in HISTORY. Even in the 1918 flu, at most cities 'locked-down', but never had stay at home orders, and NEVER as PROLONGED as this is.

And also, there's the risk you could spread it even if you're not at risk of hospital or death. Mr. Matt Hancock (handycock), you decided to discharge patients FROM HOSPITAL into CARE HOMES wtthout testing. HALF the covid-related deaths in the UK are in care homes due to emptying hospitals. HOW DARE Hancock accuses people of being granny killers when he's the architect of killing more elderly people. The MEDIAN AGE of covid-related deaths across Europe is between 80 to 86.

This case-denic. It's due to increased testing. If we had the level of PCR testing we had in March now September, the rate of growth won't be anywhere near what it is now. Conversely, if we had September's testing capacity in March, it would be off the scale.

What they don't mention about testing is;

• PCR tests are unreliable; viral fragments from a previous infection that has been recovered from get registered as positive
• Recording of covid-related deaths; even if someone's caught it, recovered, and died from something else, it's recorded as 'died with', that's fraud (grr, designed to stir fear)

What's more, under 40's are the main demographic catching it, and are the demographic least likely to need hospitalisation.

Look, I know you're not trying to justify government tyranny, but are trying to explain where it's coming from. I want you to look beyond the mainstream media too much.

[gregarious_introvert]

^ The UK Government does have questions to answer, like why action wasn't taken earlier, why PPE and testing kits weren't made available in larger numbers sooner, why we have such a high death rate compared to similar countries, why such a cock-up was made with track and trace, why we didn't work more closely with other countries and yes, why people were removed from hospital without testing - but none of that serves as justification for an argument against social distancing. Different "experts" have differing views based on different interpretations of the data available, which is why some view Sweden's course of (in)action as a successful one, whilst others (like myself) see it as an example of what not to do. Whether or not "lockdown" proves in the long term to be justified, it is the course of action which this Government - and several others - have chosen and it's difficult to deny its efficacy when viewed in the decrease of confirmed cases in all countries where some sort of social distancing measures were implemented, this despite the fact that (in the UK at least) testing capacity was being increased.

The countries which have escaped most unscathed from this have been those which implemented mass testing at an early stage and/or took measures before the virus took hold there (obviously this couldn't apply in countries where, retrospectively, it has been revealed that the virus was present before there was any indication that this would be a global issue, of which the UK is one), like in Turkey where hand-washing videos and distancing instructions were shown on public transport before it had its first confirmed case, within a week of which, flights to and from the EU were suspended and a curfew introduced.

Comparisons with 1918 aren't entirely useful, since that pandemic started during a World War, which is one reason why, initially, dealing with it wasn't a priority (another was the belief that it killed only the elderly, with action taken once it started killing younger people); it is true that what restrictions there were were localised (although widespread) but this was a time when these things were not handled on a global scale, nor was there the same degree of international movement as we have now. It is also widely held, however, that restrictions were ended too early, thus causing further waves of infection and the situation to be prolongued, therefore if anything it seems that the Government is trying to learn lessons from a century ago.

I do believe that an alternative course of action is necessary at this stage, not just because of the economic damage which is being caused or because of the indirect consequences on mental health, domestic violence rates and other factors which have rightly been mentioned, but because of how widely restrictions are now being ignored, which, in essence, makes them ineffective. Those who do ignore the rules do not live in isolation so are not risking just their own health but that of the entire population, effectively making decisions on behalf of others who would choose to make an alternative one. Our choices, my choices affect others - if I choose to put myself at risk, I am also choosing to put at risk everyone with whom I come into contact, directly or indirectly. Maybe those under 40 don't care about becoming infected (although many in that age bracket do) but their actions are prolonguing the situation and if impact on mental health is an issue, what about the impact on those who have anxieties about the virus itself?

We could, of course, as has been suggested, merely quarantine those most at risk and let everyone else develop "herd immunity" (even though it now appears that the antibodies don't last long and it's possible to be re-infected), or wait for the virus to weaken / die out on its own, but why should those people have their rights eroded by the selfish actions of a minority - that's assuming that we could identify everyone at risk anyway. If I'd worked hard all my life and was looking to enjoy my retirement, I think I'd be pretty resentful if I was told to remain housebound because I'm over 70 and there's a generation of people who believe that means I have no rights!

I did have another point to make here, but it's completely gone, so I'll close here by saying that my life has not been unaffected by this: my partner and I split at the beginning of social distancing restrictions so I was thereafter completely isolated until restrictions were eased in July (actually, the earlier restriction on travel distances had facilitated meeting a friend who lives 80 miles away), but made the most of being allowed out for exercise; the two things which keep me more or less sane (or at least, less insane than I might be) are travel.and live music - travel was effectively impossible between March (when I was briefly stranded in Turkey by that country's response to the issue) and July, when the establishment of "air corridors" and the lifting of restrictions imposed by other countries allowed me to fulfil a pre-booked visit to Poland. However, travel is still heavily restricted and around 90% of potential destinations remain off-limits for anything other than essential travel, either because of FCDO advice or because of entry restrictions imposed elsewhere. The prospect of a return to live music appears even less realistic, with no festivals having taken place in 2020 and I've already had communications from promoters advising that events scheduled for 2021have been postponed to 2022. Meetups in my area have restarted but with outdoor events only and there are limited options with The Ramblers for those who get their names down quickly (with the limits on size of gatherings). None of that is a sob story, just an indication that one can be affected personally but still believe that, on balance, social distancing is a good thing.

Governments make decisions with which we don't agree, but we do have the option of not re-electing them; personally, I don't agree with low levels of direct taxation and high levels of indirect taxation, but people keep electing Governments which perpetuate that and I don't have the option of refusing to pay VAT just because I think the system increases poverty and exacerbates the gap between rich and poor - nor do I think that those who don't agree with social distancing should affect everyone else's lives by not complying.



Sent from my SM-A105F using Tapatalk

[limey123]

@hollowone: I have sympathy for your viewpoint, however, I find GI's analysis more balanced. You don't help your case, either, by introducing expressions such as "Soviet-like regime" and making crude sexual puns on the name of a government minister.
As far as I'm aware, nearly every national government out there has imposed some kind of lockdown or similar measure, and I reckon history will bear this out as having been the best decision, or at least, the lesser of two evils. It's sad what some people have suffered over this period, however, as someone who has been shielding an elderly and vulnerable relative, I'm glad he has been protected from the worst ravages of the virus.

[hollowone]

The countries that got away most unscatheed were countries like Belarus and Sweden; no 'second wave' for them.

Go ahead and justify everything that's happened, police the language that I choose, ignore the point. What media sources do you use? I'm guessing the BBC and ITV might be your only sources, there's so much more out there man. I encourage you to ask questions rather than rehash what you think consensus is.

All justifications for North Korea #2 are destroyed here
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8UvF...ature=youtu.be

@ GI (before I drop another link), the 1918 flu had an nfection fatlity rate (IFR) around 2%, COVID 19 is estimated to be around 0.1 to 0.5%.

You're clearly suffering. The only reason you're trying to justify this draconian nonsense is because you're a) afraid of dis-approval if you don't and b) you haven't checked out the facts, such as the Centres for Disease Control, the Center for Evidence-Based Medicine Oxford University and many more.

You've already mentioned losing a lot, like splitting-up with your partner. I encourage you to look beyond the telly (especially BBC, and ITV) to the multitude of alternative media that there is. I get it, you might trust one source. I'd explure MULTIPLE sources, test them, see which ones you trust.

You don't have to tolerate this nonsense.

[gregarious_introvert]

Originally Posted by hollowone

The countries that got away most unscatheed were countries like Belarus and Sweden; no 'second wave' for them.

Go ahead and justify everything that's happened, police the language that I choose, ignore the point. What media sources do you use? I'm guessing the BBC and ITV might be your only sources, there's so much more out there man. I encourage you to ask questions rather than rehash what you think consensus is.

All justifications for North Korea #2 are destroyed here
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8UvF...ature=youtu.be

@ GI (before I drop another link), the 1918 flu had an nfection fatlity rate (IFR) around 2%, COVID 19 is estimated to be around 0.1 to 0.5%.

You're clearly suffering. The only reason you're trying to justify this draconian nonsense is because you're a) afraid of dis-approval if you don't and b) you haven't checked out the facts, such as the Centres for Disease Control, the Center for Evidence-Based Medicine Oxford University and many more.

You've already mentioned losing a lot, like splitting-up with your partner. I encourage you to look beyond the telly (especially BBC, and ITV) to the multitude of alternative media that there is. I get it, you might trust one source. I'd explure MULTIPLE sources, test them, see which ones you trust.

You don't have to tolerate this nonsense.

I don't get my news from television. You quote Sweden, work out their infection rate PER CAPITA. Don't go quoting nonsense and attack me personally, you have no idea where I get my information. You don't like what's happening and you target anyone who disagrees with you.

Comparing fatality rates from a century ago and now ignores all advances in modern medicine. Not everything can be compared in statistics. There are long-term effects for survivors too, but because you're slightly inconvenienced, the entire population has to be put at risk.

Mods - don't worry about banning me, I'll do it to myself. I'm sick of this world and I won't be part of it anymore.

Sent from my SM-A105F using Tapatalk

[girlinterrupted]

^ @gregarious_introvert I hope you're ok, for what it's worth I think you talk a lot of sense, just in general

[hollowone]

@ GI I wan't making a personal attack and wasn't inntending to come across that way.

I wanted to talk about what I miss about the old normal, how I want it back, not a load of justification for this oppressive regime.

For people who suppoort continued lockdown, I have one question; how is supporting lockdown benefitting you personally?

[Dougella]

^ I am protecting my relatives and other people close to me who could potentially die or suffer serious health consequences of they were to get this virus. That is enough benefit for it to be justified for me.

[Jen.]

Originally Posted by hollowone

All GONE & TAKEN AWAY! Replaced with FORCED ISOLATION. I've only met-up with 5 PEOPLE since MARCH. It's nearly the same as having NO FRIENDS AT ALL.

I'm sure people who actually have no friends at all might have something to say about this. What "forced isolation" are you facing though, and how is it stopping you from meeting up with others? The rules about spending time with others in public were relaxed back in May, over four months ago.

Originally Posted by hollowone

I NEARLY GOT A JOB too back in March.

Have you tried to get a job since then? As Nanuq said, people have been getting jobs during all this. I know a couple of people who have done it and there are even people from this forum who have done it too. I don't know why you think it's stopping you.

Originally Posted by hollowone

The countries that got away most unscatheed were countries like Belarus and Sweden; no 'second wave' for them.

Sweden has a population density of 25 people per square km, and Belarus 47. Meanwhile, the UK's as a whole is 275, with England's being 432. It seems that higher density populations do far better when they're collectivist societies.

[Mr. Nobody]

you might have dodged a bullet with the Morris Dancing right enough,

I for one, can't imagine how the tyres hold up, or the drivers stay in their seats,

[Jwalk]

I suspect that the lasting effects of lockdown will prove to be worse than if we had continued more or less as normal, particularly with regard to mental health and the economy. I'll be interested to see next years statistics on unemployment, business closures, mental health, self harm, suicide, obesity, exam results, etc.

The more sensible solution seemed to be to isolate those we perceived to be vulnerable, whilst allowing the rest to go on as normal. Unfortunately, everyone has a story about an elderly relative that they assume they are saving by supporting the lockdown measures, but in reality they may just be unknowingly sacrificing someone else's wellbeing for their own.

I hope to be proved wrong.

[Dougella]

^ But in that scenario what happens with medical staff and carers who deal with/look after older people or people at risk? Would they also be required to isolate? Because if they were out and mixing with the general population they would be at risk of catching the virus and passing it to the people that it can be dangerous for.

[Jwalk]

^ To an extent they would be required to limit their exposure to the general population, but obviously in this scenario there would always be a greater risk of infection for the most vulnerable in the short term (I have a couple of grandparents in their 80s, so I don't say that lightly).

In the long term, however, I think the path we are currently on will see a much more severe second wave of the virus, followed by a few more waves in 2021. It could linger on for years and years, increasing the chances of a vulnerable person catching it each time. I can't help but think we are just delaying the inevitable at an enormous cost.

As I said, I suspect that the unseen effects of the great lockdown of 2020 will be catastrophic. Unfortunately, these unseen effects can never really compete with the highly emotive fear of losing a vulnerable friend or relative.

[genovese]

Originally Posted by hollowone

Morris dancing folk sessions cycling club meetup events searching for work
having interviews job clubs courses going out
All GONE & TAKEN AWAY!
I NEARLY GOT A JOB too back in March.

What's stopping you doing most of that now?
Ok maybe you can't morris dance at the mo, but no one ever died from not morris dancing. You can do the others up there. And that's a lot of activity.
There's loads of volunteering opportunities right now, and I'm sure those in need would be glad of the assistance. Supermarkets are hiring like Netflix green lighting true crime docs.

I am FURIOUS about lockdowns because, not only have they destroyed my (working on) social life, they've ruined lots of other people's.

Injustice was prevalent prior to Covid. Getting furious is a waste of your energy and will turn you loopy.
You have no dependents? You're not responsible for anyone else, so put yourself as the priority and carrying on cycling, quizzing (till 10pm) and going out.

[Moksha]

Originally Posted by genovese

Ok maybe you can't morris dance at the mo.

There is an upside to everything. Even when this nightmare is over, hopefully the ban on Morris dancing will stay in place - and the fines too. There’s just no excuse for it.

[Dougella]

^ Why does everyone hate Morris dancing, I've always found it quite endearing

[limey123]

Originally Posted by Dougella

^ I am protecting my relatives and other people close to me who could potentially die or suffer serious health consequences of they were to get this virus. That is enough benefit for it to be justified for me.

Exactly.

[limey123]

Originally Posted by girlinterrupted

^ @gregarious_introvert I hope you're ok, for what it's worth I think you talk a lot of sense, just in general

Seconded!

[Moksha]

Originally Posted by Dougella

^ Why does everyone hate Morris dancing, I've always found it quite endearing

I’ll give Noel Coward the final say...”one should try everything in life - except incest and Morris dancing”

[hollowone]

@ Nanuq has had the virus. I want to know what the experience was like. a) What age group are you? Do you b) have one of the vulnerable health conditions mentioned on the NHS website, the government website and the World Health Organisation website and c) how bad was it?

Point 2. Restricting people meeting with PEOPLE THEY KNOW vs. going to crowded pubs and restaurrants (where you're much more likely to be exposed) doesn't make sense.

[choirgirl]

^Search her posts for a full description. In brief, afaik, the answers are a)40s, b)no, and c)utterly shit and it's not over. Nanuq I hope you don't mind me saying that.

[limey123]

Great post, Nanuq.

My sister and bro-in-law have had it too. They were previously very fit and well, but the after-effects of the virus are still with them. It has hit them really hard and who knows how long they will suffer. Very sorry, too, you have suffered so badly and keeping my fingers fully crossed for your full recovery!

[Dougella]

Originally Posted by Dougella

^ I am protecting my relatives and other people close to me who could potentially die or suffer serious health consequences of they were to get this virus. That is enough benefit for it to be justified for me.

Just to clarify, although this was my answer as to why i supported the lock down and other measures like masks that doesn't mean that I don't recognise how difficult this whole year has been for a lot of people. I know that many people have found their mental health has been very negatively affected and I don't see that as a justified side effect of the things that have had to happen. I wish no-one had had to suffer any of this.

[Jen.]

Originally Posted by hollowone

The countries that got away most unscatheed were countries like Belarus and Sweden; no 'second wave' for them.

https://www.ft.com/content/67fc5152-...c-79e1bf2b68e2

"Sweden has unveiled tougher restrictions to fight coronavirus as Europe’s outlier on Covid-19 is forced to step up measures to fight the virus as it faces surging numbers of cases and deaths.

Warning that the situation was “going to get worse”, Prime Minister Stefan Lofven said on Monday the limit on public gatherings in Sweden would be cut from 50 people to eight.

“It is a clear and sharp signal to every person in our country as to what applies in the future. Don’t go to the gym, don’t go the library, don’t have dinner out, don’t have parties — cancel!” Mr Lofven told a press conference."

Sweden’s cases per capita are currently 10 times higher than Finland and four times higher than Norway. Last week, the rate at which people were being admitted into hospital was growing faster in Sweden than any other European country. And after several months of relatively low numbers of deaths, Sweden reported more than 100 in three days last week."

[Dougella]

^ Their approach doesn't seem to have worked does it.

[gregarious_introvert]

Originally Posted by hollowone

The countries that got away most unscatheed were countries like Belarus and Sweden; no 'second wave' for them.

I remember seeing this two months ago and thinking how ironic it was that, in an argument against restriction on personal freedom, Belarus was mentioned! I wasn't in a good place back then, so I hope I can give a more reasoned response this time.

I have been saying since the outset of this pandemic that it is impossible to compare countries and their approaches because there are too many variables, not only in terms of population size and density, but also culture, mean / median population age, wealth (both national and personal), healthcare systems and funding, climate, lifestyle... Having said all that, Sweden's statistics don't look good when compared to their Scandinavian neighbours and the discrepancy is great enough that even taking all the unmeasurable factors into account, it is fair to say that the measures taken there have not been successful.

It is also a myth to assert that Sweden did nothing and based its approach on herd immunity; the Swedish constitution forbids measures which restrict the freedom of its citizens, so the Public Health Agency issued a series of "non-voluntary recommendations". Secondary schools and universities were closed, people were advised to work from home where possible and gatherings of more than fifty (now eight, as Jen has stated) were prohibited. There was no official "lockdown" and the country's chief epidemiologist, Anders Tegnell, has stated that he expected that a second wave in Sweden might have less impact because of more widespread immunity, but the measures taken here were an attempt not to contradict the country's constitution rather than deliberately encouraging herd immunity.

The only real way to measure the effectiveness of whatever measures are taken is to look at the impact they have within that country, rather than to compare it with other nations; as with most European nations, the first lockdown in the UK had a dramatic impact and there are signs that the second lockdown is also working. However, there is only a limited amount of time for which personal freedom can be restricted before people start ignoring instruction (obviously, bars and restaurants are closed and live entertainment isn't possible, for instance, so there is adherence to those restrictions) and I only have to look at my local area to see that people are not socially distancing to the same extent as in April, May and June.

If and when restrictions are lifted, we all need to apply common sense and remain vigilant to the dangers; I feel that, when restrictions were eased in July, too many people acted as if they had been removed completely. There were also other measures which could have been taken (like testing at airports) which weren't and also (although this is pie-in-the-sky fantasy thinking) that there should have been greater international co-operation, with a co-ordinated effort worldwide - one of the major issues here is that different countries are taking different measures at different times and there are enough exemptions (eg. business travellers) to the bans and restrictions on international travel and self-isolation that there remains a significant risk of the virus being transferred between nations (I do realise that this may make me seem a hypocrite, as someone who has continued to travel during this time, however I have taken all possible precautions).

[Tonkin]

Originally Posted by Dougella

^ Their approach doesn't seem to have worked does it.

Depends how you're measuring it deaths from covid, deaths from other things, financial situation, etc.

It worked better than ours on many metrics.

We've had 30,000 excess deaths that weren't from covid already.

https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/n...-39784683.html