I have another personal angle on this: I'm not very social. I do enjoy conversation or dinner or visits with friends or coworkers, occasionally, but not the constant barrage of invitations, events and obligations that was normal before the pandemic. So while I understand things will eventually go back to that normal for the obvious benefit of the majority, personally it feels like the end of a long, quiet vacation that I will remember and miss.
So I'm pushing back on people that want me to meet or party too soon. I'm writing this minutes after my second vaccine dose so it won't be long before my own kind of freedom runs out.
I personally didn't feel much like it was a vacation since I still had to go into the office[0], but I will miss the way the default behavior was for people to avoid each other on the street and absolutely no one attempted to start an impromptu conversation with me.
[0] except for the brief period where basically every employee had COVID, gee, how did that happen?
18% seems high but don’t underestimate paranoia and/or selfishness.
A lot of older people aren’t ever out past 10pm (I’m in my late thirties and I rarely am!) and have been convinced by tabloid newspapers that youths/immigrants/criminals/[delete as applicable] are doing all kinds of awful things at night time. Best to keep everyone indoors so that we’re all safe, eh?
If you go to bed at 10pm, why would you not want a curfew? For many people, 'back to normal' also means drunk people shouting under their windows in the middle of the night.
Now, a curfew sounds drastic, and I suspect many people are saying they are for it tongue in cheek. However, what's wrong with wanting to keep some of the positive aspects of the last year? Why go 'back to normal' when we can go forward to something better?
Having everyone home by 10pm would automatically curb a lot of anti-social and gang behaviour. Especially with a police blitz, scooping up anyone without a good excuse.
Not saying it's really desirable, worthwhile, or even feasible... But that's probably why some want it. Some places get pretty unpleasant after dark.
1) People love drama
2) People say stuff they don't really mean just to perpetuate a drama in their otherwise predictable lives
3) Social media is a cancer on society
4) Statistics are sometimes nonsense
Whether it's people trolling or not understanding the question you can end up with some nonsensical percentages when you poll the public at large. I don't know if this effect has a name but I remember my statistics professor talking about this.
I can't read the OP: paywall. Does The Economist literally say that? I don't know how they came up with that - I don't believe anybody here is in favour of "permanent curfew" (a curfew is a ban on travelling during the hours of darkness; I guess they were referring to lockdown).
I imagine there is significant opposition, however, to the government's plan to lift lockdown more-or-less completely, in a couple of weeks, against the advice of his own scientific advisers. Maybe that's what The Economist is trying to say.
> A quarter say nightclubs and casinos should never reopen; almost two in ten would support an indefinite ban on leaving home after 10pm “without good reason”.
Would it really be that surprising that there's that many people who don't go to nightclubs or casinos? If it doesn't affect you after all.
There's not really much point replying if you didn't read the article. Especially if you're trying to correct someone else. But yes, they did say that.
I attribute it mostly to a noise issue: Those who live the closest to pubs/clubs and other high noise generation venues noticed the quiet difference during lockdown and wistfully wish for more.
Don’t forget that a significant fraction of them voted to leave the EU as a way of sending a message, not expecting that it could result in actually needing to leave the EU.
Yeah exactly, this is glossed over. The UK govt and many CEOs have been erring on the side of wanting "work from work" to come back. The choice for workers then is: continue restrictions and get remote working or end restrictions and be forced back into commuting etc. In this light 18% doesn't seem as high.
Curfews prevent important positive social behaviour and incubate a fearful mindset that increases anxiety and depression. Animals are happiest when they are free even if it means risk. Take a look at caged animals, they lose their shit. Locking people inside is a net negative experience and detrimental to a healthy society.
Smells a lot like older people who have their families and personal networks and have had their fun thinking that young people should stay inside and not be a bother. Thing is, young people need to socialize in order find a mate, build their social circle, establish their careers and engage with formative experiences. It's unjust for old people to decide they should be locked up after dark.
I wouldn’t want to force anyone to do anything they don’t want to do, but I think there were positive aspects to masks and lockdown I’d like to perpetuate. I have not been sick a single time in the past year and a half. Not even a little cold. I’d like it if everyone wore a mask and chose to social distance anytime there is the slightest chance they have a communicable disease like the cold. Unfortunately people are so selfish that that is highly unlikely.
And, as an introvert, lockdown did wonderful things for my mental health. I’ve been happier being locked down than I can remember being in decades. I hope things like remote work become a permanent thing.
Airplane hijackings and bombings used to be a relatively frequent occurrence. One can argue that the security is not worth the loss of freedom (e.g. not being able to bring a gun on a plane). But it doesn’t seem to follow that the security is merely theater.
We are already currently in a situation where "safety" trumps everything. People willingly prioritizing physical health in exchange for negative mental health, relationships, being with their dying loved ones, losing jobs, higher cost of living, and freedom in general.
I'm having a hard time parsing your comment. You're saying prioritizing physical health is a net negative and you'd rather trade that for better mental health?
Wouldn't bad physical health generally lead to a worse mental state?
Readit News
So I'm pushing back on people that want me to meet or party too soon. I'm writing this minutes after my second vaccine dose so it won't be long before my own kind of freedom runs out.
[0] except for the brief period where basically every employee had COVID, gee, how did that happen?
But to add some perspective on the situation in the UK here is our (surprisingly good) government data website: https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/
As you can see, infections/day have been ~doubling every ~2 weeks for the last ~6.
And here is a letter in The Lancet from scientists opposing the imminent end of all restrictions: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6...
A lot of older people aren’t ever out past 10pm (I’m in my late thirties and I rarely am!) and have been convinced by tabloid newspapers that youths/immigrants/criminals/[delete as applicable] are doing all kinds of awful things at night time. Best to keep everyone indoors so that we’re all safe, eh?
Now, a curfew sounds drastic, and I suspect many people are saying they are for it tongue in cheek. However, what's wrong with wanting to keep some of the positive aspects of the last year? Why go 'back to normal' when we can go forward to something better?
Not saying it's really desirable, worthwhile, or even feasible... But that's probably why some want it. Some places get pretty unpleasant after dark.
Yessir.
Hacker News sometimes too.
I can't read the OP: paywall. Does The Economist literally say that? I don't know how they came up with that - I don't believe anybody here is in favour of "permanent curfew" (a curfew is a ban on travelling during the hours of darkness; I guess they were referring to lockdown).
I imagine there is significant opposition, however, to the government's plan to lift lockdown more-or-less completely, in a couple of weeks, against the advice of his own scientific advisers. Maybe that's what The Economist is trying to say.
"To what extent, if at all, would you support or oppose each of the following rules being in place permanently, regardless of the risk from COVID-19?"
"Having a curfew against leaving home after 10PM without a good reason": 19%
It's not a real paywall. Just disable javascript and it's fine to read.
Or, you can read it here:
https://archive.is/emQBV
Would it really be that surprising that there's that many people who don't go to nightclubs or casinos? If it doesn't affect you after all.
https://archive.is/emQBV
https://archive.is/8xmAd
Deleted Comment
And, as an introvert, lockdown did wonderful things for my mental health. I’ve been happier being locked down than I can remember being in decades. I hope things like remote work become a permanent thing.
In fact, the permanent curfew is the lowest permanent item from the chart in the article.
I expected less bias from The Economist.
Wouldn't bad physical health generally lead to a worse mental state?
Dead Comment