Why I’m Against The Lockdowns That I’m For

Protests against lockdowns are springing up all across our country. I’m glad of this, because for awhile it looked like groupthink was ruling the day. But now we have a lively debate going, over the wisdom of locking human beans down, and stopping the economy.

I sympathize with the protesters, because I’m against these lockdowns, that I’m also for. Yes, I’m both against them and for them. Here are some reasons:

I’m against the lockdowns, because they may cause a great depression, with millions dying from the effects of poverty. But I’m for them because they may prevent millions of deaths from the coronavirus.

I’m against the lockdowns, because I value freedom and civil rights. But I’m for them, because I value my health.

I’m against them, because the experts on TV keep contradicting each other. But I’m for them, because maybe some of those experts know what they’re talking about.

I’m against them, because my wife hardly ever leaves the house anymore, and she’s driving me crazy. But I’m for them, because when she’s bored she waits on me hand and foot, and I like being pampered.

I’m against them, because hospitalizations are down. But I’m for them, because I want hospitalizations to stay down.

I’m against them, because by now there must be quite a lot of herd immunity out there. But I’m for them, because maybe the lockdowns have been so effective there’s hardly any herd immunity out there.

I’m against them, because we’ll never have adequate testing, so we may as well give up on that idea. But I’m for them, because we don’t have adequate testing yet.

I’m against them, because I’d rather not wait for a contact tracing system. Contact tracing might involve huge invasions of privacy, with Big Brother watching us as never before. But I’m for the lockdowns, because we need to have thorough contact tracing in place before we end lockdowns, with everyone who is anyone being tracked everywhere we go.

I’m against them, because I prefer the America we had before the coronavirus broke out. But I’m for them, because I’m strangely growing accustomed to living under martial law and dictatorship.

I hope the reasons I’ve provided have given you food for thought, and helped you to decide where to stand on the issue of lockdowns.

If you’re anti-lockdown and would like to join a protest rally near you, check out this website, and then get out there with your picket sign.

But if you’re pro-lockdown, you’re out of luck. All you can do is hunker down at home, rather than get out and join a counterprotest. For the pro-lockdown movement, by its very nature, cannot go outside and demonstrate.

Categories: coronavirus

64 replies »

  1. I kind of worry that the lockdowns won’t work because there are enough stupid, arrogant people in society to ruin it for the rest of us.

    My main concern about not locking down is that it will overwhelm our hospital system and a lot of people won’t be able to get hospital care if needed.

    I also don’t think it is OK to just let a couple of million people die to save Trump’s chance for re-election.

    Liked by 3 people

    • On the other hand, if all those stupid, arrogant people catch the coronavirus, it will boost herd immunity for the rest of us.

      It’s scary to think of our hospital system being overwhelmed. But on the other hand, field hospitals may be able to handle the overflow. Also, it appears very few hospitals in our country have come even close to being overwhelmed thus far.

      I don’t want Trump being re-elected, and I doubt he will be if a few million died of Covid before November 3rd. On the other hand, if a few million died of starvation and other effects of poverty over the next few years, we might come to regret electing whoever we elect this November.


      • I don’t really believe in herd immunity. Not for this.

        We are going to be forced to get back to business, but it would be nice if the health care systems had a chance to catch up on the supply chains before we did it. Do stuff that should have been started in January.

        Liked by 1 person

        • Well I sure hope there will be herd immunity someday. If we can’t develop immunity from this virus, we’re all doomed.

          But if we can believe anything coming out of China, apparently there is herd immunity. Then again, that info comes from China.

          Yes, it would have been nice if Trump had gotten on the ball in January, with the manufacture of PPE, testing kits, and respirators. According to him, our scarcity of these supplies can be blamed on Obama.

          That damned Obama, why wasn’t he president back in January?

          Liked by 4 people

  2. I think some are protesting not for job reasons but because they see the shut down becoming unreasonable. People getting arrested or rebuked for being six feet apart and fishing, people in boats being arrested for being out on a boat (alone or with one companion the’d be quarantined with), churches that have drive-in services with windows closed having all of the drivers being ticketed – this is where things go too far and become like a police state.

    I wish we could lift it all and trust everyone to behave and work while sanitizing and keeping a social distance, but – the lock downs came to be simply because there were too many who didn’t. I’m similarly tossed about what SHOULD happen. I’m grateful that Monday begins my working from home rather than running the risk of going to work (in an office that the public doesn’t ever come into) each weekday. I’m one of the vulnerable ones with many health issues that make me probably dead if I get the COVID-19 bug.

    Liked by 1 person

    • There will always be unreasonable people. No amount of laws have ever stopped that. But the authorities are treating us all as criminals, for the actions of a few, and hence the backlash that is forming.

      I think the vast majority of people would follow reasonable social distancing guidelines, if given a chance to leave their homes and get out and have some fun.

      So sorry that you are one of the vulnerable ones. So am I. I practice social distancing, and would continue to do so even if all the restrictions were lifted. Please take care and stay healthy.

      Liked by 1 person

  3. I come from another country that is locked down and we have a population of 28 million and have 70 yes, you read right, 70 deaths and 6000 or so cases.
    Herd immunity is un-necessary murder, because whoever calls for it is basically a murderer. Of course, if you are happy with killing all the old people and black people as it seems it’s doing, then the KKK and the Republicans will thank you for agreeing to it. It’ll no doubt save the economy billions in aged care and pension payments later on.
    We have the same conditions here, only we don’t call it a lockdown, it’s basically staying home, and stay safe, and look after the vulnerable. We do this willingly. People do go to work so the economy is not dead, and although we’re coughing up a few hundred billion to keep everyone safe, there is still a minority that doesn’t care.
    Children have gone back to school where appropriate, and the borders are closed to anyone other than our nationals, and they have to go into a 14-day quarantine when they come here.
    It works, as proved by the numbers.
    Yes, I agree we have rights, but one of them shouldn’t be the right to die.
    Just remember this. Transmission of this disease can be by people who have no idea they’ve got it, and one person, yes, you read right, one person infected a whole ship with 4,700 people on it. Latest tally over 800 infections and 18 or so deaths.
    What if you have a protest and five thousand people turn up and one percent of them have the virus? Calculate the spread. One person infects 800, 50 infects 40,000, 40,000 infects how many?
    You have 360,000,000 people. With a 1% death rate, how many? 3,600,000.
    Also remember the one statistic you’re not being told, that people under the age of 50 are dying in large numbers too – about 30% of the total.
    Statistics can be bent in any direction, but think about it. Is everything you’re being told the truth, or what they want you to hear. It costs both ways, you’re problem is who to believe, and that is basically the real problem.
    Fortunately here we are being told the truth, no matter how horrible it is, and that starts at the Federal Government level, through to the states, who tell us the same, and the local governments, who also tell us the same.
    Scary, but we know we will come out of this. We just have to put up with a little inconvenience to get there.
    I’m sorry for the rant, but it irks me you are not being told the truth.

    Liked by 1 person

      • Not really, but then we don’t have a lock down.= as such, and it doersn’t look like we’ll get to that. We have stages, we’re at three, and lockdown is four. There are interesting restrictions like you can go out for exercise, do essential shopping for food and medicine, or check up on the elderly (using another favorite expression, social distancing) and we do it because it works.
        So far only one person protested at the restrictions because he couldn’t play golf with his friends (max two, unless you have a family with more)
        But you can call it whatever you like, in the end it has saved countless lives, and those who flout the rules get fined. For my money, rather than a fine, they should be shot, but that’s just me. Because at the end of the day, if they infect a vulenable person and kill them, they should be charge with murder – they deliberately did it. I don’t know how the law works with you but premeditation is murder. So I guess then if you want to go out and infect people, some of whom will die, then that’s on your conscience. And if you infect your grandmother or grandfather, or someone close who is ailing, then think about how that would make you feel.
        Lockdown is just a political label to make people think they have no rights. Unfortunately for you, your whole COVID 19 scenario has become a political football, and you are being pulled in different directions by different political parties as pawns in their dice with death game.

        Liked by 1 person

        • Well okay, it sounds to me like you have very strong feelings on this subject, and want everyone’s health to be protected. The restrictions seem to be what you prefer, and you want everyone to comply with them.

          I’m not sure if the restrictions are necessary. I like to hear from those who oppose them, because I think it’s a good idea to get views from all sides.

          To that end, thank you for sharing your views.

          Liked by 1 person

          • From the information we are getting up here, they are still heavily into researching this virus and so are not prepared to categorically state anything. The question then becomes “With what we know vs what we don’t know”, is the isolation a good idea or not. I have no doubt that erring on the side of caution would generally be preferred. As soon as one brings business $$$$$ into the scenario, then a whole new set of parameters comes into play!

            Liked by 1 person

            • Yes, there’s much we don’t know about it, so we’re bound to err, no matter which direction we go.
              I just wonder which way is erring on the side of caution? I think poverty can be as much a public health concern as a pandemic, as it’s my understanding that poverty shortens life spans.
              Like it or not, we need business in order to stay alive. Fat cats profit like hell over the labors of the little guy, but at least the little guy can put food on the table and feed a family, while employed.
              So which is more cautious, staying at home and risking starvation, or going to work and risking the virus?

              Liked by 2 people

              • Hopefully it won’t come that kind of decision making. Our Federal, Provincial and local governments are all handing out all kinds of financial support, and many organizations are providing additional support to the food banks and crisis centres. Our property taxes are frozen for a while and some weight is being placed on landlords to step back a bit re lease/rent payments.etc. It would seem to me that they are doing as much as possible to keep us all going for a few months when (hopefully) the magic numbers will make an organized and controlled return to normal quite feasible. Only time will tell!

                Liked by 2 people

                • Time will have to do the telling. Although it seems to me like the longer we have lockdowns, the longer it will take to return to normal.
                  As a former landlord, I have some sympathy for them. Landlords have expenses, too, and being required to forgo rental income can be devastating to their finances.

                  In our country, food banks are running out of food. And in some areas, people are waiting in four hour lines for food. What will these people do when there is no more food to give away?

                  I sense impending doom. But hopefully everything will turn out alright.

                  Liked by 1 person

                  • I never cross bridges until I get to them. If we cannot get the food we usually eat, then our diet makes a shift into survival mode. As long as there are food businesses (in a broad sense) operating, then there will be something to keep us going. Farmers are strategizing various possibilities as are the processing industries. If my ancestors could live through two world wars, I am not expecting any serious issues with a few months of COVID-19.

                    Liked by 1 person

          • Thankyou for the opportunity of putting forward another side of the story. I respect you position, and hope that in some way it helps you and others understand the problems this virus presents us with.
            By the way, I’m 67 with an underlying health condition, ie one of the vulnerable. When it is your life at risk un-necessarily, it tends to polarise your opinions.
            Thankyou once again for letting me present that option.

            Liked by 1 person

            • You’re welcome. I appreciate your comments, and feel free to make more comments in the future.
              And please take care of your health. I too have an underlying health condition. We sickos have to be careful and lie low for awhile, until this danger passes.

              Liked by 1 person

  4. Honestly Tippy, you can be for or against or both at the same time, and your opinion matters. But you’re not likely a scientist or a doctor, and I think I’ll take my cues from those educated people. I’m an engineer by trade, and I’m sure there are some nice librarians and social scientists who want to tell me how to build a bridge or why it’s good or bad. They’re entitled to their opinions, as am I. But it really doesn’t mean much to me. And yes I’m going to be wrong sometimes in how I do things, but I figure education and a career stretching some years has to mean something. We can’t all be experts in everything. But we can have our opinions, for or against or both at the same time. The prognosticators who are indicating that many people will die to the economy going down are just throwing out ideas – have you seen any kind of evidence that this is the case? How is it more than just opinion? Maybe there is info on this, I don’t know. I haven’t seen it. It sounds like conjecture to me. On the other side, people do have some science on the implications of not locking down. They do have models etc. And those models are going to evolve and change and they’re imperfect but at least they’re built on something.

    I guess I’m not pro lockdown or anti lockdown or anything. I am pro truth. I like science. I put my trust in people who know what they’re talking about. I hope people put their trust in me in subjects that I figure I know what I’m talking about. Sure I’ll be wrong. Sure they’ll be wrong. But there’s far less chance of that then the average internet conspirator (I’m not saying you are one of those at all – I’m reacting the slew of misinformation and fear mongering going on out there, it’s really frustrating) being flat-out demented wrong.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Google doesn’t seem to help much in finding out how many died from the Great Depression. There’s conflicting information. It seems at that time, doctors weren’t very good at determining if malnutrition was a cause of a death. But anecdotal stories abound of people starving to death, and I remember my grandmother telling about a brother of hers that starved to death. But anecdotes do not make good scientific evidence. Also, at that time, advances in medicine were being made that were dramatically reducing mortality rates, in spite of some dying of starvation.

      So the best I can do is assume that poverty shortens lives, rather than positively prove that it does. But I would point out that the media has been reporting on food banks running out of food, and has shown extremely long lines of people waiting for food at food drives and food banks. When this food is all gone, I wonder what people without money will do?

      Sweden is not doing the lockdowns, and their death rate is currently higher than other countries. But they’re gambling that they’ll be lower in the long-run, because they won’t have recurring waves. It will be interesting to see how their gamble plays out.


      • We’ll see what happens to all of us. I think this pandemic will take the measure of our true humanity. I hope our children and their children will think well of whatever we do now. However we handle this. As for Sweden, fuck them.

        Liked by 1 person

  5. To put my 2 cents in I don’t want to join the protestors, but I do understand the concerns people do have about being locked down. But at the same time I wonder how on earth would we have survived what our grandparents went through and our great grand parents! The wars, rationing. Spanish flu. polio, etc. We Americans have got used to having it so easy! We have barely been quarantined for a month and we want to rsise a ruckus…..BUT look at our role model in the White House, when he doesn’t like something he is the biggest whiner of all!

    Liked by 2 people

    • Maybe our ancestors went through a lot, but they didn’t have to deal with the complexities of our modern society. I wonder if any generation has a special advantage over any other.

      We humans love to make problems for each other, and we always will. I see the battle lines being drawn, concerning pro and anti-lockdown. The Democrats will be pro, and the Republicans, anti. Frankly, being anti may be the Republicans only chance to win this November. They’ve got my lifelong-Democrat wife convinced. She told me yesterday that she’ voting for Trump, due to his criticism of the lockdowns, and the Democrats’ continual support of the lockdowns.

      And so the politicos have managed to turn this crisis political. And the Republicans are doing a crafty job mounting a comeback, with the help of the pandemic.


      • You hit the nail on the head! This is more about politics than it is about people’s health and economy and thats what so irritating! Why I hate watching the news. I don’t need any help being driven crazy and poltics threatens to drive me to the brink!

        Liked by 1 person

  6. I’m against the lockdown for all the government control and lack of freedom reasons you mentioned. But overall I’m pro lockdown. People don’t have to starve in a depression. We can divert resources to feeding people and creating healthcare for all. Yes debt is going to go through the roof, but that’s going to be true for every major country. There’s going to be no safer place for money to flee. Sure it’s a gamble, but at this point every decision is, and I’d rather bet on people living than some unproven hope that breaking a lockdown would do much/enough to make the economy recover right now… Live first. Money second.

    Liked by 1 person

    • It’s possible we can divert resources to feeding people, but with tens of millions of people needing food handouts, that’s a lot of resources to divert. I’d hate to be one of those needing food help, and having to wait in line four hours at a food bank for enough crumbs to feed my family.
      And there’s no guarantee the food will hold out, if these lockdowns continue for months on end.
      Debt is placing a strain somewhere. I don’t know where though, because I can’t figure out the complexities of our screwy economy. I just sense that something will have to give, and economic catastrophe will result.
      Nothing is proven. It’s not proven we’ll be better off with lockdowns than with no lockdowns. Either way we go, we’re gambling. And as far as living first and keeping money second, this is easy for those with enough money to live. But I’ll bet those with no money are feeling kind of nervous right now.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Agree with most of that. We do know that not locking down costs lives (Italy, New York). Food is actually inexpensive (historically). No one wants to be dependent, but that’s the easiest problem to solve. Housing and healthcare are even tougher issues. But it still seems easier to solve those issues than deal with the stacks of dead, sick and injured we would have if everywhere was like New York.

        Liked by 1 person

        • Maybe. Not locking down might cost more lives initially, but I’m not sure about the long run. Poverty kills in many different ways, and not just through starvation. Sometimes people choose food over medicine. And poor people tend to be more likely to abuse drugs and alcohol, and engage in other behaviors that can shorten life expectancy. And the stress alone, from poverty, can be bad for the heart. So I’m just not sure this lockdown gamble is worth it.

          Liked by 1 person

Go ahead, blurt it out:

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.