This Is Not A Lockdown, And The Press Need To Acknowledge That.
An unnamed government minister told the Financial Times, “There’s fragile consent for the current rules, let alone doing more.” However, SAGE scientist Professor Susan Michie believes that the current restrictions are “too lax”.
It should go without saying that the advice of a scientist who is a specialist for emergency crisis’ is more qualified than an unnamed Etonian that most likely specialises in Latin or economics.
To my glee and surprise, most articles I have found regarding the new lockdown emphasis that it is not strict enough, and give credit to the SAGE experts that know what they’re doing. With caution against letting my guard down, I’d plea with the media to go further: stop acknowledging the government’s language that this is a lockdown. It is far too relaxed for that sort of language.
Compared to the first ‘lockdown’, there are notable areas where current restrictions are more lenient. In some areas, such as childcare and marriage, the relaxation is at the very least admirable. In cases such as worship, I would describe the comparative relaxing of rules as negligent.
Prof. Michie explained to The Independent that “we have this new variant which is 50 to 70 per cent more infectious. You put those two things together, alongside the NHS being in crisis, we should have a stricter rather than less strict lockdown than we had back in March.”
Given that the UK is the homeland of this new variant of the virus, I would pose that it would be appropriate that we reflected that with restrictions that have successfully kept the virus under control within Chinas borders, as well as doing our neighbours a courtesy by actually locking down our airports, which the government has not done.
Think of any movie or TV show where a facility is locked down to prevent the escape of a criminal or vigilante, etc. The visual of the shutters coming down, the ensuing violence, the claustrophobic panic of the darkness and the panic of red siren lights. Before COVID-19 hit us, that was our semiotic link to the word lockdown, and I would caution that this connection in the minds of the public is very probably a contributing factor to the backlash to lockdown restrictions.
In using language such as ‘lockdown’ to describe our current restrictions, we in the media are framing the narrative in a way that implies that this is as strict as things can be when other countries around the world have shown us that not only are stricter measures possible, but they are more effective at controlling the virus and saving lives.This Is Not A Lockdown, And The Press Need To Acknowledge That.
An unnamed government minister told the Financial Times, “There’s fragile consent for the current rules, let alone doing more.” However, SAGE scientist Proffessor Susan Michie believes that the current restrictions are “too lax”.
It should go without saying that the advice of a scientist who is a specialist for emergency crisis’ is more qualified than an unnamed Etonian that most likely specialises in Latin or economics.
To my glee and surprise, most articles I have found regarding the new lockdown emphasis that it is not strict enough, and give credit to the SAGE experts that know what they’re doing. With caution against letting my guard down, I’d plea with the media to go further: stop acknowledging the governments language that this is a lockdown. It is far too relaxed for that sort of language.
Compared to the first ‘lockdown’, there are notable areas where current restrictions are more lenient. In some areas, such as childcare and marriage, the relaxation is at the very least admirable. In cases such as worship, I would describe the comparrative relaxing of rules as negligent.
Prof. Michie explained to the Independent that “we have this new variant which is 50 to 70 per cent more infectious. You put those two things together, alongside the NHS being in crisis, we should have a stricter rather than less strict lockdown than we had back in March.”
Given that the UK is the homeland of this new variant of the virus, I would pose that it would be appropriate that we reflected that with restrictions that have successfully kept the virus under control within Chinas borders, as well as doing our neighbours a courtesy by actually locking down our airports, which the government has not done.
Think of any movie or TV show where a facility is locked down to prevent the escape of a criminal or vigilante, etc. The visual of the shutters coming down, the ensuing violence, the claustrophobic panic of the darkness and the panic of red siren lights. Before COVID-19 hit us, that was our semotic link to the word lockdown, and I would caution that this connection in the minds of the public is very probably a contributing factor to the backlash to lockdown restrictions.
In using language such as ‘lockdown’ to describe our current restrictions, we in the media are framing the narrative in a way that implies that this is as strict as things can be, when other countries around the world have shown us that not only are stricter measures possible, but they are more effective at controlling the virus and saving lives.
