Tag Archives: Coronavirus UK Lockdown

England Lockdown Déjà Vu Scare

Déjà Vu & The Man in the Iron[y]ed Mask

Published: 2 November 2020

Surely, the irony cannot have escaped anybody’s attention, that is to say the date on which Boris Johnson proposes to submit England to a new round of severe lockdown restrictions. When? November the 5^th. Talk about pissing on your fireworks! Let’s hope that Guy Fawkes doesn’t own a time machine!

For me, personally, the sudden but by no means unexpected surge in coronavirus cases has solved one puzzle. It has ended my indecisiveness as to whether or not I should change the title of one of my post series from ‘self-isolation’ to ‘social distancing’.

Would I be resident in the UK, the choice would no longer be mine to make. The new title would be lockdown. But here, in Kaliningrad, Russia, no such lockdown exists and, as at the time of writing, there is no intimation of one being implemented sometime soon.

Nevertheless, this seemingly clear-cut situation compared to that in the UK has done nothing to ease the difference in opinion that persists between myself and my friend and sparring partner, Ginger Cat Murr, about how we approach life now that coronavirus is once again in the ascendancy.

The difference is a nuanced one. Both of us are batting from the same wicket when it comes to lockdown. We share the belief that any benefits derived from such draconian measures, and there aren’t any, at least proven ones, are offset by the detrimental psychological impact that lockdown is having in its breakdown and fragmentation of normal human relationships ~ proof of which there is plenty.

We both believe, therefore, that the role of those in authority should be to guide and not dictate, and that the decision to what extent he or she decides to isolate themselves should be a matter of individual choice.

Admittedly, at the outset of coronavirus, earlier this year, I fully supported lockdown, as it was, without doubt, a sensible precaution to take as we travelled into the unknown. But that was then and now is now. In moving on we would do well to consider the almost 100-year-old maxim: adapt, adopt and improve.

Thus, as much as I balk against using such media catchphrases as New Normal, if it has taught us anything it is that Covid-19 is here to stay and that there is not only no quick fix but at the moment no fix, full stop.

Less than three months ago, the media was awash with vaccine-race stories, the implication being that at any moment the Lone Ranger would be riding on down to rescue us from Black Hat Corona. Now, we are told that although the vaccine, or myriad vaccines, are on course and will be rolled out soon, there is no silver bullet. It makes you think that someone should be given the bullet, and that it would not be a bad thing if whoever it is fired at it should ricochet a while throughout the world of science and the media.

That being as it should, back to our argument; I mean the debate between Ginger Cat Murr and myself on the pros and cons of lockdown.

Where our opinions diverge is that whilst we are both anti-enforced lockdowners, I have no problem at this point in time of entertaining a limited period of house arrest in order, if it works, to take pressure off the NHS and to give the science community and pharmaceutical companies time to test, develop, produce and distribute the once-vaunted vaccines/drugs, even if, as realists suggest, the end result will be less of a precision hit as we have been led to believe and more like the discharge from a sawn-off shotgun. Well, better hit and miss than no hit at all.

Ginger Cat Murr, on the other hand, sticks like glue to the mantra that the policy should be to protect the vulnerable as best we can and allow the rest, those who do not fit into this category, the freedom and intelligence of individual choice, taking up the logic cudgel that shutting some venues, like pubs and restaurants, whilst keeping other places open is a bit like being in first gear and reverse at the same time. In other words, Ginger Cat Murr is firmly behind the Great Barrington Declaration.

England Lockdown Déjà Vu Scare

In the UK, the debate appears to be going the way Brexit went. The country is becoming polarised into two distinct camps: those that want and welcome lockdown and those that don’t. And here there is a funny (as in bizarre) thing happening. Take a look at these headlines from the UK’s online media:

The Independent [2 November 2020] ~ ‘We need better leadership to beat the virus – not more of Boris Johnson’s false promises’

The Guardian [2 November 2020] ~ ‘The Guardian view on a second lockdown: what took him so long?’

The Independent [1 November 2020] ~ ‘This lockdown is better late than never, but it would have been even better in September’

Making allowances for the usual, and inevitable, ‘party political broadcast on behalf of …’ does it appear to you that it is primarily the liberal left who are rooting for lockdown? If so, how strange? I would have thought that the very word ‘lockdown’ would be sufficient to ignite cries of totalitarian agenda from the usual suspects, and that any government, but particularly a Tory government, advocating such policies would be condemned out of hand for launching an assault against our sacred ‘uman rights! But then, as we all know, liberalism and rationale …?

England Lockdown Déjà Vu Scare

The insult-to-injury kernel of this nut, the lockdown debate, not partisan politics, and what I would hazard a guess will prove to be the enduring symbol of early 21^st century angst, by which history will judge our governments, scientists and media, has to be the face mask.

Who would have thought, before coronavirus came along, that this little piece of material slapped across your face would be such a bone of contention? It alone defines the division between those who do as they are told and those who do otherwise? But it represents more than that, a great deal more.

The mask symbolises the confused messages that have launched a thousand conspiracy theories; obfuscated the issue like no other; completely and totally undermined our trust, not only in politicians but also, and more importantly, in the credibility of our scientists, whose case for and against mask wearing veers from claims that masks can trap the virus to masks are perfectly useless, with the disturbing caveat that in the worst case scenario the improper use of masks can aid and abet viral transmission.

What is the proper way of using and wearing a mask? Don’t ask, because once you have the answer you will realise that unless you are a walking ‘laboratory condition’ living in a hermitically sealed sterile environment, your chances of success are about as odds-on as winning the lottery.

Do I personally wear a mask? Don’t we all? [Leonard Cohen: “And if you want another kind of love, I’ll wear a mask for you.”] Well, that all depends, of course, on what I am doing and where I am. But in the ongoing struggle against coronavirus, I do just as much as the rules necessitate, albeit without conviction (in both senses!)

To end on a more personal note, I must confess that I do derive a certain degree of amusement from observing the relationships between individuals and their masks.

Whilst there are some people whose masks seem to have become a sort of never-to-be-removed fungus that they have assiduously adhered to their mug, others do seem to have adopted a loose, indeed very loose, definition of what mask-wearing entails and, by default, what they expect to achieve by it. The best example of this are those that plaster their masks about their mouth but have their noses hanging out, as if the proboscis during this particular pandemic has ceased to play any meaningful part in the respiratory process.

I remember seeing something on Facebook that compared wearing a mask in this way to the unlikely practice of men wearing their pants with their willy over the waistband. (I’m sorry? Have you something you wish to confess to, comrade?)

It would appear that coronavirus mask-wearing has led some of us to completely reinvent our faculty for breathing; why else would anyone wear their mask on their chin or tuck it into their throat as if it is a cravat? And what of those naughty people who in spite of ‘rules are rules’ deliberately flout them and do not wear a mask. Are they rebels? Selfish anti-social miscreants? People who have a justifiable grievance against mask-wearing, ie they believe that they facilitate viral transmission rather than prevent, or cannot wear a mask for medical reasons? Or, in the last analysis, could they be mask wearers of an unconventional kind, ie wearing a mask but not on their face!

Ask yourself this question: Every time you see someone without a mask, is he or she really maskless or have they got one secreted about their person, wearing it in the most unlikely of places? So far, I have not seen any authoritarian rules about how to wear your mask, only that you must wear one! So, where and how you wear it is open to interpretation. And there are cases, of course, where people should be exempt. Take The Invisible Man, for example, there would be as much logic in him wearing a face mask as, er, repetitive bouts of lockdown?

Coronavirus Language & the Mask Argument

Diary of a Self-isolator: Day 209 [9 October 2020]

Published: 11 October 2020

Coronavirus chaos has strengthened its grip on the UK, the focus having now switched away from London to the north of the country. There are so many different ideas, protocols and strategies proposed for or operating in so many different regions and towns that the British public have been propelled into a second wave of terminal confusion. ‘Traffic lights’, three-tier systems, pub curfews, the Rule of Six, social distancing, lockdown ~ this lexical explosion, perpetrated by political pundits and lobbed like grenades into the public arena by hack journalists, has not, as linguists would have us believe, helped a beleaguered public to communicate better the altered shape of their lives and collective state of mind as much as it has routed common sense.

Coronavirus language & the mask argument

The new speak is bandied around as something positive given to us by the New Normal in return for stealing our lives. It is a poor substitute, thrilling perhaps for linguists and for those who devote their lives to the pursuit of adding slang to dictionaries, but for the humble man on the street (now locked down in his home), it is just so much unnecessary verbiage.

As I sit here in Kaliningrad ~ sometimes Königsberg ~ I have, by slow and calculated degrees, weened myself off my daily habit of consulting UK Google News, because (a) it is depressing and (b) after five minutes of reading, I feel as if I am drowning in alphabetti spaghetti.

Alphabetti spaghetti

There are no such buzzwords in Kaliningrad as there are in the UK, not even, or very rarely, a mention of ‘second wave’, but the protection that this offers us from the contagion of new speak and from the ill-thought-through strategies, U-turns and excuses around which in the UK these catch-all words revolve, does not, as with the rest of the infected world, extend immunity to the real problem, coronavirus, or provide us with a way back to the life we have lost and for which we grieve.

I suppose that in the last analysis as long as you remember to step carefully through the media spaghetti, the semantics are irrelevant; they ‘don’t amount to a hill of beans in this crazy world’; it is simply a case of whether or not you like your beans spiced or served as they come without relish.

Coronavirus language & the mask argument

Today, for example (9 October 2020), without a lot of fuss, I learn from consulting Kaliningrad news that 67 new cases of coronavirus have been confirmed, bringing the total number of infected to 4,970 in this region. A total of 3,521 people have recovered, and the total number of deaths since the onset of the pandemic stands at 89¹.

Whilst this should come as no surprise to anybody, as governments around the world, the WHO, scientists and health practitioners have been telling us all along to regard summer as little more than a seasonal respite, because this virus, like most respiratory viruses, favours a romp in the autumn and winter months, some critics here have inferred that a contributory factor to the increased number of Covid-19 cases has been “a decrease in the vigilance of the population”².

This mainly, but non-specifically, I assume refers to the controversial subject of mask-wearing in confined public spaces. It is quite astonishing that 12 months into the pandemic, the world’s health gurus, scientists, governments and the public are still at serious odds about how efficacious face masks are as a preventative measure against Covid-19, and that this one issue alone illustrates not only how polarised opinion has become on how best to protect oneself against the virus but also serves to remind us of how fallible our knowledge is and how vulnerable we are when the science community on which we rely are unable to reach consensus on something so fundamental.

In the UK, here and elsewhere in the Covid-19 world, the division and opposition between maskers and anti-maskers defines the ambiguities of the ‘New Normal’ as well as its extremes, and allegiance and loyalty to one or the other is breeding the kind of resentment and partisan hostility usually reserved for, as Leonard Cohen describes it, “the war between the black and white and … left and right”, not to mention the rancour between the leave and remain camps of Brexit. Indeed, the line drawn in the sand between pro- and anti-maskers is as deep as any encountered and has a universal reach.

Coronavirus language & the mask argument

In Kaliningrad to mask or not to mask has led to altercations on public transport and recently, it was reported, that a fight broke out on a bus between a pro-masker and an anti-masker³. There is no doubt that throughout the infected world feelings are running high, but is this the result of fear or bigotry, frustration, ignorance or ambiguity, or a little bit of everything and a little more besides? Whatever is stoking it, as with all last stands on the moral high ground, since both opposing parties are convinced that the cause which they espouse has right upon its side, unless someone steps up to the plate and passes final judgement on the mask vs no mask case, the heat can only go up and the situation can only deteriorate.

As with all arguments of this nature ~ inconclusive ones ~ there is no flexibility, no ground to give. The pro-maskers believe unquestionably that face masks can prevent or at least protect against the spread of the disease, whilst the anti-maskers argue that not only are masks ineffective but that wearing them incorrectly can actually increase one’s chances of catching coronavirus, particularly if masks are carried, handled and worn in ways that contradict and confound the science by which their usefulness, and by default their limitations, are defined.

Consider the following, which was emailed to the comments section of the article cited above³ [Note that this has been reproduced verbatim using an automated translation service]:

‘Who among those who like to wear masks observes these rules? How to Wear a Medical Mask: Important Recommendations A disposable medical mask is only used once. The mask is placed on the face so that it covers the nose, mouth and chin. If the mask has strings, they must be tied tightly. If a plastic fastener is sewn into the mask in the area of the nose, it is tightly fitted with your fingers to the bridge of the nose. Many masks have special folds. They are unfolded to give the garment a more functional shape for a snug fit to the face. While wearing the mask, it is not recommended to touch its protective field with your hands. After touching the mask, hands are washed with soap and then treated with a special antiseptic. It is better not to take breaks in the process of wearing the mask: after removing the product from the face, a person, as a rule, touches it with his hands, shifts to the chin and neck, or even puts it in his pocket, and this is strictly prohibited. Dispose of the wet mask immediately and put on another, dry and clean. On average, the medical mask is changed every 2 hours. Removing the used mask, you must not touch the protective layer of the product, where pathogens have already accumulated. The mask is gently pulled off the face by grasping the ear loops or strings. Knowing how to properly wear a medical face mask is very important. Otherwise, the protective effect of the product will be minimized, and the risk of “catching” the virus, on the contrary, increases significantly.’

In the early days of coronavirus a friend of ours, who, incidentally, is a confirmed anti-masker who wears a mask begrudgingly, reminded someone on public transport that they were not wearing a mask. She was promptly informed by the non-mask wearer that there was no need for her to wear a mask because she was not infected. Our friend replied, that she was not thinking of her infecting others but being infected herself. When the bus conductress came along, who also was not wearing a mask, our friend asked if she challenged passengers who were not wearing masks and asked them to put them on. She replied: “Of course not!”

Two week ago I travelled by tram across the city, whereupon I observed some people wearing masks and some not. My maths have always left a lot to be desired, but in my humble opinion I would estimate that the split was equal at 50:50. In the article quoted above³, interviews with public transport staff conclude that since the onset of coronavirus and the early days of the mask-wearing rule the uptake has improved and is improving, even if the grumbling has not.

Coronavirus language & the mask argument

And what about me? For my own part, I am a reformed anti-masker/reluctant masker, but my gut feeling echoes the sentiments of the commentator whose words I quoted earlier in this post, namely that knowledge of and adherence to the art and science of mask wearing is, firstly, not well understood, and secondly, even if it was, is difficult if not impossible to transact under normal societal conditions. And under New Normal conditions? Well, I will try to answer that when somebody tells me in plain English or in simple Russian what the New Normal is.

In the meantime, no more spaghetti for me, thanks, I have signed myself up for a detox diet.

How do you spell ‘NOT SURE’? Coronavirus Language & the Mask Argument
(*Photo credit)

Note: The opinions expressed in this article are exactly that, opinions. The current rules, as I understand them, are that the wearing of masks is mandatory on public transport and in other enclosed public places, ie shops, chemists, etc …

References
1. https://kgd.ru/news/society/item/91655-za-sutki-v-kaliningradskoj-oblasti-podtverdili-67-sluchaev-koronavirusa
2. https://kgd.ru/news/society/item/91641-kravchenko-lichno-ya-ne-predpolagal-takogo-stremitelnogo-rosta-chisla-zabolevshih-koronavirusom
3. https://kgd.ru/news/society/item/91610-potasovki-rugan-i-smirenie-kak-v-transporte-kaliningrada-boryutsya-s-narushitelyami-masochnogo-rezhima

*(Photo credit: bernswaelz (pixabay.com) https://www.needpix.com/photo/download/531227/letters-noodles-food-pasta-free-pictures-free-photos-free-images-royalty-free-free-illustrations)

Mixing in Pubs & Home Illegal

Pubs and homes made illegal in four new coronavirus regions including Beatlesville

Health Secretry Mel Hotcock announced emergency lockdown changes for Beatlesville, Whoreington, Hilterpool and Mindlessborough as loss of common sense continues to surge

Health Secretry Mel Hotcock announced today that if you don’t live together, then you can’t mix together. From one minute past half-past three today, give or take thirty seconds, non-mixing, other than between consenting mixers in the same home, will be legally banned from mixing ~ which includes cakes and cement ~ in private homes, private gardens or indoor venues in the afore-named regions. Mixing in communal areas, on street corners, in air balloons, on the side of the Great North Road, or anywhere else where the police can’t catch you and fine you 200 quid, has been cited as a jolly good alternative to everyone moving in together and mixing willy-nilly.

Beatlesville and Whoreington already have laws in place to prevent people meeting in private homes, which has led to a lot of crowded doorsteps, and there is strict guidance about meeting in pubs and restaurants, although this has not affected the ‘lonely guy’ who sits on his own in the corner.

So, how does it work?

Do you really expect an answer?!

Offenders face £200 on-the-spot fines, which is bad news for exhibitionists who like to keep their curtains open. However, people who share a bubble car or have childcare needs are exempt, as are schools and workplaces, as it has been scientifically proven that coronavirus only targets non-home mixers and people in pubs and restaurants in groups of more than six.

However, mixing in parks or beer gardens, whilst breaking guidance but not the law, is acceptable, as long as there is only six of you. What to do with the seventh is not clear but will suit some who are having an affair and want to get rid of the wife or return to those good old days at school where bullying by exclusion is a veritable institution. No government advice has been forthcoming about getting into beer gardens if going to pubs is made illegal, but by parachute is not illegal providing you drop in no more than six at a time. Anymore will break guidance rules but not necessarily the law.

Not attending sports matches is recommended, and no more than six players are allowed on the field at any one time, providing that they are living together and observing the one-metre distancing rule. {The FA, RFU and England and Wales Cricket Board were all available for comment, but we simply dare not publish what they had to say. Here is a hint: the FA said FA, the RFU said FU and the England and Wales Cricket Board cried middle wicket and bails.}

Mixing in pubs & home illegal

Good news! You can visit care homes, but only in ‘exceptional circumstances’ (whatever they are?) but take care not to break ‘non-essential’ travel rules. If you must travel then it is possibly best not to, unless you are a celeb whose star is fading fast and is desperate for publicity, whether good or bad. Of course, travelling to work or school 60 to a bus, or packed like sardines in a rail carriage, is quite permissible.

Stop press (and mixing!): We understand that local authorities in the four areas effected will be given £7 million, but we have not been told why? Do they know something we don’t? And who is going on holiday?

A Labour MP for Mindlessborough made a completely silly statement about mixing being the ‘root cause’ of everything ~ and no one listened to him, and probably won’t vote for him again. And the mayor of Mindlessborough, smitten suddenly by what the Daily Shunter described as another mysterious symptom of coronavirus, told the government to go and do one.

The introduction of a new ‘traffic light’ system, whilst it may not have the slightest chance of ending the confusion, will, it is confidently believed, add substantially to the confusion that already exists, and, besides, it just sounds good.

The three tier system, which will be applied to towns and cities according to all sorts of things — ie tier 1 very tight restrictions; tier 2 not so tight restrictions; tier 3 restrictions about as tight as a pair of pants with no elastic — have come under fire from people who just don’t get it ~ or haven’t got it yet ~ with Liebour questioning whether people in tier 1 and 2 towns will simply flout non-essential travel bans, drive to tier 1 towns and move in with other people — a ‘highly likely’ scenario (thank you Mrs May) if the pubs are open late.

Mixing in pubs & home illegal

Concern that the new pub curfew is piling people onto public transport at the same time — where social distancing is impossible to adhere to, non-essential travel questionable (what’s the point of going home where you can only mix with people you don’t want to) and where you can be fined £200 for mixing in an indoor venue, ie a bus — has invoked the logic that if there was no curfew people could just enjoy themselves and catch coronavirus in the pub instead of on the buses, or could easily catch it later were the pubs to close at normal times.

Liberal activists have accused the government of discrimination, arguing that in deciding where and when the public can and cannot catch coronavirus is a clear violation of virus’ rights.

So far there has been no legislation to combat the allegation that coronavirus is selectively racist or that the virus places men more at risk of fatality than women. It is hoped, however, that if the first finding leads to riots, that riot mixes will be limited to crowds of six, preferably from the same household. The government has already taken the precaution of hiding all statues behind giant face masks. As for the man thing, any suggestion that the virus could be sexist has been effectively dealt with under the Positive Discrimination Act.

Whilst everyone should do their utmost to obey the letter of the law ~ known by most as the ‘C’ rate ~ the public are advised to beware of scams, such as where policemen disguised as policemen try to fine you 200 quid.

Remember, there is a subtle difference between breaking the guidelines and breaking the law (200 quids worth of subtlety), but one thing the government has not made clear (amongst the many other things) is whether breaking wind is exempt or not, but laughing about it certainly is, unless you are breaking wind with others in your own household group, where, after several months of lockdown, it has probably ceased to be funny.

In summary, what we think, but don’t know exactly, is now happening in the four areas:

What was previously lockdown is now more lockdown than previously
Previously you could be breaking guidance, but now you can break the law instead (£200 please)
Previously it was illegal to mix with people in private homes and gardens, now we are all related and have much larger extended families
You can go to the pub with everyone from the same household with whom you have been rowing and getting on each other’s nerves for months, but if you mix with others, such as the man or woman behind the bar, you risk a fine of £200
You can mix in parks or beer gardens if there is no more than six of you, but the government advises against it in case the man sweeping up leaves or the girl collecting the beer glasses gets too close, thus making it seven people (£200 please!)
Exemptions for people in bubble cars, saying that they are childcare supporters, or working from home in pubs or parks must not look like MPs or else they will have to resign
Non-essential travel, which does not include trips to the outside toilet where no more than six from the same household are allowed to congregate for fear of contracting a social stigma, is at ‘guidance’ stage, but just when you get used to it, it could suddenly change at half-past-four-and-a-half and become a criminal offence (£200 please)

If in doubt don’t be an amber gambler, consult the government’s traffic-light system!

Mixing in Pubs & Home Illegal ~ government's new traffic-light system

Red ~ you must not go anywhere or do anything, but you must go to work

Amber ~ you can go somewhere, but we are not sure where, but if you go, go in sixes

Green ~ go now, and go quickly before the lights change to red!

*Photo credit

LOCKDOWN! NEW UK BOARD GAME …

*(Photo credit: kalhh / pixabay.com; https://www.freeimg.net/photo/339993/trafficlights-red-stop-lightsignal)

Coronavirus & the Fear of Conservatism

Coronavirus & the Fear of Conservatism ~ but whose fear is it?

Published: 16 August 2020

Pinch me, wake me up, please tell me that I have been dreaming. I will not go so far as to say that the BBC has plumbed new depths of depravity, but could we say stupidity? Once renowned for its incisive journalism, for producing some of the finest English historical dramas ever to cross the airwaves, not to mention some of the finest comedies, the beeb has allowed itself to become so completely enslaved to the revisionism and foppery of liberalism and its politically correct mantra that it is fast becoming a parody of their worst excesses. Consider this article, if you will: ‘The fear of coronavirus is changing our psychology’.

There now follows a series of quotes, please look away if you are not up for a giggle:

“Due to some deeply evolved responses to disease, fears of contagion lead us to become more conformist and tribalistic, and less accepting of eccentricity. Our moral judgements become harsher and our social attitudes more conservative when considering issues such as immigration or sexual freedom and equality. Daily reminders of disease may even sway our political affiliations.” {Oh no, Ha! Ha!}

“The recent reports of increased xenophobia and racism may already be the first sign of this” {Ha! Ha! Ha!}

“In the same study, a reminder to wash their hands led participants to be more judgemental of unconventional sexual behaviours. They were less forgiving of a woman who was said to masturbate while holding her childhood teddy bear, for example, or a couple who had sex in the bed of one of their grandmothers”. {Ha! Ha! He! He! Others, Its and all … er, and so what?}

“… the threat of disease can also lead us be more distrustful of strangers. That’s bad news if you’re dating.” {… guffaw! and good news if you are not as cautious as you should be}

“… it can result in prejudice and xenophobia … fear of disease can influence people’s attitudes to immigration.” {snort, well, yes?}

Where’s Michael Palin when you need him! Oh yes, most likely virtue-signalling by calling for a new politically correct design for the Most Distinguished Order of St Michael and St George. We’ll press on without him.

At one level, the nonsense in this article is reassuring, for instance you may have been labouring under the false apprehension that your conservative view on the world and the renewed trust placed in less ‘eccentricity’ and more social and moral stability is the onset of coronavirus itself (one of those media-alleged new symptoms) or alternatively has been brought about by me, in Kaliningrad, hacking into your juice blender.

No connection, but as for the sex bit, I would think that your lust affair with your teddy bear, Action Man model or Obama doll is your business, and as for grandma’s bed, well it is the same as gay parades, it is all very colourful, isn’t it, but do we really have to applaud every time?

As for strangers, generation upon generation of grandpops and grandmas (all suspicious about ‘whose been sleeping in my bed’ (wasn’t that something to do with teddy bears? Or did that happen at their picnic?) have been warning the young about the dangers of strangers ~ “If you go down to the woods today you’ll be in for a big surprise …” ~ there you are, it’s those teddy bears again! Admittedly, it is not good for dating, and we no longer have Cilla Black to reassure us it is all safe fun.

And what about, “Extra! Extra! Read all about it! Fear of coronavirus ‘can result in prejudice and xenophobia … fear of disease can influence people’s attitudes to immigration’”.

Presumably, when in lockdown you would welcome the chance to see more people, is not that the reason why when lockdown was eased hordes of Brits, both legacy and in name only, threw away their masks like women’s libbers of old discarding their burnt bras, and shooting off to Skeggy and Brighton for the day, showed the world, whilst showing themselves up, just how tolerant they were to every piece of space invasion. The same could be said about Brit attitudes to immigration, unless of course you realise that the country is over-populated, that the NHS cannot cope and as the economy is at the lowest ebb it has been for years there is little sense in encouraging thousands of illegals to land upon these shores and put them up for free in Kent hotels. But then that’s not xenophobia, that is common sense.

So, we can see from this article that the definitive message is do not worry about catching coronavirus and feeling ill, do not worry about catching coronavirus and feeling very ill, do not worry about catching coronavirus and it killing you, the main concern is that the fear of coronavirus may wake you up from the PC nightmare inflicted upon you for the past 30 years and make you want life to be normal again ~ a return to Britain the way it was.

Rest assured, this is not your fear, but the fear of it happening is sure terrifying someone.

Quick, bring on the ‘vaccine’!!

Coronavirus & the Fear of Conservatism — **You’ll just have to wait until you’ve had the vaccine!**

Boris UK Lockdown Necessary

Chastised & Locked Down

Published: 24 March 2020

If you voted for Boris in the recent General Election, you should congratulate yourself; if, conversely, you voted for Labour and instead you got Boris Johnson, thank your lucky stars that you did not get what you wished for.

Boris UK Lockdown Necessary

Even the opposition is having to admit that the crisis we are facing has placed the government in an unprecedented situation and that this is no time for pitting civil liberties against the need for real action. Nobody knows exactly how to proceed as there is no blueprint for success; nobody knows how things will pan out; the game is ongoing and difficult decisions have to be made, as and when they are necessary.

Boris Locks Down London & UK — (Photo credit: John Salvino on Unsplash )

Boris Johnson has achieved something quite extraordinary and unequivocally necessary today: he has put the country on lockdown. Considering the flagrant and banal way in which thousands of Brits ignored advice to distance themselves from each other, the prime minister had little option but to instigate these measures. And whilst most rational folk will conclude that its worth a try, we can only imagine ~ and sigh with relief that we only have to imagine ~ how much worse it all would be if Labour were in power.

Some evidence of what I am hinting at emerges in a BBC article about the 329-page emergency bill that was passed in the House of Commons today.

While Labour believed unprecedented measures were now needed to “save lives and protect our communities”, he said the measures would “chill every Liberal in the House” and it only offered its support with a “heavy heart”

Right, well turn the heating up, lighten up and let’s get on with it.