And still the evidence mounts...

Adults with children in the house attending school last year were no more likely to be admitted to hospital or die than those without:

www.itv.com/news/2021-03-19/school-atten...d-19-infectionsifica

The closure of schools and damage to the mental health of a generation achieved...nothing.

How can this be possible with such an infectious deadly disease? How can staying at home have made no difference? Because it is very infectious, but not harmful; certainly not to parents with school age children in their 20s/30s/40s.

Nothing had to close and many businesses didn’t have to go bankrupt.

I was propositioned to go in to business with a pub it’s such a risk; about 5 years ago I would done it without butting an eyelid.

If there’s no high street after lockdown there’s no hospitality.

Green Man wrote:
Nothing had to close and many businesses didn’t have to go bankrupt.

I was propositioned to go in to business with a pub it’s such a risk; about 5 years ago I would done it without butting an eyelid.

If there’s no high street after lockdown there’s no hospitality.

If there was a point to social distancing and masks why couldn't retail and hospitality have stayed open observing these measures? It's not only that there is no evidence lockdowns save lives, they also assumed that the measures they insisted did save lives, wouldn't really do so when it came to it. That is - they had no idea what they were doing or if it was needed. Just that they had to do something because Governments just...well...have to. Don't they?

Wyot wrote:
If there was a point to social distancing and masks why couldn't retail and hospitality have stayed open observing these measures?


For example, a high percentage of pubs just aren't viable with distancing because they're too small - and it's difficult to eat and drink with masks on.

Margrave wrote:
Wyot wrote:
If there was a point to social distancing and masks why couldn't retail and hospitality have stayed open observing these measures?


For example, a high percentage of pubs just aren't viable with distancing because they're too small - and it's difficult to eat and drink with masks on.

That is a little lost in detail for me...So we could have kept the large pubs and restaurants open and all retail. Masks can be lifted to eat as they are in the House of Commons when the finest minds in the country speak our behalf...

Margrave wrote:
Wyot wrote:
If there was a point to social distancing and masks why couldn't retail and hospitality have stayed open observing these measures?


For example, a high percentage of pubs just aren't viable with distancing because they're too small - and it's difficult to eat and drink with masks on.

Yet people still wrestle over the reductions in supermarkets.