Of course, we were never really told why lockdown was called, so it's difficult to discuss measurables when we don't know what they were/are (albeit allegedly Boris has recently declared an "acceptable deaths" yardstick, which if true was a rather foolish thing to do because it's pretty much inevitable someone will find a measure which meets it, and then it becomes hard to resist lockdown calls).
But it we're reading between the lines and assuming the primary justification for lockdown is NHS capacity being exceeded, then I don't see why unvaccinated people should be the only thing under the spotlight.
I'm absolutely not advocating it as I'm not arguing for a lockdown based on NHS capacity (or any other reason at this point), but I find it hypocritical for people to be moaning about one group of people supposedly breaking the NHS, and therefore supposedly causing us all to go into lockdown, but not about other groups who have taken up NHS capacity not just in 2021, but over many years. One could extend this to say that anyone who hasn't controlled their weight, and is therefore more at risk of a bad Covid outcome, is "an idiot". None of this is a road we should be going down, instead we should be asking the politicians why the NHS has been found to be inadequate, and what they plan to do about it.
But by a similar token, we haven't had lockdowns over many years.
I don't agree with a lockdown full stop, be it for covid or for any other seasonal strain, however it does seem that certain parts of the medical establishment see ICU's full of Covid patients as a justification.
In light of that, I think it's perfectly reasonable for people to refuse to abide by restrictions in that circumstance, particularly if a majority in that circumstance had turned down vaccination without a medical justification. The only way that position would be hypocritical to my mind would be if those people then started calling for restrictions based on alcohol related admissions (as an example).
Last edited: