News1 min ago
Do The Majority Of People Really Want A Stricter Lock Down?
I keep hearing on the news and reading articles in the papers (sorry no link) that when questioned a majority of people are in favour of even stricter lock down measures. Who are they asking? I don't know anyone in my quite wide circle of family and friends who are in favour, on the contrary, most of them think we have gone too far already. I can only conclude that they have been asking those whose financial security is guaranteed, by whatever means, no matter what.
Answers
The only people I know who don’t object to stricter lockdown are those receiving a regular income. For those who have mortgages to pay and families to feed and businesses to maintain it's disastrous.
10:48 Thu 22nd Oct 2020
A vaccine may not be a magic bullet either...
https:/
https:/
Am sure the surveys are based on representive samples. A have some freinds and colleages who are very strict about things and want tight restrictions and others who want to be left to make there own decisions about carrying on as normal. But a wonder if some of those who say in a survey the want tighter restrictions really mean the want tighter restrictions on other peopel not on themself
but dave, I thought you were going to starve to death if you had to self isolate owing to your lack of friends to bring you food?
In any case, I agree with naomi, people who's income is not affected by a lockdown (can wfh, on benefits/pension and so on) or people who don't have to home educate their children
In any case, I agree with naomi, people who's income is not affected by a lockdown (can wfh, on benefits/pension and so on) or people who don't have to home educate their children
//They carefully select at random// so did I :-)
We are lucky in that our work has not been affected, plus, we have had grants as well. But, clearly, a lot of people are being financially, physically, mentally affected... and I think everyone needs to be allowed to get back to normal asap. I will continue to be extra careful, as my clients are all vulnerable, but except for essential services, vulnerable people will continue to shield if they want to.
And not all do.... we have a 102 year old lady desperate to see her family, she knows the score exactly, but is not allowed to make her own decision.
We are lucky in that our work has not been affected, plus, we have had grants as well. But, clearly, a lot of people are being financially, physically, mentally affected... and I think everyone needs to be allowed to get back to normal asap. I will continue to be extra careful, as my clients are all vulnerable, but except for essential services, vulnerable people will continue to shield if they want to.
And not all do.... we have a 102 year old lady desperate to see her family, she knows the score exactly, but is not allowed to make her own decision.
This is why it's always a good idea to check the questions, but it's misleading to say that all polls are so flawed. And, besides, the entire point is that if you ask the population as a whole you are far more likely to get a better representation of the population than from your own circle of friends and family, which, however wide, is simply not going to do the same job.
Polls are flawed, but they are less flawed than other methods. And there *are* ways of making them tell you something far more useful than you could get by other methods. Make the sample size random, but representative. Make the questions non-leading. Ask a reasonable number of people, but not necessarily everyone. Perform sophisticated statistical techniques to analyse the data, rather than just make it all up. And so on. For the public, the key, too, is to take a collection of polls rather than any individual one: look for trends, pay attention to what different companies are doing, and the like. It's hard work, and there are always limitations, but it's still worth it within the constraints of sampling.
Unfortunately, it seems that there's a conceit of familiarity, along the lines of regarding our own circle of friends as large, diverse, representative, etc, all of which are demonstrably false.
Polls are flawed, but they are less flawed than other methods. And there *are* ways of making them tell you something far more useful than you could get by other methods. Make the sample size random, but representative. Make the questions non-leading. Ask a reasonable number of people, but not necessarily everyone. Perform sophisticated statistical techniques to analyse the data, rather than just make it all up. And so on. For the public, the key, too, is to take a collection of polls rather than any individual one: look for trends, pay attention to what different companies are doing, and the like. It's hard work, and there are always limitations, but it's still worth it within the constraints of sampling.
Unfortunately, it seems that there's a conceit of familiarity, along the lines of regarding our own circle of friends as large, diverse, representative, etc, all of which are demonstrably false.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.