I don't like the term "new normal"

I find it extremely frightening that we should use this word, to describe the future. Why should we reverse the progress of society into a life that is marred by somewhat irrational fear, isolated, devoid of any joy or pleasure, when the vast majority of people will not die from coronavirus and will suffer a mild infection, if at all? We should demand the "old normal", and I am frustrated to see at how this term is not be challenged by anyone. We need the old normal back. I don't belive COVID is a hoax or anything, but I think life in the "new normal", won't be life at all, and I think we need to accept that inevitably, people may die of coronavirus, but these people may have died anyway. It may sound harsh, but is it really worth throwing away the progress of society, effectively ending life as we know it, in the hope that we avoid an infeciton? When in reality, we should be exposed to it (those who are safer) to develop immunity?

The term is supposed to encourage responsible practices - we aren't abandoning a way of life or moving into the dark ages, we are just acting with greater levels of precaution until it is safe to return to 'the old normal.

I find it extremely frightening that we should use this word, to describe the future. Why should we reverse the progress of society into a life that is marred by somewhat irrational fear, isolated, devoid of any joy or pleasure, when the vast majority of people will not die from coronavirus and will suffer a mild infection, if at all? We should demand the "old normal", and I am frustrated to see at how this term is not be challenged by anyone. We need the old normal back. I don't belive COVID is a hoax or anything, but I think life in the "new normal", won't be life at all, and I think we need to accept that inevitably, people may die of coronavirus, but these people may have died anyway. It may sound harsh, but is it really worth throwing away the progress of society, effectively ending life as we know it, in the hope that we avoid an infeciton? When in reality, we should be exposed to it (those who are safer) to develop immunity?

We are though. The human species, the human race, relies on people to have close contact? Perhaps I am taking things too extreme here, but theoretically, we cannot reproduce unless people aer cohabitating together. So in theory, if this was maintained indefinitely (and there is no one putting a date on when social distancing measures will end), the human race would die out. We can't do things like go to the pub, or even basic things like hug or kiss someone.

We can't do things like go to the pub

Is over 40,000 in the UK alone not proof that life is no longer what it was before Covid?

Yes, but we aren't maintaining it indefinitely, that is preposterous and nobody suggested that.

We are though. The human species, the human race, relies on people to have close contact? Perhaps I am taking things too extreme here, but theoretically, we cannot reproduce unless people aer cohabitating together. So in theory, if this was maintained indefinitely (and there is no one putting a date on when social distancing measures will end), the human race would die out. We can't do things like go to the pub, or even basic things like hug or kiss someone.

Is over 40,000 in the UK alone not proof that life is no longer what it was before Covid?

I think we can manage without going to the pub (though many pubs sadly will close). Social distancing may remain for some activities but not all.

But that's exactly the thing, the phrase suggests it will be. Why can't they just call it "living with the tempoary restrictions"? Sure, its less catchier but there is something that sends a shiver down my spine everytime I hear that phrase. It seems like "normal" has been everything pre COVID 19 and the "new normal" is some kind of new reality. If you read the governments 50 page plan they say nothing about things ever returning to normal. They say "as cloes to normal as possible".

But there is undoubtedly an overlap. Yes, their lives were tragically, and unjustifiably cut prematurely thanks to the diseaes, but these people would have mots likely died anyway - everyone dies eventually, but these people had life-limitign conditions. Despite the media hype when someone with seemingly no illness dies of it, these deaths are so miniscule they don't even compare to the people who die with covid who have a pre-existing health condition.

It's just basic rhetoric. Use a word like 'temporary' and people are less inclined to follow the restrictions. Use a phrase like 'new normal', people understand they have to make an adjustment in their lifestyle. There really isn't an argument to be had here, any assertion that the lockdown is going to continue indefinitely is just ridiculous.

Who knows. Judging by my instagram, most young people aren't following the rules. I can't even blame them anymore. The risk to the health of young people is honestly so low its amazing people have been overall obedient so far.

See look - WHO warns covid-19 may never go away https://www.france24.com/en/20200514-debate-how-to-adapt-to-new-normal-who-warns-covid-19-may-never-go-away

I'd like to think if that was the case we'd just end restrictions and accept it as endemic like HIV, AIDs or influenza, but I have a feeling we will be indefinitely locked down in one way or the other. TBH though I'd hardly call this a lockdown. It's just a largely confined existence.

We need the old normal back.

We won't be indefinitely locked down but we might need to use measures like continuing to socially distance and wearing face coverings.

We don't need it. You want it. That's different.



And, btw, "those people may have died"? What planet are you ok that most people are immortal and might not have died?