Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
"Stay alert" - new govenment messaging
- Thread starter Wozza
- Start date
The sloganizing of the advice in this manner is the politicizing of the crisis. People have been very generous to Boris so far. But this latest wheeze is shit. Fact.
Easing restrictions, or signaling an easing is, in my view, premature and in fact ****ing dangerous. More people may well die. They don't know, of course.
Also I resent the implication I and others are politicizing Covid by saying so.
And rightly so.
In this case all of these DEFINITELY apply! Now that the government has had to explain what "Stay Alert" means, it's clear what a rubbish message it is. The first explanation is "Stay Alert by staying at home as much as possible". Since when is that in any way an appropriate explanation of being alert? It's almost as if they imagine someone dozzily approaching their front door when BAM! suddenly they are transformed to a state of "alertness", recoil, and go back to the sofa. And how is "staying at home as much as possible" in any way consistent with being able to exercise more? And what difference is there between "Stay at Home" and "Stay at home as much as possible". Previously I could go shopping for essentials and go to the doctor. Theoretically "Stay at home as much as possible" is a stricter requirement as I now need to show that it wasn't possible for me to do anything other than go out.
At the root of all this is that government thinks we are all morons, and the only way they can communicate with us is via vapid slogans. True, our educational standards are depressingly low, but it would be nice if someone at the top just told us straight.
And the other thing that is REALLY stupid is changing the surrounding colour from RED to GREEN. And they have done this to coincide with a new system to grade the severity of the crisis, which will run from 5 (red) to 1 (green). Apparently we are now at level 4 (which, funnily enough, does NOT mean green). They seem to be deliberately confusing us.
Thunder Bolt
Silly old bat
Rees-Mogg has already declared those who go to state schools have the intelligence of potted plants.
Richy_Seagull
Well-known member
Can't believe anyone is trying to stick up for this, embarrassing.
Total joke of a slogan with no clear message, changing red to green. No wonder it's getting the ridicule it deserves.
Total joke of a slogan with no clear message, changing red to green. No wonder it's getting the ridicule it deserves.
Machiavelli
Well-known member
I agree about the earlier slogan, but to attempt to answer your question: the nuanced scenario you correctly outline is not amenable to a simple slogan. So, it's not about finding one that's better. It's about recognising that slogans don't work in certain situations, and this is one. Their problem is that they've been very good at simple slogans and, given far too high a proportion of the public has fallen for them, they're of the view that the public is thick as shit, and can't operate without one.
As much as slogan by their nature are dumb, that would be an uproar in the press if there was no slogan - what’s the message? What the **** do we do now? Government don’t know what to tell us to do etc. And that feeds down to those who swallow paper talk as fact. It wouldn’t be good IMO.
How much distance?
What level of carelessness?
How many lives?
So I can’t go back to work then because I’ve got to think I’ve got COVID? So that’s the economy ****ed then.
Shambles.
Its just a slogan though. Sure they could have gone with something more epic like "A New Hope" or "Return of the Normality" or something more informative like "Stay home but not quite as much as you used to stay home"... does it really matter though? Unless people are even more braindead than expected they are still going to understand that its not time to go lick grandma in the face just yet.
Radio 5 reports again what a gov spokesman says 'stay alert' means. Apparently it is 'nuanced' and means 'stay at home as much as possible, wash your hands, respect social distancing, etc'.
I'm sorry. I have decided that it is no longer possible for me to stay at home as I had beens staying at home according to the previous guidance. I have a need to go out a lot, and visit people. I am delighted that the new slogan means I can do that.
Well not me, obviously. I'm still frightened and I don't want to die at my age (61).
However the great mob over the council estate who were having a piss up and barbie, still, at midnight yesterday will doubtless have their own take on what 'stay alert' means. I doubt they will go on gov.uk to check on all the nuance.
No, the government is now strategising playing prussian roulette with my life (that's where we pretend we are like the Germans while turning a blind eye to the usual slackadaisical English risk taking behaviours that have given us, among other things, a teenage pregnancy rate that is the envy of nobody in the rest of Northern Europe).
I have cut Boris a lot of slack as can be noted in my various posts on all this. Up to now. I am now deeply concerned by the new 'nuance', and question his overall strategising. His spokesman said 'we can't stay in lockdown forever, so....'. Fine. But so 'what'? This to me is like saying an alcoholic can't go without a drink forever, so.....
I can behave. I can stay at home. Someone has to shop for me, though. Mrs T has to face the same clowns who can't social distance that I have faced. And that was with the old guidance. Now what? I have the words of the 'English Colonel' in my head again ('what's a few men?').
I can understand an 'acceptable level of casualties' in times of war, when the need is to win and the costs high however we play it. But this is a ****ing disease, though. 'Winning' is 'getting back to normal' (playing football and going down the pub) not defeating a nation that may want to exteriminate or enslave us.
We have to face facts. We should be increasing, not loosening restrictions. We should be policing it. We may then stand some sort of chance of isolating those who are infectious and managing the disease long term. To do that we have to get the numbers down. Germany has done well, but if their increase in numbers is real and not a blip they will soon be back to maximum restrictions again. We are nowehere near the Germans' low numbers and I cannot emphasize strongly enough how irresponsible and political this new 'nuance' looks to me. I find it shocking. You can dismiss me as 'making a political point' if you like. I'm beyond annoyed about this.
I'm sorry. I have decided that it is no longer possible for me to stay at home as I had beens staying at home according to the previous guidance. I have a need to go out a lot, and visit people. I am delighted that the new slogan means I can do that.
Well not me, obviously. I'm still frightened and I don't want to die at my age (61).
However the great mob over the council estate who were having a piss up and barbie, still, at midnight yesterday will doubtless have their own take on what 'stay alert' means. I doubt they will go on gov.uk to check on all the nuance.
No, the government is now strategising playing prussian roulette with my life (that's where we pretend we are like the Germans while turning a blind eye to the usual slackadaisical English risk taking behaviours that have given us, among other things, a teenage pregnancy rate that is the envy of nobody in the rest of Northern Europe).
I have cut Boris a lot of slack as can be noted in my various posts on all this. Up to now. I am now deeply concerned by the new 'nuance', and question his overall strategising. His spokesman said 'we can't stay in lockdown forever, so....'. Fine. But so 'what'? This to me is like saying an alcoholic can't go without a drink forever, so.....
I can behave. I can stay at home. Someone has to shop for me, though. Mrs T has to face the same clowns who can't social distance that I have faced. And that was with the old guidance. Now what? I have the words of the 'English Colonel' in my head again ('what's a few men?').
I can understand an 'acceptable level of casualties' in times of war, when the need is to win and the costs high however we play it. But this is a ****ing disease, though. 'Winning' is 'getting back to normal' (playing football and going down the pub) not defeating a nation that may want to exteriminate or enslave us.
We have to face facts. We should be increasing, not loosening restrictions. We should be policing it. We may then stand some sort of chance of isolating those who are infectious and managing the disease long term. To do that we have to get the numbers down. Germany has done well, but if their increase in numbers is real and not a blip they will soon be back to maximum restrictions again. We are nowehere near the Germans' low numbers and I cannot emphasize strongly enough how irresponsible and political this new 'nuance' looks to me. I find it shocking. You can dismiss me as 'making a political point' if you like. I'm beyond annoyed about this.
Last edited:
I said 'another' slogan. The one we had was fine.
Uproar in the press if there were no new slogan? **** me. That's like (20 years ago) saying there would be uproar among the proles if there were no tits in The Sun. Who give a tiny shit?
And like I said, we have a slogan. It works for me.
It was becoming counter productive. We are supposedly the most terrified country in Europe in terms of coming back out once restrictions start to ease. There is a very real danger that non-COVID deaths (ie cancer referrals being missed by the thousand-load, suicides, poverty) will continue growing to the point they cause as much damage as COVID itself.
Stay at Home forever can only work for so long as a slogan - it is beginning to fray ever so slightly already, and that’s only going to get worse - we can’t ignore that, it will cost lives - look at the numbers of cancer referrals in April compared to the average month - we’re talking thousands.
Over time, more and more will ignore the slogan and there would be eventually be total breakdown. Now that the numbers are coming down quite aggressively, we need to just ease the valve a tiny bit (and I do mean a tiny bit). People need hope, and to believe there is a light at the end of the tunnel.
We are coming towards the latter stage of the first wave, very likely to be the biggest wave (for innumerable obvious reasons). I think continuing to abjectly terrify everyone isn’t the answer now.
You disagree, and that’s fine.
Butch Willykins
Well-known member
If you really can’t interpret what “Stay Alert” means you’re a moron.
- Thread starter
- #76
Interpretations will be wildly different, which is why it's pointless.
rogersix
Well-known member
- Jan 18, 2014
- 7,904
The sloganizing of the advice in this manner is the politicizing of the crisis. People have been very generous to Boris so far. But this latest wheeze is shit. Fact.
No, it's very clearly opinion.
My opinion, which is also not fact, is that these bite-sized slogans are intended to be easily-remembered in an attempt to help keep people on track.
After some of the scenes over recent days, "Remain Vigilant" would be preferable to "Stay Alert" for me, but I can only assume that "vigilant" is considered too difficult a word for some, probably correctly.
And, after some of the sun and booze-fuelled relaxation of social distancing over the past few days, it feels like a freshening up of messaging is very much required to get people to sit up and take notice again.
Resent all you like. However, where did I say YOU were?
Let's be clear, I'm not defending the government on this messaging nor any other element of the pandemic handling, but the stampede from many of the "Johnson is a wanker" camp (and I've had my own tent in that particular camp for some considerable time also) at every little thing is utterly tiresome and, for me, serves only to distract from what we should be all focused on.
It was becoming counter productive. We are supposedly the most terrified country in Europe in terms of coming back out once restrictions start to ease. There is a very real danger that non-COVID deaths (ie cancer referrals being missed by the thousand-load, suicides, poverty) will continue growing to the point they cause as much damage as COVID itself.
Stay at Home forever can only work for so long as a slogan - it is beginning to fray ever so slightly already, and that’s only going to get worse - we can’t ignore that, it will cost lives - look at the numbers of cancer referrals in April compared to the average month - we’re talking thousands.
Over time, more and more will ignore the slogan and there would be eventually be total breakdown. Now that the numbers are coming down quite aggressively, we need to just ease the valve a tiny bit (and I do mean a tiny bit). People need hope, and to believe there is a light at the end of the tunnel.
We are coming towards the latter stage of the first wave, very likely to be the biggest wave (for innumerable obvious reasons). I think continuing to abjectly terrify everyone isn’t the answer now.
You disagree, and that’s fine.
I understand your points, and I am also very concerned about these wider issues if this carries on. I made a point in another post that if we increased restristriction and beat the number of new cases down, like the disciplined Germans have managed, we could then move to a strong focused tracking and isolating strategy (too many cases currently for that to work) that would allow the rest of us to do more, importanty work and earn an income. The danger of nuance and loosening of rules now is that cases may start going up again. There is a hint this may have begun in Germany where restrictions were loosened a week ago. I am concerned the government has jumped the gun. We will find out in 2-3 weeks....all the best
OK. Fair enough.