BoJo Imposes Strictest Lockdowns Yet In London, Leading Residents To Flee En Masse

I have the feeling that, after contracting the virus back in late March, and having been hospitalized and placed in ICU as a result, UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson had quite the scare about it, and as a result, decided to play Stalin throughout the pandemic, ordering lockdown after lockdown, as though they are effective at any capacity. And most recently, BoJo has ordered yet another lockdown, stricter than all the others, to be placed on London and most of southeast England, following the finding of a “new version” of the Chinese coronavirus.
 
According to the NYT, BoJo “abruptly reversed course on Saturday and imposed a wholesale lockdown on London and most of England’s southeast, banning Christmas-season gatherings beyond individual households,” following “evidence of a [Chinese coronavirus] variant first detected several weeks ago in southeast England, which the prime minister asserted was as much as 70 percent more transmissible than previous versions.”
 
BoJo said in his announcement back on Saturday: “When the virus changes its method of attack, we must change our method of defense. We have to act on information as we have it because this is now spreading very fast.”
 
What change in method of defense? This is the third lockdown imposed in England, and even stricter than the others, so what’s different about it? It’s trying the same thing, hoping for a different result. And what result is he hoping for? Keeping the virus from spreading altogether? That is quite literally impossible, particularly at this stage. As far as slowing it down goes, lockdowns have not shown to achieve that goal anywhere in the world. Look at the states where lockdowns were imposed as opposed to where lockdowns were not imposed. Look at the states where the governments have imposed draconian measures on its residents (which, of course, the government officials are not at all obligated to follow themselves) versus the states where logic and reason and evidence have won out.
 
A third, even stricter lockdown does nothing but hurt the residents of London and southeast England, which is why it’s not at all surprising to see what basically amounts to a World War-style exodus from the city.
 
According to the NY Post, the residents of London took to the streets en masse, rushing to escape the city before the new lockdown measures took effect, leading to traffic congestions and the city’s train stations being comparable to “war zones”, according to The UK Sun.
 
I mean, look at the picture above and tell me if BoJo’s draconian measures would be helpful in fighting this new variant of the Chinese coronavirus. There are other pictures and videos, of course, but I think you get the gist.
 
And by the way, I do not at all blame the residents of London for doing this. I’m not sharing these pictures to depict Londoners “not doing as they are told” or that they are dumb for it. I share them to depict how radical and insane these measures are. These people KNOW what it means to be locked down. Their freedoms are severely restricted. Their movements are severely restricted.
 
For crying out loud, Welsh supermarkets have been forced by their government to block off what they consider “non-essential items”, which includes TOYS. Just days before Christmas and the Welsh government made the fantastic and obviously data-driven decision to ban the sale of TOYS. Right, because we all know how quickly Barbie spreads the virus.
 
So I can’t say I blame the residents of London for doing this. I blame the idiotic governments that impose such moronic lockdowns which lead to people doing this kind of thing. I don’t doubt that the virus is being spread in doing this (and no, masks have not shown to be effective) and it will lead to the exact opposite of what BoJo had seemingly wanted. But this is what happens when you impose authoritarian measures on people: they want to leave.
 
You always hear of stories from immigrants about how much they wanted to leave their countries/fought to leave their countries. It’s not because they hold no love for them or anything of the sort, but because they want to seek better lives in freer places.
 
Wikipedia quite literally has a list of people who defected from the Soviet Union and countries in the Eastern Bloc, starting with George Balanchine, a Russian choreographer who defected to the Weimar Republic in 1924, and ending (at least pre-dissolution of the USSR) with Vitali Vitaliev, a Ukrainian author who defected to the UK in 1990. This list also includes the famous ballet dancer Mikhail Baryshnikov.
 
Where there is authoritarianism, people tend to want to flee from those places. Even with less extreme examples, such as legal immigration from Latin America to the U.S., you can see that the people leaving those countries consider their home countries to be more authoritarian in nature than the U.S., and thus, choose to leave for America (at least, that’s the case for some immigrants).
 
So, again, it’s not surprising to see Londoners seeking to flee London: the city’s freedoms are being restricted even further by an oppressive regime.
 
One might argue that the lockdowns are “good” for people and that it’s “for their safety”, but then why do we not follow that up by advocating for everyone to be placed in cages 24/7? They won’t run into anything that would compromise their safety then, right? So long as there is someone (likely from the government) to feed them and give them water, then it’s ok, right? Of course, the cage itself would lead people to suffer in their health (physical and mental) due to extreme isolation and the need to defecate *somewhere*, but the outside world also offers a lot of dangerous situations, so you reach an impasse in terms of maintaining safety for these people.

We cannot pretend as though life can be devoid of risks. Children go to school despite the risk of things like influenza and other illnesses. Adults go to work despite the risk of contracting a disease. Scientists experiment despite the risk of things going wrong. Mechanics work despite the risk of electrocution or getting crushed by a car. Taxi drivers work despite the risk of car crashes. People walk outside despite the risk of getting run over, kidnapped, mugged, raped, or killed.
 
The point is to MINIMIZE the risks, not to futilely seek to eliminate those risks. Strict lockdowns attempt to do the latter, giving no mind to what they risk in return.
 
Lockdowns means people don’t work and businesses suffer; that means the economy suffers; that means people suffer. Families run into financial problems, mental and physical problems, and problems with having food to eat and a place to stay. Being locked down means being subject to a slow financial death. Well, at least for those of us who are not the 1%, seeing as they tend to benefit from this kind of thing (in the short-term, at least).
 
So when BoJo announced that new, even stricter lockdowns would be put into place for London and southeast England, OF COURSE you’re going to see such a massive exodus. These people are fleeing for their LIVES; not out of fear of the virus, but out of fear of the GOVERNMENT – out of fear of TYRANNY.
 
Whenever new lockdowns are announced anywhere, this is what I think of:

​“It’s good for you,” they say as they suffocate you with a pillow.
 
Despite all this, and likely because of this response, I doubt BoJo or the UK government will learn “hmm, people don’t like this, maybe we should stop doing it.” Tyrants do things for “the greater good” of people, regardless of how many bodies they leave behind.
 
People must continuously fight for their freedoms, everywhere. Else, they risk losing everything, and it’s hard to get it back.
 
2 Corinthians 3:17
“Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom.”