Talk

Advanced search

Covid measures 'a monument of collective hysteria and folly'

(313 Posts)
RonaLisa Wed 28-Oct-20 18:23:45

The Guardian is not my natural habitat, but this is spot on.

It needs to be shouted from the rooftops.

OP’s posts: |
IrkedEssex Wed 28-Oct-20 18:29:13

Yes.

As is this, by Lionel Shriver.
app.spectator.co.uk/2020/10/14/covid-has-killed-off-our-civil-liberties/content.html

standupsitdownturnaround Wed 28-Oct-20 18:32:25

I wish Sumption and/or The Guardian had used specific examples there. I am very critical of this government on a lot of things but I do feel they were in a tricky situation.

Am I being a bit naive?

Fightthebear Wed 28-Oct-20 18:32:46

I was surprised by that from Jonathan Sumption. During the first wave he accepted lockdown was necessary to the extent needed to prevent the NHS being overwhelmed.

DoorWars Wed 28-Oct-20 18:34:20

I said back in feb that this would be looked on in history by socialogists and historians as a collective hysteria fuelled by social and 34 hour media

DoorWars Wed 28-Oct-20 18:34:29

24 hour

RafaIsTheKingOfClay Wed 28-Oct-20 18:34:42

What would you suggest they do now instead? And doing nothing isn’t an option.

Waxonwaxoff0 Wed 28-Oct-20 18:35:01

Agree.

LegArmpits Wed 28-Oct-20 18:35:20

Completely agree.

RonaLisa Wed 28-Oct-20 18:37:36

DoorWars

I said back in feb that this would be looked on in history by socialogists and historians as a collective hysteria fuelled by social and 34 hour media

I did, too.

Maybe the moment will still come...

OP’s posts: |
Purplewithred Wed 28-Oct-20 18:38:38

He goes on to say:

“Citizens should be treated as rational actors, capable of taking decisions for themselves and managing personal risk.”

Which I think is total bollocks, unfortunately.

The measures were not designed to reduce personal risk - ie the risk of Covid to each of us separately. The measures were designed to reduce the flow of very ill people to hospitals, given that hospitals had almost no capacity to take them in.

If the measures hadn't been put in place and we had each acted only taking into account our personal individual risk from coronavirus then my guess is that things would have been much much worse than they have been.

RonaLisa Wed 28-Oct-20 18:38:55

Yes, @IrkedEssex . I had read that one, too, but thanks for drawing attention to it.

These are not people with whom I would always agree - but they are right about this.

OP’s posts: |
RonaLisa Wed 28-Oct-20 18:41:05

my guess is that things would have been much much worse than they have been

It's an over-rehearsed argument on MN - but in what way would things have been worse? The only thing that could have been worse for me than lockdown (financially, emotionally, mentally, practically) would be one of my children dying (not specifically of Covid - for any reason at all).

Other people's experience has not been the same.

OP’s posts: |
BelleSausage Wed 28-Oct-20 18:41:24

Riiiiggghhht.

What do you suggest we do then? Just let tens of thousands die and the health service fall over.

It is happening. 310 deaths recorded today. And before you ask- those were COVID deaths. The counting was changed so people with positive tests that subsequently died of other things aren’t counted.

AnguaResurgam Wed 28-Oct-20 18:42:22

The measures were not designed to reduce personal risk - ie the risk of Covid to each of us separately. The measures were designed to reduce the flow of very ill people to hospitals, given that hospitals had almost no capacity to take them in

Very true. And it was a success, so we have not really seen just how awful it would have been with an unchecked peak.

T&T is a fuck up of monumental proportion, and came several months in, so that failure is what I wouid castigate the government for.

BelleSausage Wed 28-Oct-20 18:44:04

The old and vulnerable are still people. COVID deaths are hideous. I wouldn’t wish it on my worst enemy. My great uncle died alone in hospital without seeing any of his family. He was old but he was otherwise healthy. He could have lived another ten years.

MaxNormal Wed 28-Oct-20 18:44:43

I thought the counting is you're considered a covid death if you die within 28 days of a positive test, do you have a link for the changed methodology?

Amrapaali Wed 28-Oct-20 18:50:15

Agree with standup... This was such an outlier event. A global pandemic had everyone worried about public health and disease transmission. March and April werent the right moments to even think about police states.

But six months down the line I think Labour should start asking the uncomfortable questions. And not be cowed by "You are either for us or against us" jeering in the Commons.

Ponoka7 Wed 28-Oct-20 18:51:15

I think these people need to be put in rough areas were people wouldn't SD etc unless forced to. Then they need to do a few shifts in factories/care homes, getting there on buses. Let them experience risk as we do.

People don't care enough to be allowed manage risk for others. I'm in Liverpool, we would have faced a full on cull. Not that he would have minded that, given his views on the Human rights act and gender equality. We aren't all equal as far as he is concerned.

mrshoho Wed 28-Oct-20 18:52:06

RonaLisa

*my guess is that things would have been much much worse than they have been*

It's an over-rehearsed argument on MN - but in what way would things have been worse? The only thing that could have been worse for me than lockdown (financially, emotionally, mentally, practically) would be one of my children dying (not specifically of Covid - for any reason at all).

Other people's experience has not been the same.

Well say we hadn't lockdown in March and cases and hospital admissions carried on increasing. Depending on where you live your local hospitals became unsafe to accept any emergency patients. Your child had an unfortunate accident that they would survive with urgent medical care but due to lack of staff/beds/ambulance cover no help was available. Worse than lockdown in my opinion.

BelleSausage Wed 28-Oct-20 18:52:20

There’s this one from August where they changed the length of time a death counts after a positive test (although that will cut out some patients)
www.cebm.net/covid-19/public-health-england-death-data-revised/

There was also a good More or Less on Radio 4 a few weeks ago discussing Covid facts. In 90% of cases the two co morbidities for COVID were flu and pneumonia as secondary infections caused by the COVID.

Remmy123 Wed 28-Oct-20 18:55:57

I like these because there needs to be some balance as there has been so much scaremongering in the media

BelleSausage Wed 28-Oct-20 18:56:33

Also a good link here from the government website. Looks like the counting is pretty robust and not at all as simple as dying within 28 days of a positive test.

publichealthmatters.blog.gov.uk/2020/08/12/behind-the-headlines-counting-covid-19-deaths/

RafaIsTheKingOfClay Wed 28-Oct-20 19:16:44

I think the different figures are reported in different places, Belle. The 28 day ones are the daily figure that you see. The 60 day ones get published by PHE once a week as do the ONS ones which use only the death certificate.

starfro Wed 28-Oct-20 19:27:21

BelleSausage

Riiiiggghhht.

What do you suggest we do then? Just let tens of thousands die and the health service fall over.

It is happening. 310 deaths recorded today. And before you ask- those were COVID deaths. The counting was changed so people with positive tests that subsequently died of other things aren’t counted.

Tens of thousands will die whatever you do.

SAGE are predicting the NHS won't be overwhelmed this winter, they will however be very busy.

Sometimes doing less is the best option rather than spending years trying to stop the inevitable, only to end up in the same position.

Join the discussion

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.

Join Mumsnet

Already have a Mumsnet account? Log in