Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Chat

Join the discussion and chat with other Mumsnetters about everyday life, relationships and parenting.

Now we are a coupe of years on. Do you think the Covid lockdowns should have happened

543 replies

Rainbowdeer · 10/02/2025 16:16

I don’t we should have shut down the schools and I don’t agree with the lockdowns
the damage has been far too great
esp regarding children’s mental health

the economy been damaged far too much

work culture has totally changed

OP posts:
Thread gallery
7
Parker231 · 12/02/2025 18:53

Mightymoog · 12/02/2025 16:28

And who decides who gets to be the lucky law breakers?
well personally, I approved myself to be a rule breaker 😁

I do think your analogy to speeding is a poor one. Speeding can be and is dangerous to all of the population.
Covid was an hysterical over reaction to an illness that wouldn't be severe for the vasy majority under the age of 80

What’s your experience and qualifications in this field - a scientist, virologist, medical doctor?

Mightymoog · 12/02/2025 18:54

Parker231 · 12/02/2025 18:53

What’s your experience and qualifications in this field - a scientist, virologist, medical doctor?

yawn.

Parker231 · 12/02/2025 18:57

Mightymoog · 12/02/2025 18:54

yawn.

As I thought!

Mightymoog · 12/02/2025 19:00

Parker231 · 12/02/2025 18:57

As I thought!

yes, it is tedious.
You do not need to work in the field in order to be able to understand the stats. that were readily available.
HTH

Mightymoog · 12/02/2025 19:04

Actually, I'll add that from the looks of it many people either couldn't understand the stats. or were unwilling to look at them as that may have made them feel a bit of a tit for taking part

Parker231 · 12/02/2025 19:08

Mightymoog · 12/02/2025 19:00

yes, it is tedious.
You do not need to work in the field in order to be able to understand the stats. that were readily available.
HTH

Yes - the stats show what a killer disease Covid has been - over 7m deaths worldwide with many more struggling with long Covid illnesses.

Unfortunately the UK government handled it badly with the initial lockdown too late with medical staff not receiving sufficient PPE and hospitals struggling to cope with insufficient ICU beds and respiratory equipment.

Mightymoog · 12/02/2025 19:13

Parker231 · 12/02/2025 19:08

Yes - the stats show what a killer disease Covid has been - over 7m deaths worldwide with many more struggling with long Covid illnesses.

Unfortunately the UK government handled it badly with the initial lockdown too late with medical staff not receiving sufficient PPE and hospitals struggling to cope with insufficient ICU beds and respiratory equipment.

That's not the take home I had from the stats. but there again I used to work in a role where it was important to be able to analyse such things.
"killer disease" lol, unless you happen to be over 80 or obese ( yes, outliers always exist before you tell me about the infamous ultra marathon runner that died and everybody seems to know)

Parker231 · 12/02/2025 19:16

Mightymoog · 12/02/2025 19:13

That's not the take home I had from the stats. but there again I used to work in a role where it was important to be able to analyse such things.
"killer disease" lol, unless you happen to be over 80 or obese ( yes, outliers always exist before you tell me about the infamous ultra marathon runner that died and everybody seems to know)

You dispute that over 7m died from Covid?

Mightymoog · 12/02/2025 19:21

Parker231 · 12/02/2025 19:16

You dispute that over 7m died from Covid?

i dispute that I have to be currently working in the field in order to understand the figures.
I dispute that people under the age of 80 who weren't obese should have had their lives disrupted.

Mightymoog · 12/02/2025 19:24

Just looking up worst pandemics .
bubonic plague killed an est. 200 million.
That's a huge amount of people. If only they'd had one way systems in the markets they could have got that figure right down

Parker231 · 12/02/2025 19:25

Mightymoog · 12/02/2025 19:21

i dispute that I have to be currently working in the field in order to understand the figures.
I dispute that people under the age of 80 who weren't obese should have had their lives disrupted.

What was your plan for the hospitals to be able to cope if Covid had been allowed to spread unchecked through the population? Have you any understanding of what medical teams went through?

JenniferBooth · 12/02/2025 20:32

Islasanktklara · 12/02/2025 16:46

Should have come and helped out on crit care then. And since you think the virus wasn’t that bad, maybe worked without a mask as protection.

Well they seemed happy to allow journalists and cameramen on those crit care wards
Peoples own relatives? Not so much!!!

MissRoseDurward · 12/02/2025 20:36

bubonic plague killed an est. 200 million.

In repeated outbreaks over 1500 years (that we know of) - it's still around today.

If only they'd had one way systems in the markets they could have got that figure right down

No they couldn't. That's not how bubonic plague was spread.

Newbutoldfather · 13/02/2025 07:26

@Mightymoog ,

‘Just looking up worst pandemics .
bubonic plague killed an est. 200 million.
That's a huge amount of people. If only they'd had one way systems in the markets they could have got that figure right down’

Lucky you weren’t living in Eyam in 1665. You would have just popped to the neighbouring village for a gossip and to do some shopping.

I mean, what did the village leaders know after all and why would you have obeyed their stupid rules?!

Newbutoldfather · 13/02/2025 07:46

I think what a lot of lockdown sceptics don’t realise is how little was known about Covid at the beginning. It is closely related to SARS and MERS, which have far higher mortality rates but, fortunately, are far less contagious.

What virologists were terrified of was that it would mutate into a more serious disease. Most viruses mutate to be more contagious but less serious, but it is not always that way.

Initial estimates of mortality rate were around 3% based on the first wave in Italy. Later that was significantly revised down to about 1.2%, but that is still about 3x seasonal flu.

The reality is that epidemiologists who model how viruses spread have to map the expected case loads needing hospitalisation and ICU facilities on to the resources that we have (not nearly enough).

They then guesstimate the r number based on various interventions and decide which ones are needed. It is hard science needing a lot of expertise and computing power.

Of course, the success of some interventions depends on behaviour. Clearly if you close schools and shops, you won’t catch Covid in a school or shop! But, in more communitarian countries, if you politely ask people to minimise mixing, people will do it. Unfortunately, here, as you can see from many threads, many people prioritise their own pleasure and don’t really care about others. They have no empathy for doctors and nurses or middle aged teachers going into classes of contagious children.

The idea that this was the deep state/ government doing some experiment on controlling the population was always batshit crazy and proved so as every single measure was reversed. But, still, some claim lockdown was unnecessary despite hospital statistics proving otherwise. I have not met (or read) a single virologist or epidemiologist who doesn’t believe lockdown was necessary.

Mightymoog · 13/02/2025 07:57

MissRoseDurward · 12/02/2025 20:36

bubonic plague killed an est. 200 million.

In repeated outbreaks over 1500 years (that we know of) - it's still around today.

If only they'd had one way systems in the markets they could have got that figure right down

No they couldn't. That's not how bubonic plague was spread.

I was taking the piss abourt markets

Mightymoog · 13/02/2025 07:58

Newbutoldfather · 13/02/2025 07:26

@Mightymoog ,

‘Just looking up worst pandemics .
bubonic plague killed an est. 200 million.
That's a huge amount of people. If only they'd had one way systems in the markets they could have got that figure right down’

Lucky you weren’t living in Eyam in 1665. You would have just popped to the neighbouring village for a gossip and to do some shopping.

I mean, what did the village leaders know after all and why would you have obeyed their stupid rules?!

Eyam was different in that the whole village isolated themselves but they still visited each other, went in each others houses, attended each other when ill.
Nobody was asked to stay in their house by themselves.
I've been, it's an interesting place

ThePartingOfTheWays · 13/02/2025 08:15

Of course, the success of some interventions depends on behaviour. Clearly if you close schools and shops, you won’t catch Covid in a school or shop! But, in more communitarian countries, if you politely ask people to minimise mixing, people will do it. Unfortunately, here, as you can see from many threads, many people prioritise their own pleasure and don’t really care about others. They have no empathy for doctors and nurses or middle aged teachers going into classes of contagious children.

One could just as easily make the same point about people who advocated for lockdown. No empathy for those who'd be fucked over by it. People living with abusers, those with alcohol issues, anyone whose health and safety depended on the normal rhythms of life continuing.

Because that's the situation we were in. Locking down or not meant choosing which groups of people were going to be prioritised and which thrown under the bus for the sake of the others. There wasn't an option that protected everyone, so a value judgement had to be made.

Speaking as one who's still on the fence about whether it was the best thing for society's welfare overall, it's not morally better to favour one over the other. It's simply a preference. We don't even know now which option would've caused least harm, so we certainly didn't know in 2020. If you're only talking about virologists and epidemiologists, you're missing out on a lot of the evidence.

For this reason, the communitarian point doesn't work either. Minimising mixing is good for the safety of some people, bad for that of others.

noblegiraffe · 13/02/2025 08:21

Why are people wittering on about the bubonic plague killing loads of people? I'm pretty sure fewer people would have died of plague if there had been a massive international vaccine rollout less than two years in.

Mightymoog · 13/02/2025 08:30

noblegiraffe · 13/02/2025 08:21

Why are people wittering on about the bubonic plague killing loads of people? I'm pretty sure fewer people would have died of plague if there had been a massive international vaccine rollout less than two years in.

because we're talking about pandemics.
And the bubonic plague was a pandemic.
Should we ask to have the eyam reference removed?

noblegiraffe · 13/02/2025 08:33

It was the impression that people were suggesting that the plague killed 200 million and covid 'only' 7 million like covid wasn't even worth bothering about.

Which is entirely forgetting the impact of the vaccine.

Newbutoldfather · 13/02/2025 08:35

@ThePartingOfTheWays ,

‘Because that's the situation we were in. Locking down or not meant choosing which groups of people were going to be prioritised and which thrown under the bus for the sake of the others. There wasn't an option that protected everyone, so a value judgement had to be made.’

This is a common misconception. If we hadn’t locked down, schools and businesses would still have closed due to lack of staff, as they were sick. When the school I was teaching in closed (about a week before lockdown), the head teacher said an emotional goodbye to a packed staff room. The next week about 8 staff came down with Covid and two were hospitalised (both below 60 years old). The school would have had to close anyway due to unsafe ratios.

Because that's the situation we were in. Locking down or not meant choosing which groups of people were going to be prioritised and which thrown under the bus for the sake of the others. There wasn't an option that protected everyone, so a value judgement had to be made.

‘We don't even know now which option would've caused least harm, so we certainly didn't know in 2020. If you're only talking about virologists and epidemiologists, you're missing out on a lot of the evidence.’

We definitely do know. Mathematical models work. They aren’t perfect, but they are a lot better than hand waving. Many many hospitals would have failed and several at least run out of oxygen. This would have meant asthmatic children dying as well as the 80+ year olds lockdown sceptics are always on about.

It wasn’t just about deaths. There was a good Covid risk calculator released and I remember looking up my own hospitalisation risk as a 55 year old normal weighted male with mild controlled hypertension. It was 10%. The death rate was low because our hospitals coped (just). Without ambulances or hospitals, it would have been a lot higher and have affected a far younger cohort.

Mightymoog · 13/02/2025 08:39

noblegiraffe · 13/02/2025 08:33

It was the impression that people were suggesting that the plague killed 200 million and covid 'only' 7 million like covid wasn't even worth bothering about.

Which is entirely forgetting the impact of the vaccine.

ok, maybe have a closer read next time then as that wasn't what the posts were sying

noblegiraffe · 13/02/2025 08:41

Mightymoog · 13/02/2025 08:39

ok, maybe have a closer read next time then as that wasn't what the posts were sying

So what were they saying? People didn't lockdown for the plague and it killed 200 million.

Maybe it wouldn't have killed so many if they had?

ThePartingOfTheWays · 13/02/2025 08:42

Newbutoldfather · 13/02/2025 08:35

@ThePartingOfTheWays ,

‘Because that's the situation we were in. Locking down or not meant choosing which groups of people were going to be prioritised and which thrown under the bus for the sake of the others. There wasn't an option that protected everyone, so a value judgement had to be made.’

This is a common misconception. If we hadn’t locked down, schools and businesses would still have closed due to lack of staff, as they were sick. When the school I was teaching in closed (about a week before lockdown), the head teacher said an emotional goodbye to a packed staff room. The next week about 8 staff came down with Covid and two were hospitalised (both below 60 years old). The school would have had to close anyway due to unsafe ratios.

Because that's the situation we were in. Locking down or not meant choosing which groups of people were going to be prioritised and which thrown under the bus for the sake of the others. There wasn't an option that protected everyone, so a value judgement had to be made.

‘We don't even know now which option would've caused least harm, so we certainly didn't know in 2020. If you're only talking about virologists and epidemiologists, you're missing out on a lot of the evidence.’

We definitely do know. Mathematical models work. They aren’t perfect, but they are a lot better than hand waving. Many many hospitals would have failed and several at least run out of oxygen. This would have meant asthmatic children dying as well as the 80+ year olds lockdown sceptics are always on about.

It wasn’t just about deaths. There was a good Covid risk calculator released and I remember looking up my own hospitalisation risk as a 55 year old normal weighted male with mild controlled hypertension. It was 10%. The death rate was low because our hospitals coped (just). Without ambulances or hospitals, it would have been a lot higher and have affected a far younger cohort.

This is a common misconception. If we hadn’t locked down, schools and businesses would still have closed due to lack of staff, as they were sick. When the school I was teaching in closed (about a week before lockdown), the head teacher said an emotional goodbye to a packed staff room. The next week about 8 staff came down with Covid and two were hospitalised (both below 60 years old). The school would have had to close anyway due to unsafe ratios.

You've misunderstood. We would still have been in the situation I described, some people being prioritised over others, even if schools had all evaporated.

We definitely do know. Mathematical models work. They aren’t perfect, but they are a lot better than hand waving. Many many hospitals would have failed and several at least run out of oxygen. This would have meant asthmatic children dying as well as the 80+ year olds lockdown sceptics are always on about.

No, we don't. Again, you've misunderstood. You are talking specifically and only about the short term impact. There is a looooooot more that's relevant. Lockdown meant more deaths due to alcohol consumption, for example. It meant more domestic violence. These are just short term impacts. The more long term ones haven't even happened yet. We don't actually know how bad the impact of, say, increased childhood obesity or disengagement with schools is going to be. The models you talk about didn't take that into consideration, because that's not what they were for.

There's nothing wrong with taking the view that the short term impact on the health service needed to be the main priority. That's legitimate, even though it's not morally better than any other value judgement. But you do actually need to know what the other things are that you're prioritising it over, in order for it to be an informed opinion.