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

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

To ask why you think we should not have locked down at all

107 replies

Methtones · 03/05/2020 11:55

Not looking for an arguement, just a rational standpoint because I'm seeing lots of posters saying lockdown was a mistake with no reasoning other than "but the economy!".

Spain, France, Italy and Ireland have all implemented some form of lockdown and many of them have implemented a stricter one.

Why should we not have done this? Were these other countries wrong? Should we all have just have been business as usual?

OP posts:
BakedCam · 03/05/2020 13:20

Sorry, OP, isolated them. Closed the doors.

B1rdbra1n · 03/05/2020 13:21

When all the data is collated, when the responses of all countries are compared and measured against the outcomes, lots of governments are going to look bad

B1rdbra1n · 03/05/2020 13:22

Volunteering to participate in track and trace is tantamount to volunteering for possible house arrest and all the negative consequences that follow from that😕

BakedCam · 03/05/2020 13:24

Sweden didn't discharge people from hospitals back to care homes. The UK did.

Care homes in the UK are largely not scrutinised. The UK has a poor history with care homes as they do children's homes.

Ritasueandbobtoo9 · 03/05/2020 13:25

I think we should have locked down sooner. I think the clearing of the hospital wards has meant that the most vulnerable people have been pushed out to care homes which now are hot houses of the virus. Also many people are not getting the healthcare they need and this is going to hit us hard soon. Already stretched mental health services are going to be stretched further and people will die from their poor mental health.

Woodentopper · 03/05/2020 13:28

It becomes the thin end of the wedge and potentially leads toward a police state.

The track and trace may be voluntary now but what if in 10 yrs time a different government decides the the scheme was a success and introduces a compulsory scheme in the so called 'interest of public health'?

It wouldn't be a difficult job for the government to issue everyone with a cheap phone in order to pave the way for compulsory tracking.

When Universal Credit was first drawn up it was envisaged that ultimately all claimants would have a phone with a tracker on at all time in order that they could be ordered to some zero hours contract work at with no notice. This tracking idea will help bring that forward.

I'm not saying the virus was man made but it has given governments across the globe a convenient excuse to curb freedoms, introduce extra surveillance etc. Once this crisis is over our freedom will never quite return to pre-Covid levels.

We tag dogs not people.

Methtones · 03/05/2020 13:28

BakedCam aaah I see. I feel like the care home crisis is one that would have been hard to prevent unless carers were forced to live in. Is the biggest issue not staff bringing it in and also our habit of discharging infected to care homes? Its utterly horrendous.

The financial worth reaosning makes me sad. How can we put a financial worth on human life? Isnt that comparing apples and oranges?

OP posts:
ChardonnaysPetDragon · 03/05/2020 13:29

Earlier lockdown would have led to lockdown fatigue and people not keeping to it.

We need to keep it as short as possible, that's why it happened later.

Bubblebu · 03/05/2020 13:30

The most damaging thing in my view is the Gmt approach of both reporting via the press a purportedly strictly enforced lockdown / fining Covidiots / igniting a culture of gossip and outrage amongst the public at anyone breaking the "rules" / ordering everyone (many cannot but lets just ignore that fact) to work from home - but now SIMULTANEOUSLY engaging in the public debate about whether the economy can stand it and when people should be getting back to work.
Its not for the public to decide these things - it should be for the Gmt to lead from the front - as a Gmt you cannot just rely on the public themselves to decide (by stealth) that they cannot afford not to be at work anymore / the country cannot afford the furlough payments / their own furlough payments are about to expire - so those members of the public just naturally return to work out of their own desperation / deciding the country "needs" them more than the NHS now need to be protected.

That is not leadership - that is weak and cowardly to be expecting the public to make those judgement calls (i.e if I return to work will I catch the virus? will I be arrested by the police for "a non essential journey" "will I infect my family by returning to work" "will my boss be able to summon be back to work irrespective of what the gmt is saying").

I do not sense strongly at the moment that the gmt is saying "we are in charge you may not return to work till we say so etc and feels wrong to me.

Methtones · 03/05/2020 13:32

Sorry my post didnt post BakedCam and turned into an x post.

OP posts:
GoatyGoatyMingeMinge · 03/05/2020 13:36

The financial worth reaosning makes me sad. How can we put a financial worth on human life? Isnt that comparing apples and oranges?

We do this all the time when it comes to NHS spending, public health and road safety. Look up the QALY.

Reducing deaths on the road by additional safety measures, or deaths by cancer using expensive medication is a law of diminishing returns. When public money is being spent there has to be a limit. Even when it's your own money. You could buy a safer car if you sold everything you own and spent it on the car, and your children would have a slightly better chance of surviving an accident. The fact you don't suggests that you accept that there is a price above which the return diminishes to be worth less than the cost.

Nameofchanges · 03/05/2020 13:37

Can someone explain why it is going to take many years for the economy recover?

I don’t know much about it, but my workplace just did a presentation showing how long the economy took to recover from various events. The last financial crisis took 22 quarters. The prediction for Coronavirus is 7.

Methtones · 03/05/2020 13:42

GoatyGoatyMingeMinge that's true, I havent really thought about it in that way.

OP posts:
Jenala · 03/05/2020 13:47

I think a lot of people are forgetting the point of stay at home measures was so as not to overload the NHS system. If we had continued to have cases double every few days, as they did at the start, we would have been overwhelmed, at least in some areas. Instead the population was generally compliant with staying at home, and hospitals haven't been overwhelmed, which is good obviously. A lot of people are now leaping on the fact we haven't been overwhelmed as somehow being proof that stay at home measures weren't necessary. It's like they think whatever outcome we are currently having is always the outcome we would have had. It makes me wonder how those people view life in general, presumably thinking their actions or the actions of others don't have consequences.

From a tiny skewed sample of Facebook friends who are becoming very anti-lockdown, it seems to be coming from the ones who have a view of the world where they sort of believe in fate, or have a perspective of the world kind of happening to them rather than anyone having any power/ability to make a difference (good or bad). Of the friends I've seen who think we shouldn't have had a lockdown they are variously anti-vaxxers, general conspiracy theorists, believe in mediums/horoscopes or in one case big into The Secret and the "universe providing"... magical thinking basically which makes sense if you imagine someone who doesn't think actions change outcomes.

The scariest one I've seen was an adult social care manager spouting how "the only people who die are elderly or people with underlying conditions so people who weren't long for this world anyway"

I remember at the beginning of this seeing a tweet but I can't find it now, of someone basically saying we need to but measures in place now but be prepared that when they work we will be told we overreacted. Seems about right.

BakedCam · 03/05/2020 13:48

I agree with @GoatyGoatyMingeMinge

What this has forced the nation to examine is the financial impact versus the health impact. There will always be an argument about this. Good health is an asset as it enables economic productivity and prosperity.

I'm unsure as to why people are for this lockdown. I use the example of chicken pox. There have been cases of children dying albeit it a small number of cases. Why is there no vaccine programme for chicken pox?

The economic factors were chosen over the health of a small number of children. Herd immuntiy was the chosen route because CP primarily affects the young which meant that parents would be of working age. A vaccine programme was never agreed for the UK, because of the economic cost.

www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/science/occams-corner/2014/may/15/real-reason-british-public-chickenpox-vaccine-shingles

It is an interesting article despite its age, but brings a different spin to the lockdown argument.

LilacTree1 · 03/05/2020 13:50

I just posted this on another thread

Yes, it’s by an epidemiologist

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/the-science-is-becoming-clear-lockdowns-are-no-longer-the-right-medicine-k5c652wk8

Bear in mind even a SAGE member thinks social distancing is nonsense.

Methtones · 03/05/2020 13:53

The scariest one I've seen was an adult social care manager spouting how "the only people who die are elderly or people with underlying conditions so people who weren't long for this world anyway"

I've seen this attitude a lot and it is terrible, especially from someone in social care (I'd get fired if I posted something like that).

The other thing I've seen a lot is that the numbers of younger people even with underlying health conditions dying is very low. But isnt that because a) we dont know how many of that group have been affected and b) those most at risk are shielding?

OP posts:
Woodentopper · 03/05/2020 13:53

My guess is the lockdown has far more to do with curbing peoples freedoms and bringing in extra surveillance than it has to do with saving lives.

Warsawa31 · 03/05/2020 13:53

Who knows if these pandemics will become more common ? The next one could be way more deadly and contagious too.
If our only strategy is to lock down the country our economy won’t last long.
When the new normality emerges from this, long term investment in manufacturing, Bio sciences, the NHS and perhaps a specific government department to monitor and co ordinate responses sooner. Overlaying all of this is clamping down on tax avoidance, seriously. Do we need to renew trident? Could the vast sums used there be better spent helping ourselves and others be better prepared.
I know it a convoluted answer but I accept the lockdown only people we had no alternative to a problem we knew would come but did very little to nothing to prepare for specifically or generally.

BakedCam · 03/05/2020 13:55

Thanks for link, @LilacTree1

I'll have a read.

LilacTree1 · 03/05/2020 13:55

OP you might also wish to look at the NHS daily death figures

www.england.nhs.uk/statistics/statistical-work-areas/covid-19-daily-deaths/

I’m much more inclined to believe these rather than the daily death figure the government pump out daily.

ChardonnaysPetDragon · 03/05/2020 13:56

My guess is the lockdown has far more to do with curbing peoples freedoms and bringing in extra surveillance than it has to do with saving lives.

Why? Really?

What do you think of the possible vaccine?

LilacTree1 · 03/05/2020 13:56

Baked - no worries

It’s lives vs lives here, not lives vs economy.

GoatyGoatyMingeMinge · 03/05/2020 14:02

U.K. civil society is passively committing slow suicide. I’m impressed at the extent of meek compliance the vast majority of our citizens are showing. Covid19 has definitely killed many people. I’d be irked if I was to be classified as “a denier”. That said, estimates of the lethality of the virus and the strong age and comorbidities linkages do not warrant locking down the entire population. The majority of the vulnerable were not / are not walking about but living mostly very quiet lives at home or in care homes.
When I ask people what extent they think the number of deaths exceed the average, many believe its more than anything we’ve seen before. This is understandable as the media bays disaster all day with no context.

In fact, up to April 22 2020, all-causes mortality in England and Wales was 2,700 FEWER than in the same period in 2018. fullfact.org/health/ons-2020-covid-death-totals/
The typical death rate is of the order of 1,800 every day in normal times. This background information is never shared by the media. It adds up across the whole U.K. to just over 620,000 every year. And remember, until last week, a not-unusual number of people have died in U.K.

The lethality of Covid19 was initially assumed from Wuhan to be dreadful. I recall hearing 2-3%. Truly frightening. However, because a high proportion of those infected have no or only minor symptoms, the denominator was greatly underestimated. As more data emerges from around the world, better estimates of lethality are closer to 0.1 - 0.3%, in the range of a severe influenza season. If it is 0.1%, that means 1 in 1000. And most are over 70 and with multiple comorbidities. We had an unusually mild flu season last winter. Flu not uncommonly kills 20,000 per year in U.K. Most were spared in Dec-Feb, and the same vulnerable people instead succumbed Mar-May, plus a limited additional number. That is the extent of it.
If lethality is as low as 0.1%, 27,000 reported covid19 deaths implies 27million people have been infected. It’s estimated that around 1/3rd of the population have some degree of prior immunity from exposure to other corona viruses (which along with rhinoviruses cause most common colds). It’s far from unlikely that, by the time the daily deaths attributable to covid19 falls to under 100 per day, our population will effectively have attained herd immunity, in the sense that the remaining unexposed proportion will not support a second outbreak. Findings reported yesterday from SK confirmed that once a person has recovered from covid19 they’re immune and do not develop symptoms if exposed a second time. This was expected and predicted from studies in monkeys reported months ago.

So, this pandemic is self-limiting and albeit slowly is waning steadily. There is no rationale to remain in lockdown. There will be no “second spike”. It’s mathematically and biologically implausible. We don’t need a vaccine. We don’t need track and trace. We don’t need an App. We don’t need to “practise social distancing” for the next 18 months. We have damaged our social and economic fabric beyond measure and far out of proportion to the risks. Continuing to allow the damage to progress is unconscionable and is directly leading to the avoidable deaths of thousands who urgently require oncology/ cardiology interventions yet, not having got them, have died or are placed beyond rescue.

The initial lockdown was totally understandable. If I’d been in charge, I’d have done so. We knew too little to be sure that any alternative course of action wouldn’t lead to catastrophic loss of life. That was then. Now we can benefit from new information and perspectives. Not only will continuing lockdown allow further exsanguination of our society but leaves us vulnerable to other risks now and in the near future. How will we cope with 5 million unemployed? SMEs are ceasing to trade in large numbers. Many will not be viable after lockdown so will close and lay off all their employees. It’s been estimated for example that 80% of restaurants will not reopen if they are required to limit their numbers. Will international investors in U.K. govt debt be willing to finance a country running a budget deficit over 10% on an open-ended basis?

Anyway, as anyone who’s read this far might appreciate, I cannot communicate strongly enough the deep sense of foreboding I have. I’ve never experienced the level of cognitive dissonance that I do right now. What facts we know (even recognising the areas of ignorance) in no way accord with what is happening. This is a very unpleasant place to occupy. A friend told me “I’m terrified for myself and my children. I’m not coming out until it’s completely safe”. Is that a common view? If so, how will we ever regain confidence to conduct normal lives?

DreamingofSunshine · 03/05/2020 14:03

I feel like I'm suffering because of the NHS shutting down almost all of their regular services, so I'm in a huge amount of pain and have no idea when I'll be able to speak to a doctor. The GP can't help as I'm on consultant only prescribed drugs, but when I ring and email there's no response.

I'm just one person, but I've seen stats and reports that less people are attending A&E for heart attacks/strokes etc. So my concern with lockdown is whilst we've avoided overwhelming the NHS, we've created a potentially even bigger problem of peoples' health deteriorating and waiting lists getting longer.

I understand why we locked down, but I think the effects of doing so from a health perspective will be felt for years.