To think there should be some kind of national reflection on the pandemic?

[23rdmarch2020]

It’s coming up to three years since the first lockdown. In many ways, it feels an absolute age ago. From personal experience, my life completely changed in the space of a week and so many things happened in my life that never would have because of the pandemic (some good, some bad). For some, it has been an absolute tragedy. In the space of a few weeks we went from being in our normal lives to it being a criminal offence to step outside our homes without a valid excuse. Obviously people are keen to move on but AIBU to think there should be more reflection on the pandemic than there has been?

I didn't say that they did create barriers to care for people with underlying conditions. You did even though you obviously didn't have one so wouldn't really know.

Yes I'm sure you can guesstimate weight accurately through the internet.

Anyways, back to the point that you feebly attempted to take issue with, when there are structural barriers to accessing care in person as there were during lockdown, this leads to some negative impacts that wouldn't have occurred otherwise. The idea that the structural barriers ultimately led to better outcomes is nothing more than a guess you're making. Bearing in mind that so far in this thread you've treated us to gems like Britain didn't have any pandemic planning, there's no reason to take it seriously.

People can weigh themselves and tell their GP over the phone if they wanted help with weight. Regardless, being overweight or elderly isn't actually a medical condition and most people won't be phoning their GP about it. I don't agree that most people with heart disease or diabetes or other chronic conditions that increased the risk of severe covid were unable to get treatment during lockdown. Even if there were some structural barriers (e.g. speaking to HCP on the phone rather than in person) this was outweighed by the fact that lockdown reduced the risk of severe covid for those people.

Yes, being overweight or old not being medical conditions is the exact point. I'm glad you finally got there.

People who were at increased risk from covid did not all have a consultants they could speak to about the risks of accessing in person medical care, not least because some of the risks are not conditions. This is why you conflating them with immunosuppressed people is nonsense, and why I didn't write immunosuppressed people in the first place.

The rest of the post is strawmanning. Nobody said the people with those risk factors would be contacting their GP about those risk factors. Older and obese people need healthcare relating to thinks that don't relate to their age and weight. Do you think none of them had lumps that needed checking during lockdown, for example? Nobody said most people with the conditions you mention were unable to get treatment during lockdown either. There can be structural barriers to healthcare without either of these things being the case.

And again, your claim about outweighing is something you've pulled out of your arse. It's worth nothing. If you like the fact that you found it easy to get remote healthcare during lockdown and benefitted indirectly from the barriers that other people faced, there's nothing wrong in that. You can just say it without all the nonsense.

Yes I am sure the specialists and organisations that support people with conditions that increase the risk of severe COVID were just being hysterical when they advised people that they were at high risk. 🤔

Are you actually saying that mortality/morbidity among the elderly and those with underlying conditions would have been lower in 2020 if we hadn't had lockdown and all GP/hospital appointments were in person regardless of whether the HCP thought they needed to be?

No, if I thought that I'd have written it rather than something that has a completely different meaning. Why do you keep making shit up?

So you agree that mortality/morbidity among the elderly and those with underlying conditions would have been higher in 2020 if we hadn't had lockdown and all GP/hospital appointments were in person regardless of whether the HCP thought they needed to be?

I haven't offered an opinion on that point, and won't be doing because it's a stupid set of parameters that don't merit my engagement.

Anyway, back to my point, the structural barriers placed in the way of healthcare access in 2020 led to problems that wouldn't otherwise exist, and the idea that they existed because of a communication problem has no grounding in reality.

I think your opinion on that point is very relevant in this debate and interesting that you don't want to answer.

@shrimp88

I think your opinion on that point is very relevant in this debate and interesting that you don't want to answer.

It is interesting, isn't it. I wouldn't bother with Bashir. If challenged, this poster will only consistently attack you with circular word salads that mean little. These are designed only to wear you down until you back off. However, when asked directly about something of substance - like the above - she won't answer.

Yes, but you're someone who claims we didn't have any pandemic planning, so you thinking something doesn't really tell us much.

The first reason this is a stupid set of parameters is because nobody thinks all appointments should've been held in person regardless of the view of the HCPs and people involved. I mean, that's just batshit. And you thought it had any relevance to a post explaining to you that some risk factors like obesity and age don't mean you have a consultant?!

The next issue is that when we talk about structural barriers to accessing healthcare and the impact this has on a population level, like I have been doing, that means the population. Not just those with particular conditions, because people's health doesn't stand still. It means people who were at low risk from covid when the pandemic started but whose health worsened for whatever reason during it.

It's interesting that all this has come in response to a completely uncontroversial point I made yesterday, that if people's physical access to healthcare is made more difficult then there are going to be consequences and that this isn't a communication issue. Of all the things we've talked about in this thread where there are genuine controversies, this really isn't one of them. And yet for some reason you merailed, bullshitted and made a load of things up. Telling.

You could've just written waaaaaaaah and saved yourself some time there.

The didn’t.

I didn't ask what you think should have happpened. I asked whether you thought that lockdowns combined with telephone rather than in person healthcare appointments ( unless the HCP thought in person necessary) reduced or increased overall deaths and morbidity in the UK. What I think and don't think on pandemic planning etc isn't relevant to your answer so spare me the insults and word salad because you don't want to answer the question.

So you think that covid didn't kill anyone?

Yes, their insults and meaningless word salad are a bit pathetic really.

It’s about whether lengthy lockdowns were a balanced and measured response. We know they caused lots of harm, and we won’t see the long term impact of them for many years.

Why do only deaths from Covid matter? How far do you want to take this? I mean yes if nobody ever left their houses then they wouldn’t pick up any infectious disease. But that would be ridiculous no?

Lockdowns were a very blunt tool. They kicked the can down the road. As we saw we got HUGE spikes the minute we opened up. And deaths soared.

Who has said that only deaths matter? I am asking whether people think that lockdown did reduce overall deaths and morbidy in the UK in 2020. I.e. Do they think they would have been lower or higher without lockdown. Potential pros as well as cons are surely important when reflecting on lockdown.

Another interesting (worrying) statistic I’ve found;

NHS modelling cited by the BHF suggested the drop in people having their blood pressure checked because of lockdown could lead to 11,190 heart attacks and 17,702 strokes in the next three years.
There was a huge drop in 40-74 year olds going in for their health checks.

We have no idea the harm we have caused.
But I guess all these excess deaths don’t matter because they’re not Covid…

Ah so now you are talking about overall deaths..

I’m looking at a bigger picture than you are. You are talking about one year -2020 I don’t know whether deaths would have been higher or lower without lockdown but I don’t think focusing on one year is helpful. If for the next 10 years deaths from all causes increases.

We had a global pandemic- sadly lots of people died. But the question here is not about absolute deaths in one year. It’s about the long term impact of lengthy lockdowns on so many people. Mainly people who would not have suffered badly from Covid: the young.

My question wasn't just on covid deaths though. I asked whether lockdown reduced or increased overall deaths and morbidity in 2020.

We can't reflect on the long term impact until we know what it is.

No, you didn't. In your post yesterday at 19.26 you said:

'So you agree that mortality/morbidity among the elderly and those with underlying conditions would have been higher in 2020 if we hadn't had lockdown and all GP/hospital appointments were in person regardless of whether the HCP thought they needed to be?'

That's a completely different question.

The post I quote is about offering only in person appointments and only to one group, which yeah I presume would've led to higher morbidity for those with underlying conditions, what with it being an obviously terrible idea, but nobody was talking about that?!

The question you ask here is about lockdowns as well, which hugely widens the topic because lockdown is such a massive policy in itself, and overall deaths and morbidity for the whole population. The answer to that is, we don't know yet. Lots of the things we'd need to know about haven't happened yet. We do know, as I said upthread, that both restrictions and not having restrictions cause harms, just different ones. As we've never had a lockdown before, this is all new territory.

As an aside, it's very funny watching the more logic challenged amongst you latch on to the term word salad to try and detract from your inability to counter the points I'm making. And lastly, you thinking the UK didn't have any pandemic planning is relevant because it illustrates the level of understanding you're coming at the whole topic from.

Yes ok. Why are you so focused on 2020? Nobody can answer your question as we don’t know what would have happened with more gentle restrictions a la Sweden.

We can start to assess the harms and impact lockdown has though. And maybe start to be very concerned that excess deaths are now higher than Covid deaths at the peak of the pandemic..