Lockdown report/Covid enquiry - if you supported lockdown do you regret it?

[Hell121]

I haven’t seen a thread on this so sorry if it has been done. In light of the report yesterday I wander if people have changed their minds on whether lockdown was a good idea. I remember the threads of utter lunacy on here and the mask hysteria/schools debate. I was against lockdowns and masks very early on but complied - I don’t think I’d ever do it again. I genuinely think it was a massive overreaction which has damaged things in this country irreparably and left many children and adults far worse off than they were pre covid.

@JogOn123

I have no time or patience for those who say " I didn't hug my grieving mother because Boris told us we couldn't".

Do people actually say this though? It seems an odd thing to say, unless in protest, and even then I wouldn't believe it.

@Howpo oh yes we did and there were plenty of attempts to try and shut us up as recently as three months ago. lol!!!!!!

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/site_stuff/4763622-anti-dementors-the-ads

I supported the first lockdown and think it should've been implemented earlier and worldwide, rather than a country-by-country decision. I stand by that. I got vaccinated as soon as I was eligible.

Subsequent lockdowns were both futile and damaging, as we are now seeing. I said this at the time, but didn't break the rules since our family are overseas and our friends supported the lockdowns. I also wore a homemade mask to the shop even though I felt it was simply virtue-signalling and it made my anxiety 20x worse.

I supported the first lockdown and think it should've been implemented earlier and worldwide, rather than a country-by-country decision.

Who would have the authority to have made that decision?

That was just the AD threads, and it was ONE PERSON. Were they able to continue?

The only other threads I know about that were removed were 'The State of Fear' threads, but they were full of conspiracies, misinformation and general stupidity at a vulnerable time of the pandemic.

World leaders (Prime Ministers and Presidents, etc) should've discussed it at length and come to a consensus. No point locking down if you share a border with a country that isn't and international travel is still happening.

That doesn't sound at all realistic.

For one thing, decisions about how to manage covid meant choosing to prioritise some groups at the expense of others. That was true of lockdown but it would also have been equally true of not locking down. Not all societies have the same balance of these populations, and they weren't necessarily all going to be impacted in the same way by a particular approach either. Inevitably it would end up with the more powerful countries trying to strong arm the others.

@StormShadow its not completely unrealistic, that’s the kind of role the WHO is meant to fulfil and we manage to have international working relationships with institutions like NATO and the G8.

I agree with @MooseBreath that the most effective management of infectious diseases needs a global effort.

Of course it's completely unrealistic. You're talking about every single country in the world. NATO and the G8 are actually examples that prove my point, not yours, because some of the world are vehemently opposed to both. They are really not examples of global agreement or solidarity.

I didn't say it was precedented or even realistic. But it's what should've happened if we wanted to eliminate the virus.

I doubt this was possible for covid.

Too much transmission before China could close borders. It was also asymptomatic so people travelled before the illness hit the hospitals.

Once it was out it was only a few countries that could use borders that way. Most still need goods crossing or have people crossing and that will transmit the virus

You said it wasn't completely unrealistic, which it is.

On a theoretical level it makes more sense, but by the time the world were aware of what was happening and all willing to at least discuss it, I think the time had passed. Despite some of the nonsense that was claimed in 2020, it wasn't containable by that point.

Ok, I’m not getting into point scoring. Global may be too much to ask but continental approach’s could be a viable option provided countries were open to dialogue .

Individualism means naff all in the face of global threats be that disease, famine, environmental disasters or war.

It means that the idea of global cooperation is absolute pie in the sky.

Covid is a particularly bad example to use for this argument, given that it represented a very different level of threat depending on the society and had to be a much higher priority for some than others.

We needed to do it. Look at what the government did to nursing and care homes - letting it rip through them. If we hadn’t locked down, more people would have died.

We can't trust Whitty/vallance at all again.

As they presented false figures multiple times, and didn't have the balls to challenge the government about masks for kids which Whitty thought were pointless.

So - who do you trust?

None of them involved at the top including the 'scientists' you also have prat Ferguson who was kicked out but then quitely let back in.

Do you mean the scientists who were at the top worldwide, or just scientists in the UK?

Who would have done a better job? Who is better skilled and more qualified? Who would have got it right?

I'm about the UK although the WHO were next to useless.

Whitty and vallance presenting false data, so once they lie once what did they also lie about. Ferguson a utter scumbag who is wrong regularly.

And also they didn't stand up when something was wrong.

A common excuse is who could do better, so we just accept it rather than they could have done better theirselves.

I don’t think it’s an excuse. If WHO are useless, and our Chief Medical Officers and Scientific Advisors are also useless - who should you listen to in a pandemic? Who should be making global decisions?

I can't be the only one who'd struggle to trust any organisation to make global pandemic decisions.

I don't know I haven't researched the globe I just know we had a bunch of liars and with fauchi the USA did to, but they proved they were liars too.

For fuck's sake, no they didn't. They presented changing figures as the data changed – which it did quite often because, you know, NEW virus… That's how science works.

It was all politicised, you'll notice that Whitty and Valance were seen less and less in the media once the science evolved because the information they wished to impart (ie that isolation could be 5 days not 14) was no longer the message which the politicians wished to impart. Science deals in nuance and grey areas, and politics doesn't.