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.

I supported Lockdown initially, I saw the awful scenes in the news of overstretched NHS staff begging us to stay home and couldn’t imagine the selfishness a person would have to possess to refuse their request.
They were scary times and we didn’t understand the virus we were faced with.
However, as time went on, I am glad I broke the very few Lockdown rules I did. I went to see my newborn niece, which I knew I’d regret if I didn’t. We had a normal family Christmas. We took the decision, as a family, to keep visiting my Nan with Alzheimer’s, as being alone was making her ill. I’m glad I / we did.

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.

Absolutely @thing47 Well said.

I think the pandemic just demonstrated how much ignorance there is in the population about how science works.

Agree, but worse than that (imho) is a the complete ignorance about how much of our lives are dependent on science and the knowledge of experts. I’ve come across many, many people who take it as a personal attack to suggest that they might not have the same level of understanding as people who are highly educated and experienced in their fields. When the rhetoric of ‘ignoring scientists’ in general became somewhat acceptable to state publicly I felt a little bit of civilisations foundations subside.

The phrase ‘standing on the shoulders of giants’ really needs to be examined more at all levels of society.

@cornettoninja hear hear

Dealing with a pandemic rests on science but also broader concerns for a population

Even Chris Whitty says that. He knew his remit fairly precisely (except one line but it was late into it)

Yes, yes, yes @Cornettoninja

Anyone with acknowledged and demonstrable expertise who dates to say they may know more than someone without that expertise, is considered to be "arrogant" by some people.

But when you think that our education system doesn't require that pupils take some form of science study past GCSE ...

I don’t disagree there’re a lot of factors to balance, each important with their own pros and cons but emergencies have their own leads iyswim. Scientists wouldn’t lead a military emergency but a biological emergency is something they really have to be the underlying guide in all factors.

In an ( it turned out a misguided) attempt at transparency and keeping the public informed an unintentional (intentional?) belief that everyone understood the contexts and terminology and could therefore make absolute statements of opinion based on things they simply didn’t have the background knowledge to fully understand emerged quite forcefully.

The over riding sentiment is always a reference to an offence at being inferred as stupid and admitting that you have a gap in your knowledge as a serious failing. It’s quite bizarre, I don’t get the hump with calling a gas engineer to install a boiler because they patently know more than i do about it and I run the risk of blowing myself up, but apparently agreeing with experts in virology, in the majority rather than taking a punt on an outsider because what they’re saying feels more comfortable to me but I have no tools whatsoever to prove or disprove is being a sheep?

Even then, scientists see misinformation, address it and open it up to their peers to review and that’s then dismissed whilst there is celebration from the sidelines because they still have the odd person with credentials that confirms their worldview and allows them to be taken seriously when they urge others to ‘ignore the science’.

I’m not saying that scientists are infallible, I doubt many would proclaim that about themselves but in a situation involving a biological element it’s ridiculous to not hold it as the underpinning element of all decisions.

Broadly I support them perhaps less so after the first one.

However, I don't think it's a very helpful question. There are parts I supported and parts I didnt. Things that with hindsight we wouldn't do again. I don't think the future pandemic response means that we will never have a lockdown because we think the last one went so terribly its to ask ok how do we reach that decision, are the constituent parts of that lockdown appropriate, is it at the right time and for the Right length of time.

Lockdown (the first one) did work in that it allowed us to study the disease, treatments etc. It worked because we were protecting each other and I'm afraid that that mentality may be eroding such that even if one was required next time, there would be less adherence. However that is very easy for me to say as not everyone has the means to stay at home etc which is why we need to look at the kindnof lockdowns we have.

Scientists wouldn’t lead a military emergency but a biological emergency is something they really have to be the underlying guide in all factors.

It will inform but not lead. Ie the overall decisions are still made by those they inform. I recall Whitty pointing this out maybe a few times

Some things clearly are in their remit, what the virus is, mapping it, how it transmits, risks to age groups etc

But that all goes into a big mix with other information

One area where a certain section of science became a bit divorced from reality was zero Covid

Overall though I have no issue with science playing a key role in a pandemic

Well it’s be a shock if future pandemic planning wasn’t informed by the experience of being unprepared and of course will take into account the harms alongside what was achieved but I think that real damage has been done to the credibility of knowledge and expertise on a societal level. It doesn’t feel like we’re heading into an age of potential technological explosive evolution from a particularly enlightened starting point which is concerning.

*it’ll be

There was quite a lot of pandemic planning before covid. It was decided to ignore it, mainly for political reasons.

And it's a bit of a joke to say that scientists were listened to, and those who opposed them were just people who don't understand science. The main messaging was political, and scientific thinking was quashed in many cases. Look at what happened with the Cochrane Review on masking.

Hancock at the Covid enquiry Absolutely chilling.

https://twitter.com/WalshamCharlie/status/1673651258656276480?s=20

I‘m not watching but that wording is enough. What a total arse

I haven’t followed this enquiry other than the news annoyingly bringing it up nearly daily

But it seems they are speaking to people who were tasked with various roles in the pandemic, since one major issue was no one really was tasked to measure mh of children, or adults even, who stands up and talks about the impact on children and the young?

Maybe there is but these systems seem to have a flaw, we’ll end up with ever increasing draconian lockdown approaches because people are looking at it from standpoint of deaths

I did hear a bit from Whitty which I agreed with, and said earlier, you can’t abuse people and expect fast vaccines, but may have missed more on his thinking

If it was up to Hancock lockdowns would become policy and the first option.

I didnt hear Whittys testimony but will check it out

That's rich coming from a morally corrupt lying narcissistic man who was gropping his mistress and telling the country to stay home, no hugs and let's scare. the pants off them, putting people into panic and possibly stopping innocent people from seeing a GP for much more life threatening illnesses. so much corruption is in plan sight.

I didn’t buy into, it just seemed like mass hysteria to me.

YY Sunflower and anyone who believes that affair didnt start till May 2021 is as thick as mince

Maybe there is but these systems seem to have a flaw, we’ll end up with ever increasing draconian lockdown approaches because people are looking at it from standpoint of deaths

That appeared to be what Hancock was pitching for today, as if it was a remotely realistic possibility with covid, but I have my doubts personally. As things stand, if there were another pandemic now, I can't see that lockdown would happen. There isn't enough trust. Frankly it would probably take the Internet about 12 seconds before blaming it on the covid vaccines.

That's not to say this situation persists indefinitely, but it's not immediately obvious where the change would come from.

Worse than that.

It was a disgusting human rights abuse.

we hear now that they always knew it was bollocks. But so what?

No reason is good enough to lock up your citizens.

No reason is good enough to destroy the economy and threaten people’s ability to eat.

Yes I did talk about hunger in March 2020.

I think the first lockdown worked and was needed. How many people would have died and how many more once the nhs was over run and you couldn't access the nhs for heart attacks, strokes etc?

Nhs staff were on their knees, the hospitals were a conveyor belt of people dying. Healthy people with conditions like autism were given dnr's.

I would lock down again to protect my son who was one of the ones who wouldn't have been given a ventilator.

What the covid enquiry has highlighted is the poor mental health of so many on the country.

I reckon depends on the pandemic in question. Give us a super Marburg breakout and see how they run

It is likely true the severity of the disease, and the type would have an impact

We shouldn’t have wasted it so much on Covid

Lockdown can only work with a virus that isn't dangerous enough to pose a threat to basic societal functioning. Something as bad as Marburg everywhere would mean a lot of us out looting and looking for scapegoats. Running, as you say! The last thing anyone would give a shit about is bubbles and how far you can travel for exercise.

Matt Hancock would not have given the same evidence as he did, I expect, if he was still in the Tory party and standing at the next election. Even so, it seemed fake.

My view on the Covid restrictions in 2020 were that with prompt action in March and September and an understanding of how the economy works, they could have been of a much shorter duration, much less impact, and with fewer deaths.