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.

It really made no sense how long the English lockdown carried on in 2020. Rates had dropped well before restrictions were loosened, and Whitty was telling them as early as March that there'd be a second wave once lockdown ended. You want that as far away from the start of the winter flu season as possible!

Hospital rates in that summer were pretty much flat, what a terrible waste for Dc to be out of school and sectors closed for that.

What’s a decent question after all this enquiry stuff

Maybe - Is the level of risk worth it for the damage caused?

They’d better look at the damage well enough from this, including to dc and young, as no one really asked whilst it was happening (apart from a few, including on here).

I think we should feel kinda lucky that we got a trial run with something that isn't going to cause societal collapse.

We should learn from it but the takeaway should not be "next time I'm going to ignore the rules" because next time it might really matter, and our retrospectives might be very different

Hmm, some of the rules were objectively idiotic though, even if you come at it from a pro lockdown perspective. And we really don't know whether lockdown was the best approach, it was simply a punt we took at the time. There's nothing to say we'd either know what the best thing to do is next time or that it would be politically possible to do it.

It's an interesting point about trial runs though. I think what you say is partially true, but the flipside is that even assuming for the sake of argument that lockdown is the least worst option, its also clearly one that can't be done that often. Because of costs, financial and otherwise, and people's willingness and ability to engage with it.

If this does turn out to have been a useful trial run and it becomes clear we did the right thing, we still can't do it again for a while.

2020 had no more excess deaths than 2008 and the years before that (Office for National Statistics)

Covid was as harmless for kids, unless your boy is near to death anyway?

In 2020 the Govt demonstrated that they can take everything you have at any time, including you family relationships. And economic prospects are dire.

This isn’t mental illness. It’s a healthy reaction to appalling Govt abuse and poor life prospects. People need help. But not health care as mentally ill. More post trauma help. And “this is how you accept and deal with the dreadful reality” help.

@Olderandolder you cannot deny the reports from hospital staff and the stress hospitals were under. See the previous post from the doctor that worked on the wards. Beds were taken in every available space. What do you think would have happened if we hadn't have locked down to the people who needed help with other serious medical conditions?

People with autism and learning disabilities had dnr's placed on their files and were denied ventilators on this basis.

I never said not wanting a lock down was a mental illness but lock down did highlight the huge number of people who do have mental health needs and couldn't cope with the situation.

Covid was not harmless for all kids and the impact of long covid is not known for children or adults.

We should have locked down earlier. Once the virus had mutated, we had the vaccine and we knew more about what we were dealing with the subsequent measures weren't needed but 100% the first one was.

I supported the initial lockdowns. But as time went on, Cummings and Bernard Castle, then outlawing grandparents as childcare despite Cummings doing it, pubs & gyms being open while friends and families miscarried and gave birth alone while their partners waited outside, my children crying for their friends and school, my daughter starting reception in 2020 and 3 years on still suffering the most horrendous separation anxiety, babies born during that time having speech delay, my mental health deteriorating to the point my husband called my mum to watch me as he went out to do the “essentials” shop as he was scared I would kill myself, my daughter catching covid and sleeping in bed with me every night and no other member of the family catching it from her, I started to question if it was all really necessary.

Now it’s clear that it wasn’t. If the people in charge with access to all the information were not scared of the virus, enough to repeatedly break rules, mix and party, it was a fucking travesty and they should face a court for what they did. Whilst all fines issued to the plebs are cancelled.

If they ever tried to lock us down again, I would leave the country.

In 2020 the Govt demonstrated that they can take everything you have at any time, including you family relationships. And economic prospects are dire.

No not the Gov, covid took those things. The Government reacted to a pandemic and a situation we hadn't seen in modern times. I don't think they got everything right but If it happens again I hope they don't allow vast numbers to die to preserve economic prospects.

@wonderinglywondering I agree about the length of time and especially no school resuming until September 2020 for most children. The way things were re-opened had little consideration for the economy and no understanding of how life is for most people.

This is a silly argument. The government took those things, not covid. They weren't an inevitable or innate part of covid, which is why some countries didn't do them, and it's also why we stopped having restrictions in 2022 even as covid cases were through the roof. You can still speak in support of lockdown without logic fails.

@StormShadow it's not a silly argument. Many other countries also had similar restrictions some more stringent. The virus mutated so that it wasn't as deadly combined with the vaccine roll out is why restrictions were able to be lifted. The virus as it is now is not the same as it was when the pandemic started. It would be silly to ignore this. If you're goingto argue on the basis of logic then you need to look at all factors not just those which allow you to make statements like that you just made.

I'm sure some people who loved ones to covid would argue that more was taken from them than their economic prospects.

It's completely idiotic, and it got dafter here.

Some countries had covid and didn't have the restrictions being discussed. That means the argument that it was covid fails: the difference is the policy choice. The fact that other countries had harsher restrictions than the UK doesn't remotely affect this. Actually, it reinforces my point, because they had the same covid as us but responded differently. That would be due to the fact that it wasn't covid that caused restrictions, it was the people who chose how to manage the pandemic.

You're allowing your support of the restrictions to blur your assessment, as shown by that last comment about relatives and the economy. But it's not anti lockdown to recognise the not even slightly debatable fact that covid didn't cause restrictions, decision makers did.

@StormShadow

In Europe, I can only think of one country that didn’t have restrictions. The overwhelming majority did.

And India, Brazil - tried to avoid restrictions resulted in huge death tolls. You could argue here that India, Brazil are not comparable. But likewise Sweden is not comparable (density, well resourced hospitals, highest vaccine uptake in Europe).
Covid cases were through the roof in 2022, but we’d developed hybrid immunity and infection was resulting in less deaths or serious infections requiring hospitalisation.

Which countries? If the answer is Sweden, then they did have restrictions and while their schools remained open unlike in other places, they are one of the few countries to have had excess deaths in school age children in 2020.

You're arguing about semantics. The restrictions were a reaction to covid (I wrote somethig similar in the post you originally chose to pick an argument on). The restrictions were due to covid, it was the Government's reaction. You're showing you're unable to debate without resorting to name calling (idiotic/ silly). Those restrictions would never have been brought if it wasn't for the pandemic.

The fact that some countries had different restrictions doesn't make those right or wrong, they were different but all due to covid.

Ignoring the virus mutating and the vaccine rollout as a factor in whether restrictions can be lifted is misguided at best.

I didn't say just Europe. But the fact that even one country in Europe didn't have those restrictions means the argument that it was the disease that caused restrictions is bollocks.

Again, the talk of death tolls is irrelevant to this point. Whether lockdown was the best policy or not doesn't matter when we're discussing what the cause of it was. You don't prove that covid caused restrictions by explaining why you think various governments were right to implement them.

They didn't have all the restrictions mentioned though, which means the pp was wrong to say it was covid that caused restrictions not governments. It's a stupid argument and it's bemusing that people who support lockdown feel the need to defend it. You can argue that restrictions were correct whilst not tying yourselves into knots by pretending they were caused by a disease not people responding to it.

Idk, it was a hugely expensive and damaging trial run.

People might be more conscious of risk by age next time

And now my third in a row lol.

It's not semantics, it's the entire point. You're now trying to argue two separate things, which are contradictory. Governments caused the restrictions. The fact that restrictions differed by country and that some didn't have the restrictions mentioned is full, entire proof of that. It was a particularly ridiculous argument for you to make in reply to the post you originally quoted, which was about people's reaction to the experience of the government having made laws that restricted their freedoms. It's nonsensical both in context and in the abstract.

And once again, this isn't about whether the restrictions were right or wrong. That has literally nothing to do with what caused them. You're not proving that covid caused the restrictions, which it didn't, by telling us why you think they were right. This is not a difficult thing to get your head round...

@StormShadow I think you're struggling to get your head around whatis being discussed. Are you really taking it so literally that you read my post as covid declared the restrictions?! Your posts read as you interpret what I put as covid walking Into Downing St and holding a press conference to announce measures.

Ofcourse people made the restrictions but drumroll..... because of covid. The restrictions were as a result of covid, because of covid.

This is unintentionally hilarious. Words have got meanings. Restrictions happened because of the government response to covid, and your argument that actually it was covid not the government to someone who was talking about the MH impact of government decisions was ridiculous.

I remember looking at the statistics even quite early on and it was already quite clear that the vast vast majority of those dying were over 70, often with other health co-morbid health conditions, and thinking it was just crazy to restrict children's lives in that way.

It's obviously up to people's individual moral codes what level of restriction they think is ok, but it bemuses me how many people seem to think we didn't know the age related risks when we locked down. We'd seen what happened in Italy, and what didn't. It goes back to the point about the government wanting people who perceived themselves as low risk to feel more scared.

One thing I particularly remember is the deaths of younger people who died being reported as healthy when photos suggested they were pretty obese. I'm a bit chubby myself fwiw, but clearly weight is a risk factor.

@Yabbadabbadotime

But even so, hospitals were at bursting point. Even if all those people were older, they still need a bed space. You can’t deny them a bed space and the resources needed for a humane death. And therefore we didn’t have the resources to cope with them AND all other admissions.

This is true. It's a question of weighing up competing factors.