(Covid) To think these recommendations are bonkers?

[NoCharnce]

So the government commission into how to memorialise the Covid pandemic has recommended the government implement “A UK-wide day of reflection should be established and held annually.”

Other recommendations include national memorials (10 sites already identified!), oral histories and museums plus additional funding for local authorities to set up their own memorials.

I can’t be the only one who thinks this is nuts and hope the government ignores the recommendations? I genuinely cannot believe people get paid to produce this crap.

That may be true. And you could have taken that into account when deciding on what to do

If the messaging had not been fear based but just accurately showing risk

I don't know anyone who was young and physically healthy and "petrified" of catching it themselves to the extent they barely went out for months/years. Most young healthy people understood that they were not personally at high risk after the first couple of months.

I think the messages were clear although I'm sure it depends on what you read.

What do you mean, what was clear?

The overriding daily message was the death and case count as a good way to get high compliance

It worked. Incredibly well.

It was a huge part of the pandemic response and filtered on to mn daily. Which message was stronger than that for you?

(personally I did listen to risk messaging as I could see why they were using the campaign but that doesn’t mean I couldn’t see the huge impact of of the above)

I think most posters on mn knew that the young and healthy weren't at high risk.

Because its about money not covid as such? Because as a tax payer you will be expected to pay for this and it should be put out publicly not shunted off to one side under all things covid

I don’t think that tallies with reactions, particularly around schools and demands for closures across various places

Without daily deaths we’d have seen different behaviour

@Dontcallmescarface

There was a strong correlation between social deprivation and development of covid infection/hospitalisation/vaccine hesitancy.

Essentially you had people from certain areas in cramped housing, limited money for sanitiser/masks, limited comprehension of the biology behind restrictions/vaccine development, distrustful of the government, and working in jobs where they would be more exposed.

I think education needs be be a major factor in trying to protect people from socially deprived backgrounds in future. Be that via public outreach or school. It needs to be hammered home.

I was at an extended family funeral (DH’s) during the covid period.

Myself and DH stood outside the tiny terrace house. All the rest went in were sitting in a room 3x3 room with the coffin, touching the body. The person died after being in intensive care for several weeks with covid (restrictions had lifted to a certain extent but still advised do not go into homes where over X people present etc, and the number in a church limited). At the church people did comply but at the house before the church it was complete bedlam and they all ignored the advice because they thought covid was a cold and didn’t trust the government. Then they wondered why many of them got sick a week or so later 🤷‍♀️

The fact that some people wanted schools to close to reduce overall deaths doesn't mean they weren't aware that the young and healthy weren't personally at high risk.

@TrashedSofa

Yes you’re completely right that public opinion would form part of future planning.

This is where I can see the inquiry feeding in to future planning.

For example if a disease has 1% fatality people would probably not accept lockdown over Christmas Day… 10%+ and you would have to overrule public opinion due to potential anarchy on the streets.

For a pathogen unlikely to kill many (with limited scope to evolve a worse variant), naturally public opinion would hold more sway than say if a pathogen with 10, 20, 40% fatality were to take hold.

People were concerned over their own risk. That is all here in the threads on mn

So many threads on that, looking at it by profession even

If you think everyone was not reacting to fear campaign how different do you think behaviour and compliance would have been without daily death and case count?

I agree with a lot of this, the Christmas example is a good one. Except there isn't a mechanism for public opinion not to hold sway, however dangerous the illness might be. It's not a nice to have, it's an inherent part of any pandemic management strategy. It would be the all bets are off situation we agreed on upthread. So really the issue is to what extent could public views be influenced/managed. Which is thornier.

@EasternStandard

I don’t think you’re getting that this was a novel virus and an RNA virus at that with enormously high mutation rates!!

Calculating personal risk in the beginning was impossible.

We knew in the beginning that it was killing people, predominantly older, with certain health conditions, but some younger too.

We didn’t know the transmission routes, we didn’t know the full scope of the disease (we still don’t), we didn’t have any therapeutics, the risk of higher fatality developing was very real due to what we knew about other coronavirus outbreaks.

Developing serious clinical infection is dependent on the interaction between factors relative to the virus (variant etc), environment (temperature, indoor/outdoor etc) and host (age,sex, pre-existing condition etc).

We did not know what factors were most important or contributing most. As such you stop everything and then try and suss it out by releasing certain restrictions to see what impact it has.

Had we been dealing with a known enemy the response would have been firmer, but with a novel virus there is more risk and it requires more caution. For all.

The idea behind the approach was to ‘flatten the curve’ for hospital numbers

If we had enough places it’s feasible that it could have been passed through population without barriers

@WomblingTree86

This is true. I saw a good friend as a corpse because they were let down by others who refused to follow guidance.

Whenever we then had some family not follow guidance I cut off contact for a year - because myself and DC are vulnerable.

It caused a lot of issues. But we are alive and weren’t put at risk so I felt it was worth it.

It wouldn’t have mattered to me who it was, at the time my personal assessment was that the guidance needed to be followed (vaccination/some social restriction) and I didn’t want to mix with anyone who didn’t play their part. Not only for myself and DC, we mixed with others who were vulnerable or had elderly relatives. It wouldn’t have been fair to expose myself to escalated risk and thus put others in danger.

In fact thinking back that was the initial plan. Except the numbers were out

They realised and about a week later we had lockdown

@EasternStandard

If we had enough places it’s feasible that it could have been passed through population without barriers

In other words, "let it rip"? Pre-vaccine, I think that would only have succeeded in a great many more deaths.

Kids could get a scavenger hunt/bingo card to collect all the covid classics (granny killer, new normal, social distancing, selfishk super spreader etc) and be rewarded with a rainbow coloured facemask at the end

Yes it was only after the miscalculation on numbers that the approach was changed

@TrashedSofa

I think there are avenues to distribute propaganda such as social media, post, shops, schools, workplaces.

They may put out guidance set in law on infection control/what to do and what will potentially happen in the event of an outbreak to workplaces, schools etc. Which would allow planning across the public and private sectors. And facilitate even things like pandemic insurance possibly. I’m sure the gov would want something like that so they don’t have to foot a furlough bill next time.

Public education, communication of science overall will be upscaled.

I see the recommendations re covid legacy more as reinforcing the above, a piece of the puzzle in influencing public opinion rather than instrumental.

They’d be mad if they didn’t use it as it’s the pandemic closest to people’s minds.

I definitely think there was an element of this. Look at how the government behaved. Would they really have been having parties and all sorts if there was a significant risk to them.

the real problem with Covid was always the numbers

@TooOldForThisNonsense

I definitely think there was an element of this. Look at how the government behaved. Would they really have been having parties and all sorts if there was a significant risk to them

Were you on MN at that time? According to a good amount of posters on the Covid boards, they were ignoring the rulez and partying too, so ...

@EasternStandard

Yes it was only after the miscalculation on numbers that the approach was changed

Really? Do you have a source for this?

Why do you assume that those who were concerned about their own risk on mn were being irrational? Not everyone on here is young and healthy and there seem to be quite a few with children who may have been at high risk too.

It was evidence on a committee hearing. I listened at the time but here is transcript (a few said the same but this is MH)

I remember very, very clearly when the new projections from SPI-M came in towards the end of the week beginning 9 March; I cannot remember exactly what day it was, but towards the end of that week SPI-M came in with some new projections. I remember going into No. 10 and one of the most senior advisers saying to me, ashen-faced, "Have you seen these new projections? Isn't this awful?"

They then launched into lockdown planning

Also on scientific advice this came up, related but different point

Scientists would not have proposed lockdowns without ministers suggesting them, the country’s most senior doctor has said.

Sir Chris Whitty, the Chief Medical Officer for England, told the Covid Inquiry he would have been surprised if scientists had included national shutdowns as part of the planning for a pandemic.

Giving evidence on the eighth day of the Inquiry, Sir Chris said planning for such an “extraordinarily major social intervention” would not have occurred unless a minister had requested it.