Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

To ask what we SHOULD have done during the COVID pandemic

504 replies

tunainatin · 10/11/2024 05:48

So I realise the government made mistakes at the time of COVID. They also acted completely immorally by not following the rules they imposed on everyone else.
However, I suspect any government in this country would have been criticized whatever their response.

I was mulling over the rules and restrictions and trying to work out which ones were actually worthwhile. Some rules seemed so petty (e.g. the one a day walk) but there has to be a line drawn somewhere, otherwise the parks would have been full of people.

Once we were allowed to attend things with restrictions in place, I went to an event which was meant to have masks and social distancing but everyone kind of got carried away and forgot about. Everyone got COVID, including me, badly, and one person was hospitalised.

So if you were the government what would you have done during the pandemic. Which of the bizarre rules we followed do you think saved lives, and which just causes stress or distress?

OP posts:
TheKeatingFive · 10/11/2024 16:34

cardibach · 10/11/2024 16:29

Politicians? Not handed billions to mates for shit PPE and so on. Not broken the rules. Locked down sooner and more effectively (airports in particular) so they would have been shorter.

I don't think there's any evidence that an earlier lockdown would have been shorter. ROI for example locked down earlier but ended up being much longer than the UK.

cardibach · 10/11/2024 16:40

Whereas ours allowed too many cases by being late/soft. Simple logic says that testing people at airports (for eg) would limit incoming cases. We didn’t do it.

Coconuthotchocolate · 10/11/2024 16:43

Let single person households bubble with another household from the start

Decencydiedtoday · 10/11/2024 16:46

Overpayment · 10/11/2024 07:27

They could have been segregated by staying at home. What an odd question.

They did. But presume bolts and crosses on the door would have made you happier?

JenniferBooth · 10/11/2024 16:47

cardibach · 10/11/2024 16:40

Whereas ours allowed too many cases by being late/soft. Simple logic says that testing people at airports (for eg) would limit incoming cases. We didn’t do it.

Well it was apparently more risky to stand on your own doorstep

cardibach · 10/11/2024 16:49

Talking nonsense doesn’t help discussion, @JenniferBooth

EasternStandard · 10/11/2024 16:56

cardibach · 10/11/2024 16:40

Whereas ours allowed too many cases by being late/soft. Simple logic says that testing people at airports (for eg) would limit incoming cases. We didn’t do it.

How could we test at airports at the beginning when we didn't have the tests?

It wasn't for ages that we had enough tests and even then you'd have an absolute nightmare trying to deal with that. What would you do next when so many people a day arrived who were positive?

GoldenPheasant · 10/11/2024 16:56

usererror99 · 10/11/2024 05:58

Anyone in at risk categories - anyone in receipt of old age pension or CEV should have been told to stay home and the rest of us should have got on with it

That would have been disastrous. As it was we just about managed to keep infections within manageable levels. This policy would inevitably have led to many more serious illnesses and the NHS would have been unable to cope.

Why distinguish people on old age pensions from others?` What about pensioners who needed to get to work?

cardibach · 10/11/2024 16:57

EasternStandard · 10/11/2024 16:56

How could we test at airports at the beginning when we didn't have the tests?

It wasn't for ages that we had enough tests and even then you'd have an absolute nightmare trying to deal with that. What would you do next when so many people a day arrived who were positive?

So quarantine then, not just allow in.
Don’t be obtuse. And we didn’t test even when we could.
If there were so many positives, can’t you see why some form of control would have helped?

GoldenPheasant · 10/11/2024 16:58

Overpayment · 10/11/2024 07:27

They could have been segregated by staying at home. What an odd question.

What about older people living with younger relatives or carers? Are they supposed to move out? How about older people living in care homes with young employees?

EasternStandard · 10/11/2024 17:02

cardibach · 10/11/2024 16:57

So quarantine then, not just allow in.
Don’t be obtuse. And we didn’t test even when we could.
If there were so many positives, can’t you see why some form of control would have helped?

Edited

Don’t be obtuse.
It was your suggestion, we didn't even have tests in the first stages.

As for quarantine you'd severely need to limit entry, not just test, is that what you wanted? As for so many positives do you mean thousands a day or..? Where do people go?

It still wouldn't have stopped the virus entering as we have other methods of entry, mainly lorries. So you'd still have the virus circulating to pretty much the same extent. If you listen to Chris Whitty at the enquiry he confirms closing the borders for the UK was not possible.

He confirmed these sorts of suggestions were not feasible, I'm not sure why they're still entertained.

cardibach · 10/11/2024 17:03

GoldenPheasant · 10/11/2024 16:58

What about older people living with younger relatives or carers? Are they supposed to move out? How about older people living in care homes with young employees?

Or with carers coming in. Or delivery drivers delivering food and anything else they need. Or family members doing the same. I thought we had established ages ago that this was a nonsense cover for people who didn’t care how many old/vulnerable people died as long as they weren’t inconvenienced.

cardibach · 10/11/2024 17:04

EasternStandard · 10/11/2024 17:02

Don’t be obtuse.
It was your suggestion, we didn't even have tests in the first stages.

As for quarantine you'd severely need to limit entry, not just test, is that what you wanted? As for so many positives do you mean thousands a day or..? Where do people go?

It still wouldn't have stopped the virus entering as we have other methods of entry, mainly lorries. So you'd still have the virus circulating to pretty much the same extent. If you listen to Chris Whitty at the enquiry he confirms closing the borders for the UK was not possible.

He confirmed these sorts of suggestions were not feasible, I'm not sure why they're still entertained.

Edited

If you won’t admit that stopping thousands of new cases entering the country (even if we couldn’t do it before tests arrived) would have prevented thousands of new cases in the country, I’m not sure what else to say.

EasternStandard · 10/11/2024 17:08

cardibach · 10/11/2024 17:04

If you won’t admit that stopping thousands of new cases entering the country (even if we couldn’t do it before tests arrived) would have prevented thousands of new cases in the country, I’m not sure what else to say.

Where are the thousands of people going after apparently testing how many at Heathrow and every airport?

You haven't answered.

How many people were going where exactly a day?

EasternStandard · 10/11/2024 17:14

It's worth noting that all these suggestions of quarantine or closing the borders contradict Chris Whitty's confirmation at the enquiry

He will know obviously what was possible wrt containing the UK, ie it wasn't

I thought people would clock onto that and stop thinking it was possible

napody · 10/11/2024 17:28

crumblingschools · 10/11/2024 07:10

Parents were pulling children out of Primary school before the closure of schools were announced.

Our schools are generally more cramped, more pupils per classroom and less outdoor learning/opportunities than in Sweden.

Teachers were also dropping like flies (with illness rather than dying)

COVID still has a knock on effect on staff absences now

This.
A healthy 23 year old teacher I worked with is still living with the impact on her heart and lungs of contracting Covid in the early days.

The eye opener for me was how reduced class sizes was so entirely off the table. The way we run schools in this country has absolutely no wiggle room- they're understaffed at the best of times.

bigvig · 10/11/2024 17:32

They should have stuck to the protocols they had in place for a pandemic rather than making up policy as they went along. This would have included, protecting the vulnerable, not locking down and not imposing any mask mandates. Basically put things in place to help the elderly and those with comorbidities. They shouldn't have taken their advice from those with vested interests in pushing vaccines and other lucrative products.

User79853257976 · 10/11/2024 17:43

EasternStandard · 10/11/2024 15:07

It's not the popularity issue it's that it wasn't feasbile

Whitty confirmed this at the enquiry

Why was it feasible for Aus and NZ then?

Gingerbee · 10/11/2024 17:47

Sadly, I wish my neighbours hadn't let their grandchildren and their parents visit and stay over. Having stuck to the rules religiously until Christmas 2020. The children were in school as one parent was an essential worker. The child had a cold, but they all must be together for Christmas. (Even though they were in a bubble with other grandchildrens family). Obviously, it wasn't a cold both hospitalised by new year eve. Lady didn't make it, the gentleman went straight to a nursing home and died. Neither, had (known) preexisting conditions. Both were under retirement age.

Aggie15 · 10/11/2024 17:48

Supersimkin7 · 10/11/2024 07:51

Everyone I know secretly agrees with me on this.

Rate the sacrifices of the young as much as the rights of the aged and dying.

Schools stay open, children not sacrificed on the altar of the old.

Why? We don’t have the right to ruin children’s health and education to - possibly - prolong the existence of invalids who’ve already had a find old life.

This is Darwinian survival of the fittest. Psychopathological and akin to fascism. (Economic and Social Darwinism is the sister ideology of fascism.) New Zealand managed to keep its death rate in single figures because it listened to WHO warnings and properly locked down taking advantage of its geography, short burst of pain to protect everyone. Covid does not discriminate by the way. There are no "vulnerable groups" it affects more. The underlying conditions mantra was false sense security. Never mind Long Covid. 2 million people have it. Even asymptomatic infected people got debilitating Long Covid and lost their lives as they knew it and livelihoods. Nobody has the right to infect you and take away your life just because they think only of themselves. I would not like to be related to anyone who thinks like this. Which one of their family members is disposable to you? Covid did not care. Same kind of people found it tough to wear a mask to protect others.

cardibach · 10/11/2024 18:02

EasternStandard · 10/11/2024 17:08

Where are the thousands of people going after apparently testing how many at Heathrow and every airport?

You haven't answered.

How many people were going where exactly a day?

From Heathrow/London airports? Mostly onto the tube. I remember people talking about it at the time.

Girliefriendlikespuppies · 10/11/2024 18:04

I don't think there should have been any lockdown, the most vulnerable should have been supported to stay at home but for everyone else life carried on.

It was terrible closing schools and stopping people from seeing loved ones.

SnakesAndArrows · 10/11/2024 18:08

What should have happened to all the additional people who would have become critically ill at the same time?

How would the vulnerable people have been supported and protected, if everyone else was carrying on as normal?

Aggie15 · 10/11/2024 18:09

SoiledMyselfDuringSomeTurbulence · 10/11/2024 08:09

How theoretical are we getting here? Because my view is that a lockdown was politically unavoidable in the UK. There's no government who could've avoided having one, due to most of the rest of Europe doing it. Johnson clearly would rather not have done.

Within that context though, there are still a lot of things that could've been done to make it better, both at the time and in the aftermath. The whole protect the vulnerable bit was terrible, because it made people think the vulnerable were one group who could all be protected. Whereas in actual fact, some people were more vulnerable specifically due to restrictions, and it was actually a choice of who to throw under the bus for who.

We should have had lockdown messaging that emphasised the importance and right to outside exercise. Police ought to have been told not to harass people who were sitting and resting outdoors either, because some people need to rest during exercise. Instead, the average person put on a few pounds due to lockdowns. And the rules in 2021 meant primary aged kids were functionally excluded from meeting a friend, unlike other age groups.

The curriculum should have remained suspended in the 2021 lockdown. It would have reduced the inequality somewhat. Instead, some DC got full schooling with much reduced ratios, and some got a recorded message a few minutes a week. Mine were at the latter end. I don't forgive or forget. Schools should also have reopened in June 2020.

We also didn't need to have such badly written legislation, bullshit enforcement and the highly problematic single justice procedure.

What are lockdowns for? To stop the transmission and contain it. UK modelled few years before a pandemic, Tories decided to get rid of PPE stock despite advice to the contrary. 12th of March mandatory testing of staff has stopped. Nobody knew where the virus was. Government was reactive because it did not have the necessary means in place to successfully curtail it. Had Johnson heeded the science and the WHO advice in time they could have taken advantage of the UK's geographical position. Tories locked down 2 weeks too late, before that they allowed the super spreader Cheltenham event to go ahead because of the gambling lobby, and allowed hundreds of thousands of unchecked people to come in via airports. People were with them at the beginning, heeded the advice etc. later they completely undermined their own messaging for political reasons this is when antivaxxers and Covid deniers piped up. New Zealand handled it well. We had self-interested, inept, incompetent corrupt buffoons. The mantra of we protected the at risk groups is nonsense when PPE for hospital staff was not available and later people couldn't be bothered to wear a mask. Who are the at risk groups? Fact is, Covid did not only target the designated at risk groups. Healthcare workers, economically disadvantaged, ethnic minorities and overweight people disproportionately figured among the dead. 2 million people are disabled by LC to varying degrees. Nobody cares about them. It was impossible to protect the at risk groups by walling them away from society. Many of those have jobs, live with children who were forced to go to school. Many conditions that predispose people to catch it do not count as at risk such as people with ME/CFS.

JenniferBooth · 10/11/2024 18:11

Either its a serious pandemic or its not. Yet Strictly Im A Celeb Dancing On Ice still went ahead.