To think that everyone who told those with preschool children in 2020/21 to get a puddlesuit and that lockdown wasn’t that bad needs to read this

[manysummersago]

BBC link

Reading the above has made me feel so angry and sad at what was done to the babies and toddlers of this country, and I can’t believe that we let it happen, quite honestly.

We allowed so much to happen; collective insanity. The amount of harm done to the population is immeasurable and there are still people out there calling from restrictions to be brought back. Absolute madness.

But the alternative was to take no mitigation measures against a novel virus which was killing large numbers of people elsewhere, and whose effects we didn’t then understand. We had to keep people safe until we knew how to mitigate against it. Masks are a good defence against airborne viruses if used properly. Lockdowns bought us time to develop vaccines and treatments.

Can you imagine what the death rate would have been if we hadn’t done anything? If we hadn’t taken mitigations and lots of children and babies had died, would you be saying we should have done more?

What do you think we should have done instead, until we knew more about the virus and its effects, and had developed vaccines and treatments?

YANBU. Many of us pointed out at the time that incalculable damage was being done to children, but we were told that ‘kids are resilient’, and that small children don’t need interaction with anyone other than their parents. Anyone who suggested school and nursery closures might not be a great idea was told that we only wanted our kids at school for the childcare and we couldn’t be bothered to take care of them ourselves. Those of us who posted in desperation about the effect of lockdown on our own kids were told it was our fault.

Everything we warned about has turned out to be correct.

@bookworm14

YANBU. Many of us pointed out at the time that incalculable damage was being done to children, but we were told that ‘kids are resilient’, and that small children don’t need interaction with anyone other than their parents. Anyone who suggested school and nursery closures might not be a great idea was told that we only wanted our kids at school for the childcare and we couldn’t be bothered to take care of them ourselves. Those of us who posted in desperation about the effect of lockdown on our own kids were told it was our fault.

Everything we warned about has turned out to be correct.

Totally agree with this ^

I have to say I actually was reluctantly OK with lockdown 1 - getting to know what we were dealing with etc. but it went on far too long then local restrictions (tier 4 anyone?) then another lockdown was just way too much. The impact has been awful for some people.

It is easy to make these judgements in hindsight, but we didn’t know then what we know now, and could only act based on the information we had. And as @FloraPostePosts says - can you imagine what the death toll would have been, if we had done nothing?

But the alternative was to take no mitigation measures

No it wasn't. Straw man.

@ClaudiaWankleman

But the alternative was to take no mitigation measures

No it wasn't. Straw man.

So, presumably you are a public health expert and know better than me - which mitigations would you have chosen, given we knew nothing about the virus? What would their effect have been?

These after effects are awful, but as @FloraPostePosts says, without mitigation and with very little knowledge of a new virus we had to assume the worst until we knew more and had some mitigation.

One worst case scenario if not locking down could have been huge numbers of children losing a parent, which would also be catastrophic. It's easy to look back and want to scream because various things seem unnecessary in retrospect (although I think most of the biggest things weren't), but no one could have known that then with the available information at that point.

YANBU and we knew in official reports as early as summer 2020 thst the damage being done was completely disproportionate and akin to 6 unmitigated pandemics in the long term (at that point, god knows 18 months kater what it is). I sat through my nhs board repeatedly presenting this information.

Opposing lockdown did not mean doing nothing.

The damage done to my now-preschooler, then toddler, by losing her father far exceeds any damage done by lockdown.

Yes, lockdown definitely has been detrimental to her and I can see that - but believe me, there is worse.

@Newrumpus

Opposing lockdown did not mean doing nothing.

As I said to an earlier poster - if you knew better, what was your proposal? Are you a public health official or epidemiologist? Did you offer your solution to the government?

I think it's good that it's being recognised that damage has been done. I think it will mean that lockdowns won't feature in the future.

My DD I think is part of a group that have been least damaged by lockdown. She's was just one when it started and had only been at nursery a few weeks. She'd had her first year 'as normal' with all the in person checks and support. She was at an age where being at home with just me was fine and by the time she needed more socialisation nursery / preschool had restarted.

My DS on the other hand. He as 3 when it started and I think he's fear of public toilets is due to not being able to go to any for so long when he was early in the potty training.

I supprted the lockdowns as I couldn't see what alternative we had at that point. I wish they would have acted sooner and not allowed it to get to the point of crisis but that's hindsight. I am also worried about the effect on children.

I can see it has impacted my 7yo and 4yo in different ways. 7yo has not done a normal year in school yet. 4yo very shy and both seem immature for their ages ( I work with children). We will be learning the outcome of this awful situation for years to come.

So, presumably you are a public health expert and know better than me - which mitigations would you have chosen, given we knew nothing about the virus? What would their effect have been?

Well you asserted something and now can't provide any evidence that there were no other options, so the ball is really in your court. Nonetheless, I can think that we might have:

• Given special dispensation for young children to interact with their peers, especially by allowing pre-school care to continue, even if we reduced the frequency.
• Investigated or tried to understand the potential effects on children earlier than this and provided better guidance to parents and families to mitigate.
• Not included children in the rule of 6.

I have worked with older primary aged children for nearly 30 years. One of the biggest things I am noticing is lots of delayed speech amongst the younger siblings. More and more Reception and pre schoolers whom I just struggle to understand what they are trying to say. This is in an area of low deprivation and high education levels amongst the parents.

It’s not just the impact of the lockdowns themselves but all the restrictions in between lockdowns. So reduced baby and toddler groups, nursery and school staff wearing face masks or visors. Fewer play dates, less physical time with grandparents and extended families. I doubt Zoom calls help young children to absorb non verbal cues, facial expressions etc. All the building blocks of language and social communication have been hampered for our youngest children.

Add to that a squeeze in SALT services and we have a perfect storm. Wait for the impact on reading, writing and behaviour.

The Education Secretary wants our preschoolers and Reception aged children to hit the 90% expected mark across maths, reading and writing by then end of their year 6. No way is this going to happen without a massive input in funding in Early Years and KS1. Or of course they could just change what the definition of expected is. I wonder which one will happen?

I had a lockdown baby, he thrived. Of course, there will be children affected but there will equally be many that sailed through. I have more concern for my teens than my toddler to be quite honest.

The fact that report mentions children not hearing stories or singing? That's a parenting issue, not a lockdown one!

The fact that report mentions children not hearing stories or singing? That's a parenting issue, not a lockdown one!

Not if people were working full time and usually the signing would be in nursery.

We will be dead bf with the after affects of this pandemic for decades.

@MajorCarolDanvers

We will be dead bf with the after affects of this pandemic for decades.

Dealing

@CornishGem1975

I had a lockdown baby, he thrived. Of course, there will be children affected but there will equally be many that sailed through. I have more concern for my teens than my toddler to be quite honest.

The fact that report mentions children not hearing stories or singing? That's a parenting issue, not a lockdown one!

It is and it isn't.

I was lucky I'm a SAHM so during the lockdowns I could do story times, I could do games, I could sing songs etc.

I have friends who both worked full time AND had to care for very young children / babies with no childcare or other support. A lot of TV was watched and they did what they could to survive that time. I have zero judgment for them because it must have been so hard to try to do all that.

@bookworm14

YANBU. Many of us pointed out at the time that incalculable damage was being done to children, but we were told that ‘kids are resilient’, and that small children don’t need interaction with anyone other than their parents. Anyone who suggested school and nursery closures might not be a great idea was told that we only wanted our kids at school for the childcare and we couldn’t be bothered to take care of them ourselves. Those of us who posted in desperation about the effect of lockdown on our own kids were told it was our fault.

Everything we warned about has turned out to be correct.

I agree with this entirely. My kids are older, and I saw first harm the damage which was being done keeping them at home all day and online schooling.

The persistent narrative on here was that school is NOT childcare, and that there was something wrong with parents of three teenagers who couldn't do their own full time jobs, and support their kids with doing subjects as diverse as advanced higher chemistry, drama and geography.

Locking the country down was a grotesque over-reaction. I have argued all along against lockdowns and sadly we will all pay the price of pandering to the hysterical masses. My children have missed out on so much. Unforgivable

@Howeverdoyouneedme

The fact that report mentions children not hearing stories or singing? That's a parenting issue, not a lockdown one!

Not if people were working full time and usually the signing would be in nursery.

We're talking about during lockdown when a lot of people were either working from home or furloughed. Or on maternity leave like myself, and regardless of working full time (I do now), I still find time to read to my children, play games, sing songs...I don't need nursery staff to do that?

@CornishGem1975

I had a lockdown baby, he thrived. Of course, there will be children affected but there will equally be many that sailed through. I have more concern for my teens than my toddler to be quite honest.

The fact that report mentions children not hearing stories or singing? That's a parenting issue, not a lockdown one!

Agree. Had a lockdown toddler and we were out everyday walking, exploring. When shops and everything closed, we played at home, read masses of stories and watched Baby Club on CBeebies so we could sing and feel a part of something. Not every toddler or baby will be harmed. It is offensive to suggest so.