For the people who think they've been duped...

[mac12]

I'm not trying to start a bunfight but I'm just curious about this thought process. People who think they've been duped by coronavirus & think lockdowns were a hysterical over-reaction...

• what do you think is going on when countries like China haven't rolled back from their strong stance on this? Do you think it's just to save face? I mean would a country really take a wrecking ball to their economy to save face?
• why have countries like Israel or some US states, which did reopen, decide to start closing down again? Why wouldn't they just crack on and carry on with full reopening if it was so clear that they had been duped & it had all been an overreaction?
• why wouldn't all governments be taking the Sweden line? Our govt isn't averse to the odd U-turn, why wouldn't they do this if they genuinely thought it was safe and they had overreacted?

I'm just wondering why people think governments would persist with this if it was so obviously an overreaction?

@TheDailyCarbuncle

You speak a lot of sense.

[quote Yellowbutterfly1]@TheDailyCarbuncle

You speak a lot of sense.[/quote]
I wonder if we can swap her for BoJo! I'm sure no one would mind!

But there were shock tactics about HIV, I am sure many people changed their behaviour in this country when more people knew about it and the risks. Now there is effective treatment it is not so much in our face.

If we hadn’t had an official lockdown I am sure a number of people would have effectively locked themselves down, enough to impact certain parts of the economy.

Days before schools were ‘closed’ parents were pulling children out of school. I am a school governor and one of the schools I deal with had a third of the pupils not attending. At that time it had not occurred to me to pull DS out, but if schools had continued as normal and the rate of infection had kept increasing along with deaths I probably would have done after the Easter holidays. As a family we would have stopped going to cafes, restaurants, cinema, non essential shops etc. DH would have started working from home more. And I am sure we wouldn’t have been the only ones. But these businesses would have had to struggle on with no help from the Government.

With a lockdown things could be managed more effectively (well they could with a more effective Government)

@ineedaholidaynow

But there were shock tactics about HIV, I am sure many people changed their behaviour in this country when more people knew about it and the risks. Now there is effective treatment it is not so much in our face.

If we hadn’t had an official lockdown I am sure a number of people would have effectively locked themselves down, enough to impact certain parts of the economy.

Days before schools were ‘closed’ parents were pulling children out of school. I am a school governor and one of the schools I deal with had a third of the pupils not attending. At that time it had not occurred to me to pull DS out, but if schools had continued as normal and the rate of infection had kept increasing along with deaths I probably would have done after the Easter holidays. As a family we would have stopped going to cafes, restaurants, cinema, non essential shops etc. DH would have started working from home more. And I am sure we wouldn’t have been the only ones. But these businesses would have had to struggle on with no help from the Government.

With a lockdown things could be managed more effectively (well they could with a more effective Government)

Are you saying there weren't shock tactics with covid???

In either case won't be effective long term

@askmehowiknow I am saying there were shock tactics with HIV when the rates of infection were getting high to try and make sure people acted responsibly to try and save lives, in the same way there have been shock tactics at the start with COVID.

@askmehowiknow Please can you tell me what you think the UK should have done differently. Do you think the lock down should not have happened back in March? Also where we are at now, do you believe any further local lockdowns as they are calling it should not happen?

[quote ineedaholidaynow]@askmehowiknow I am saying there were shock tactics with HIV when the rates of infection were getting high to try and make sure people acted responsibly to try and save lives, in the same way there have been shock tactics at the start with COVID.[/quote]
Agree. It didn't work for HIV. It won't for covid. You can not eliminate a virus.

That is why what Sweden are doing will be more effective in the long term.

[quote mrshoho]@askmehowiknow Please can you tell me what you think the UK should have done differently. Do you think the lock down should not have happened back in March? Also where we are at now, do you believe any further local lockdowns as they are calling it should not happen?[/quote]
Just RTFT

Sweden introduced social distancing in schools, split classes up to make even smaller class sizes (and their class sizes weren't big to start with) and closed the equivalent of our 6th form colleges and universities.

Can you tell me how we could have done that in our schools at the beginning?

@ineedaholidaynow

Sweden introduced social distancing in schools, split classes up to make even smaller class sizes (and their class sizes weren't big to start with) and closed the equivalent of our 6th form colleges and universities.

Can you tell me how we could have done that in our schools at the beginning?

We've had 6 months. We could have done a lot! Sadly we've done nothing

@askmehowiknow I have RTFT but all I can see is that you've said all along lockdown was a mistake and that we should do what Sweden are doing. As shown Sweden as a country is no comparison to the UK and when we compare Stokholm as a densely populated city the caes and deaths there were far far greater than London when scaled up.

I cannot see anywhere in your posts what your alternative to local lockdowns which we know will be coming is.

But Sweden did that near the start @askmehowiknow, as they never closed schools, so I am asking how we could have done that from the start as you are an advocate of the Swedish approach

@ineedaholidaynow

But Sweden did that near the start *@askmehowiknow*, as they never closed schools, so I am asking how we could have done that from the start as you are an advocate of the Swedish approach

I think it's easy to criticise what we did at the start. We had zero information and zero time. However this has been going on since January really now. And I'm glad more people are becoming more critical

But you haven't answered the question. If you think we should have followed the Swedish approach how should we have done it?

And @askmehowiknow how should we be dealing with it currently if you think local lockdowns should not happen?

When you catch HIV, immediate symptoms for most is 2week flu like illness. Then goes away & virus sits quietly in your body doing its thing. You have antibodies. This is one of the reasons it took scientists a long time to link HIV to AIDS - it was the hidden long term health impact that caused the horror of a pandemic which has claimed 35 million lives. If you read headlines from the 80s, you will see things like ‘scientists highlight cluster of rare cancer in gay men’ or ‘scientists puzzled by new pneumonia’ It took a long time to work out what was happening & in the meantime it spread & spread, until we got the shock tactics of the TV campaign & leaflet.
Not saying this is the case with Covid. Completely different family of virus. But it’s interesting to look back on from where we are now.

@ineedaholidaynow

But you haven't answered the question. If you think we should have followed the Swedish approach how should we have done it?

I mean you're right. We couldn't have done exactly the same as Sweden. Are you trying to trip me up

However in my opinion we should have gone with a broadly similar approach.

Eg schools we could have reduced class numbers, had classes outside all summer, encouraged home schooling where possible, focused on 'sports clubs' for non exam years- lots and lots of options. We could have built new schools by September if we'd wanted to!

I think it's easy to criticise what we did at the start. We had zero information and zero time. However this has been going on since January really now. And I'm glad more people are becoming more critical

@askmehowiknow

i understand what your saying. But what is wrong with what the country is doing now? Lots of people keep comparing us to Sweden but what we’re doing now is very similar to Sweden.
The local lockdowns are a result of the social distancing measures not working. So I’m not sure what else we can do?

@Sunrise234

I think it's easy to criticise what we did at the start. We had zero information and zero time. However this has been going on since January really now. And I'm glad more people are becoming more critical

@askmehowiknow

i understand what your saying. But what is wrong with what the country is doing now? Lots of people keep comparing us to Sweden but what we’re doing now is very similar to Sweden.
The local lockdowns are a result of the social distancing measures not working. So I’m not sure what else we can do?

My issue is that the economy was ruined for so many months Unnecessarily.

Even now most children haven't been in school since March

Plus a lot of places still aren't allowed to open

Plus things like queuing out side of shops. Not meeting in groups outside. A lot of people still WFH inappropriately (eg when face to face contact is really required).

People are still genuinely scared to live/work again as normal. In Sweden they're not. They weren't subject to a campaign of fear. They were given open and honest information.

But we can’t know that it wouldn’t have been ruined if we decided to not lockdown. We know that not locking down would have affected the economy as well as causing more cases.
So we decided to lockdown and take a bigger hit to the economy and save more lives. I am annoyed that it took so long to lockdown as I think if it was done earlier we would have less cases and the lockdown could have been eased sooner so the economy would have done better.

Sweden is more fearful of the virus than in the UK which is why they’re the only country to not lockdown as they take social distancing etc more seriously and they have the resources to be able to do this. But they have still had to cancel all their large events like graduations and sport events so their economy has also suffered.

I don’t see how queuing outside shops, WFH (if appropriate), wearing masks etc is a terrible thing if it means things can reopen. But no country has managed to open everything and still keep numbers low yet.

I also hope that with every single country taking a hit to their economy it might drive costs down so things get cheaper and will help individuals out as well as businesses. You can eat out at restaurants for cheaper, get a grant if your a homeowner to make green improvements, stamp duty has been reduced when buying a home and they were talking about giving people vouchers of £500 to spend on the high street.

Posters on here constantly say we should have followed the Swedish approach. But that's actually been hugely criticised, as they've had a far higher death rate than the other Scandinavian countries, who did lock down.

A better point of comparison would actually be with South Korea. They didn't lock down completely but they tested and traced rigorously and so have had a far lower death rate than China did despite a rapid early spread of the virus.

Yes South Korea is a good example as Sweden have a lot more restrictions than I think people realise and at one point had the highest number of deaths due to COVID in the world.

I don’t know loads about South Korea but I know they were so quick and had hospitals and testing centres built really quickly whilst our government seemed to be sitting and waiting for the cases to rise before doing anything.
I know South Korea was prepared for an outbreak because of a previous outbreak of something different (I can’t remember the name) but they lost lots of lives and took a massive hit to the economy at the time. I’m not sure if other countries were equally prepared but not quick enough or just not prepared.

@Sunrise234

But we can’t know that it wouldn’t have been ruined if we decided to not lockdown. We know that not locking down would have affected the economy as well as causing more cases. So we decided to lockdown and take a bigger hit to the economy and save more lives. I am annoyed that it took so long to lockdown as I think if it was done earlier we would have less cases and the lockdown could have been eased sooner so the economy would have done better.

Sweden is more fearful of the virus than in the UK which is why they’re the only country to not lockdown as they take social distancing etc more seriously and they have the resources to be able to do this. But they have still had to cancel all their large events like graduations and sport events so their economy has also suffered.

I don’t see how queuing outside shops, WFH (if appropriate), wearing masks etc is a terrible thing if it means things can reopen. But no country has managed to open everything and still keep numbers low yet.

I also hope that with every single country taking a hit to their economy it might drive costs down so things get cheaper and will help individuals out as well as businesses. You can eat out at restaurants for cheaper, get a grant if your a homeowner to make green improvements, stamp duty has been reduced when buying a home and they were talking about giving people vouchers of £500 to spend on the high street.

I'm sorry but what?!

Eat out for cheaper (tax payer subsidised)

No stamp duty (less tax)

Furlough (increasing debt and increasing taxation for our children and grandchildren)

Driving costs down= making people unemployed or cutting wages.

Money doesn't grow on trees

Sweden is not more fearful of the virus. As would be expected the young and healthy are mainly continuing life as normal. Other groups are being more cautious. But this is a GOOD thing! For so many reasons.