So basically lockdown should never of happened

[Indoctro]

Ok so this article is a little long but theirs doctor speak sense

Has our economy be destroyed and job lost for nothing and kids missed out on so much school because of some crazy mathematical modelling which was totally incorrect

Thoughts please

drmalcolmkendrick.org/author/drmalcolmkendrick/

Unless this GP also has a PhD in microbiology or epidemiology I wouldn’t class him as an expert in infectious disease.

Tbh, even a basic grasp of statistics would be a help.

But the real problem, OP, is that his argument is full of straw men. It's easy to argue that the death rate from Covid was never 36%, or even 14%, but not really relevant since no one ever argued that it was. Even at the beginning, when infection was endemic to communities it had infiltrated without anyone knowing, and hospitals and ICUs were overwhelmed, and no one knew how best to treat it, the death rate was considered to be about 2%, which is considerably higher than seasonal flu, say, and combined with its infectiousness had the potential to lead to a lot of deaths (far more than we actually had).

Now that we have a community testing system in place, albeit not exactly a 'world beating' one, and an idea of how best to treat severe cases, and a vaccine is probably in the pipeline, the risk of dying from Covid is probably lower. However, what we know now that we didn't know originally, is that dying from it is not the only bad outcome. There's more and more evidence that many more people than actually die suffer, and will continue to suffer, with chronic illness, disease complications and long-term health vulnerabilities. This will probably end up being the bigger cost of Covid, perhaps for a very long time indeed.

So, in summary, YABU. Lockdown saved thousands of lives. If it had happened sooner and been more strict, it would have saved even more and probably been less damaging to the economy and the educational picture. Unless we want a tsunami of medical issues within the population for decades to come, we should still be very careful of Covid until an effective vaccine is available. And, in my view, we should also take a cold hard look at the way human society's habits are causing zoonotic virus outbreaks.

If you really think your doctor-sceptic chum's views are 'gaining momentum' then you're listening to the wrong people.

Someone sent it to me and it seems this theory is now gaining more and more momentum, I've seen a few articles/ discussions about how/why we shouldn't of lockdown. If the government know a error was made why doing they just open everything up now and stop stalling

Because, as others have said, where is the peer-reviewed evidence by highly qualified experts? When you say it's gaining momentum, what are you basing this on? Who is writing the articles? I would hope the government is responding to the best quality scientific advice rather than just reacting to random people writing blog posts. They don't 'know an error was made' based on what you've posted.

OP
Some of what he says (in a long repetitive way) is right but it isn't the full story. At the time of lockdown the virus was spreading rapidly and virulently. It wasn't a "different" virus but the viral dose was going to be higher as there was zero social distancing. Also health professionals were not ready or prepared and we know far more now about the disease than they did back in March.

Now we are looking at fewer deaths because social distancing is the norm, and there are closures of places and reduced access to places. For example - we caught covid from a soft play centre back in feb - we got it fairly badly but weren't hospitalised - the soft play place has not yet reopened and if it did there would be measures in place such as lots of washing of hands, mask wearing, keeping your distance and so on - all relevant to viral dose.

So he is being irresponsible because given his apparent background he should be better informed and he should be more circumspect and thorough and comprehensive with his advice to the public.

Lockdown has saved lives and educated people about avoiding viruses and we have avoided total disaster.

What he should be saying is that what happens now going forward is to do with how sensible governments and individuals are - we need the right amount of distancing - not total lockdown but equally not a total return to how things were before covid, yet.

"Yes why not take what this one person says and ignore the other 1000’s of scientists ringing alarm bells again 🙄"

It's not as if we based our original response on the model of one 'scientist', whose previous models had been flawed, after all. Oh, wait ...

He's not right in this instance. Even if Covid is (with hindsight) on the level of severe flu, it still isn't flu, there's no vaccine. Also the long Covid symptoms are very worrying and that's why we really do need to carry on being careful, as a society. If we had had no lockdown at all there would have been far more deaths and people with long Covid now. In my view this would have been an awful thing to do, just let it run through the population unchecked. The economy would still suffer!

It's not as if we based our original response on the model of one 'scientist', whose previous models had been flawed, after all. Oh, wait ... But that is one of the obfuscations that are so often spouted. The Global Outbreak Alert and Response Network (GOARN) doesn't rely on one man!

All sorts of data was being looked at. Look at The Lancet back in March/April! Lots of studies were well underway, globally.

I do think its probably true that the UK (and lots of other countries too) were working from a flawed mathmatical model in march/April particularly. This isnt because CONSPIRACY, its because there was so much not known about the virus and how it would behave. At first I think they underestimated how fast it would spread and how long it had already been floating around Italy. Now (I hope) we might start to see that they overestimated some things. For example, its looking as if in addition to not being badly affected by the virus young chilren are also not very good at passing it on for reasons yet unknown. This is really really great news if its true - but there was no way anyone could have known this in March for example. Indeed it feels more logical to expect them to be superspreaders as with flu.

we should also take a cold hard look at the way human society's habits are causing zoonotic virus outbreaks

THIS - with bells on!

This is one source. You should try to cast your net wider and take in a range of information. It's so important to gain a balanced view and not be so ready to trust someone because of a title they've used. Corroborated evidence, team reports. Don't let yourself be manipulated by emotive language so readily.

Some management of the situation initially made sense if the rationale was to buy time to find treatments and build capacity. Both those things have happened, so the bit that no longer makes sense is why the message has changed to waiting for a vaccine, or whatever it is we're waiting for. And simultaneously blaming people for getting a virus (matt Hancocks latest missive) and saying we should all be back at work and on public transport.

Posts like this make me want to crawl back into bed and pull the covers up. I'll have another espresso instead.

Sincerely,
An epidemiologist

His points have merit. Various scientists dis agreed with the Imperial model from thstart including University of Oxford which produced an alternative model

theconversation.com/coronavirus-weve-had-imperial-oxford-and-many-more-models-but-none-can-have-all-the-answers-135137

Oxford use CFR rate of 0.1 whereas Imperial inflated IFR and CPR And modelled the rate as 1. Hence the 10 times difference.

Please don't try to silence posters because of grammar mistakes. As long as we understand the gist of a communication, discussion is possible and discussion is good.

Very interesting post OP.

@Foliageeverywhere122

Posts like this make me want to crawl back into bed and pull the covers up. I'll have another espresso instead.

Sincerely,
An epidemiologist

Ah Well you WOULD say that. I bet you claim its nothing to do with 5g as well. blah blah George Soros blah blah sheeple blah blah chemtrails

@yetanothernamitynamechange

sips on espresso

Sorry in above I meant conflated instead of inflated. Imperial used IFR to model rather than CFR. Would need to back to the paper to see exactly the wording and definitions they used but it seems the CFR and IFR got conflated and hence gave rise to an overestimate of fatalities which is being borne out now by the figures we see.

Oh not this spam again. For brevity's sake:

• He's a random GP with no relevant expertise and a track record of some very iffy claims.
• The couple of 'research' papers he's published have been ripped to shreds for very poor methodolocial problems (basically cherrypicking to support his personal views).
• That article is riddled with misstatements which I can't be arsed to pick apart again.

Kendrick's 'opinions' are one step up from 'the virus was created by the lizard people who live at the center of the earth'.

can you imagine the outrage if we hadnt lockdown though.

I'm more than aware I have grammar issue as a diagnosed dyslexi

Another dyslexic here, wondering WTF that would have to do with grammar mistakes.

I don't need some rude individual on MN to point it out

Gosh you must be really polite if correcting grammar is that rude to you.

Crawl back under your stone

Oh, my mistake.

Does anyone else find it depressing how many people believe this kind of stupidity? And the anti Vax nonsense. And Bill Gates wants to track me.

Are people really that stupid? I think it's something we should talk about in schools. To stop people making fools of themselves on facebook and MN.

Oxford use CFR rate of 0.1 whereas Imperial inflated IFR and CPR And modelled the rate as 1. Hence the 10 times difference.

Ironically, the way you are confusing CFR and IFR is just about the only accurate observation Kendrick makes in that whole article (Epidemiologists don't confuse them but the media does).

CPR is something completely different.

It's an opinion piece, nothing more.
Also, it's have happened not of happened.

@raddledoldmisanthropist

Oxford use CFR rate of 0.1 whereas Imperial inflated IFR and CPR And modelled the rate as 1. Hence the 10 times difference.

Ironically, the way you are confusing CFR and IFR is just about the only accurate observation Kendrick makes in that whole article (Epidemiologists don't confuse them but the media does).

CPR is something completely different.

This

One person's opinion does not equal fact.

It's not as if we based our original response on the model of one 'scientist', whose previous models had been flawed, after all. Oh, wait ...

I know this is popular to say but I don't think it is accurate.

Ferguson's initial model www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imperial-college/medicine/sph/ide/gida-fellowships/Imperial-College-COVID19-NPI-modelling-16-03-2020.pdf has turned to be amazingly accurate given how early on it was written.

It's not true that his previous models have all been wrong or discredited either. One problem is the way the media report science. So in his co-authored paper on BSE and Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease they wrote that it could be between a dozen or so and several million deaths and it was too early to know. The press reported this as a prediction of millions of deaths.

I think everyone needs to ask themselves if they have the expertise to critically assess the information they're reading. If the answer is no, then don't use it to make blanket, sweeping statements.

And yup yup, critical thinking needs to be better taught in schools.