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/

Lockdown has absolutely fucked us over and should never have happened. It was not meant to eliminate the virus but has now turned from.a 'flatten the curve', 'save the NHS' to 'lets chase positive tests even though people aren't ill'.
Lock down is killing people in huge numbers now and in the future. How people can't see this is beyond me and is infuriating.

Lockdown is just pulling the plaster off more slowly than not putting one on at all. We should be really happy that hospitals and ill people are very low - but oh no, let's scare the shit out of everyone again

Sick of it, and OP, ignore the rude people on here mocking you and laughing at you or anyone elses credentials. Get on twitter where you will find thousands of like minded people. Mumsnet users seem to love the drama.

Well! Go on then. What exactly should have happened? I am really interested!

Details, precise plan... Go...

Oh, and details of those huge numbers dying of lockdown.

Mumsnet users seem to love the drama. The irony

Japanese society is different from UK society

Ok they are not as obese and the elderly tend to be healthier. I’ll give you that.

But masks only cut down on transmission, they don’t prevent it entirely. And you may think the UK is crowded but Japan’s metropolitan areas are super crowded. You also can’t socially distance in a metro (loads of companies did not allow WFH as in other countries) and you can’t socially distance very well in many of their shops or convenience stores. So they cannot effectively socially distance like many other places.

Now, the lack of testing means that perhaps many elderly did die of COVID, but there is apparently no excess deaths in that age cohort! So perhaps those saying that dying of COVID is not the same as dying with have a point.

CuriousaboutSamphire With regards to the numbers dying because of lockdown look at the ONS stats or read the papers from the Oxford Centre for Evidence Based Medicine it is all there. Lockdown wasn’t intended to reduce deaths, just spread them over a wider period of time to stop the NHS from being overwhelmed. If we wanted to reduce deaths we knew how to do it very early on because of the age profile of those dying. We should have locked down care homes straight away and spent some of the money that we have wasted shutting down the economy on paying care workers to stay in the homes. Or at least only work in one care home, buy them proper PPE and not have sent patients out of hospital back to their care homes without a negative covid test. Protect the vulnerable and let everyone else get on with it.

People keep talking about the lower death rate in SE Asia without mentioning prior exposure to SARS-CoV-1 which is believed to give many in this part of the world some immunity to SARS-CoV-2. It would be odd if this wasn’t the case as they are both coronaviruses.

@MagentaRocks

We should have locked down earlier and masks should have been mandatory from the start. I have no issue with mask wearing, if it had been from the start I think people would have been more likely to wear them without complaint. My issue is the length of time it took for mask wearing to become mandatory as it kind of makes it seem less important.

Whatever we think of the current government, they will be taking advice from the WHO and others that are credible.

Masks cannot be 'made mandatory" from the start, lets be realistic - what does mandatory even mean?

We live in a country where people will moan like fuck about what the government isnt doing but when the government puts in safety guidelines like SD, masks, handwashing techniques, people then moan that they aren't going to be dictated to, get stuffed I'll do what I like.

Let's face it, there are now so many different exemptions for mask wearing, including the "fuck-off you can't make me!!" exemption and the "I'm going to be passive aggressive by wearing my mask under my nose just to stick two fingers up" that it just won't work no matter how many times people try to repeat these theoretical steps that "should have happened". No point blaming the government for people's shite behaviour.

People keep talking about the lower death rate in SE Asia without mentioning prior exposure to SARS-CoV-1 which is believed to give many in this part of the world some immunity to SARS-CoV-2

Do you have evidence of this? Not saying you are wrong but haven’t heard this, nor was SARS as widely transmitted as COVID in the first place

@MangoFeverDream

People keep talking about the lower death rate in SE Asia without mentioning prior exposure to SARS-CoV-1 which is believed to give many in this part of the world some immunity to SARS-CoV-2

Do you have evidence of this? Not saying you are wrong but haven’t heard this, nor was SARS as widely transmitted as COVID in the first place

There is no hard evidence yet but scientists are now hypothesising that the low death rate in africa could be at least in part due to ecisting immunity www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-53998374?intlink_from_url=&link_location=live-reporting-story

Why thank you SaraMused I'd never have known!

1. I am not sure that we did know about the most vulnerable age group as early as you seem to suggest. And even when we did there were other considerations!

1. Care homes are not government run. Nor are they locked, keeping inmates in. The vast majority are homes of people who are perfectly capable of making their own decisions, or being supported to live as independently as possible. You may have meant nursing homes they are different. But most are private enterprises!

1. PPE again! Care homes, nursing homes like the NHS did not have it, nor was it available. You are talking about a scenario that did not exist at that time.

Protect the vulnerable and let everyone else get on with it. Ah, well. Precisely who are the vulnerable? What do we know, what are we learning now about who is vulnerable? Or will you apply that hindsight again in 6 months time?

This was/is a novel, new, never been seen before virus. NOTHING about it falls into any "should" category.

There is no hard evidence yet but scientists are now hypothesising that the low death rate in africa could be at least in part due to ecisting immunity Just as there are many emerging hypotheses about how younger people may or may not be an important vector.

Or the emerging data on long covid

etc etc etc

Lock down is killing people in huge numbers now and in the future. How people can't see this is beyond me and is infuriating.

But we are not in “lockdown” and haven’t been for months!

People keep talking about the lower death rate in SE Asia without mentioning prior exposure to SARS-CoV-1 which is believed to give many in this part of the world some immunity to SARS-CoV-2

Even if SARS-CoV-1 gave immunity to COVID-19, very, very few people were infected with it in proportion to the population. Less than 8,000 infections were recorded, and with a fatality rate of 10%, had it transmitted like COVID-19 it would have truly been catastrophic.

So perhaps those saying that dying of COVID is not the same as dying with have a point.

It’s not the same. You can die in a car crash and be infected, and you’d a “with Covid” death. However, 92% of those with Covid listed on their death certificate, Covid was judged to be the primary cause of death (see ONS stats). The “died with Covid” trope is spun out of all proportion with Covid deniers who take an example of someone who reported died of a accident but had Covid on their death certificate and, without any foundation, extrapolate to the vast majority of Covid deaths. It’s ridiculous but people lap it up!

Protect the vulnerable and let everyone else get on with it.

This is such an ignorant comment to make with reference back to March when you consider how many died on care homes because we were too overwhelmed to protect the vulnerable. Apparently we’d have done a better job had we just carried on regardless.

Dr Kendrick’s falling death rates take no account of the fact that it is younger people who have largely been infected in recent weeks.... Of course the rate is going to be lower, but recognising that glaring omission would destroy his argument. Either he is too stupid to realise this, or he’s a charlatan. I can’t work out which.

Older people are not dying in the same numbers relative to previous figures

Lock down is killing people in huge numbers now and in the future. How people can't see this is beyond me and is infuriating.

If we had let the virus run it's natural course our society would have shut itself down anyway. Do you honestly think society and the economy would have trundled on happily and people would have gone about their business all happy and smiles if the infection and death rates had been exponentially higher than they were? Shutdown was inevitable. The choice was whether that shutdown was managed or chaotic. Managed shutdown did a pretty good job of keeping essential services and supply chains running. Chaotic shutdown would have very possibly led to complete collapse. I don't doubt that mistakes were made and that some things could have been done better with hindsight but people thinking everything would have been fine if we'd just calmed down and carried on are seriously deluded.

He’s right. We shouldn’t have locked down. When Covid 19 is studied in future I am convinced this will be an acknowledged fact. It will be well established that the destruction of the economy and the sabotage of the education system killed many more people than the virus itself.

WHO guidance made it very clear that we should lockdown.

We shouldn’t have locked down. When Covid 19 is studied in future

But we didn't know anything about the virus at the time. In the beginning numbers coming out of Italy were a nearly 10% death rate.

Easy to say now 'see wasn't that bad'. You have absolutely no idea about the fatality rate if lock down hadn't been enforced.

But yes in golden hindsite, we will be a lot wiser.

@TooTrueToBeGood

Lock down is killing people in huge numbers now and in the future. How people can't see this is beyond me and is infuriating.

If we had let the virus run it's natural course our society would have shut itself down anyway. Do you honestly think society and the economy would have trundled on happily and people would have gone about their business all happy and smiles if the infection and death rates had been exponentially higher than they were? Shutdown was inevitable. The choice was whether that shutdown was managed or chaotic. Managed shutdown did a pretty good job of keeping essential services and supply chains running. Chaotic shutdown would have very possibly led to complete collapse. I don't doubt that mistakes were made and that some things could have been done better with hindsight but people thinking everything would have been fine if we'd just calmed down and carried on are seriously deluded.

Fully agree. What people have forgotten is that schools and hospital wards were already shutting down in mid March before official lockdown because of staff shortages due to staff being off with covid (or suspected covid). When that started happening, it was obvious that a proper lockdown was needed, otherwise, as you say, we'd have had a chaotic shutdown and struggled more than we did to keep essential things moving. People do have very short memories when it suits them.

@giantangryrooster

We shouldn’t have locked down. When Covid 19 is studied in future

But we didn't know anything about the virus at the time. In the beginning numbers coming out of Italy were a nearly 10% death rate.

Easy to say now 'see wasn't that bad'. You have absolutely no idea about the fatality rate if lock down hadn't been enforced.

But yes in golden hindsite, we will be a lot wiser.

Indeed, hindsight is a wonderful thing. At the time, people were shouting from the rooftops for a shut down after seeing what was happening in other countries and loads of people still now argue that our shutdown happened too late.

So what it? Did we shut down too late, or should we not have shut down at all? It can't be both. Half the country seem to think the former, the other the latter. What really matters it was the scientists and medical advisers said in Mid March.

Hindsite, damn damn damn autocorrect. Hindsight Hindsight Hindsight and it's still correcting 😤.

@Mintychoc1

He’s right. We shouldn’t have locked down. When Covid 19 is studied in future I am convinced this will be an acknowledged fact. It will be well established that the destruction of the economy and the sabotage of the education system killed many more people than the virus itself.

Lockdown is a blunt tool that is used when you have no other option. The lack of testing capability, the rate of community transmission, the growth rate of the case numbers, the absence of a track and trace system, the lack of knowledge about a new disease, the inability to test, track and isolate once cases reached a certain level and were growing fast all meant that the UK probably had no other option but to lockdown.

It’s not the same. You can die in a car crash and be infected, and you’d a “with Covid” death. However, 92% of those with Covid listed on their death certificate, Covid was judged to be the primary cause of death (see ONS stats)

To clarify, I was mainly referring to Japan here, as they do not do widespread testing. It would be logical to assume they missed COVID deaths due to lack of testing, but then again, excess deaths aren’t any higher.

I cannot speak to the UK’s situation on this point