Anti Lockdown Thread/Lockdown Sceptic Thread

[SussexDeb]

I am hoping to start a thread for those of us out there who don’t want or believe lockdowns are the solution to the pandemic.

I am one of many people who think the harm lockdowns do massively outweigh the benefits we get from them. This is both on the impact on society and the economy.

I wanted to make a thread for those of us who do not want a second lockdown and wish for different strategies to manage the pandemic such as Herd Immunity and protecting the vulnerable.

I also want this to be a non judgemental thread. Where those of us against the lockdowns can vent without being called selfish or a ‘granny killer’ or any of the other names used for those of us who question the narrative.

We don't know how many people have caught it in hospital.

We don't know how many people have, for example, broken their leg and been admitted, taken a test and test positive.

We don't know how many people are being discharged daily.

The hospital admissions don't tell us all do they? We need more information.

One of the WHO envoys has come out and said don't lock down, it's just too damaging for society.

The annoying thing about that is that they copied the idea from Belgium, where it appeared to work but they did not copy the whole idea.

They do this over and over again don't they?

It's like the Nightingales - 'China built a new hospital in a matter of days, we must build one too!' - the difference was China had staff for theirs.

Apps - 'Other countries have apps, we must have one too!' - then farting about for months building something that was always, obviously doomed because of data protection issues before finally ditching it and starting again properly.

Lockdown itself - 'Other countries have lockdowns, we must have one too!' - but whereas other countries (the more successful ones at least) used that time to build up test and trace, our government decided it was just for flattening the sombrero so they squandered all of that time - our time.

Masks - that's another one. They don't give a shit whether the mask you wear is effective, any old bit of crap strapped to your face will do, just as long as you look as if you're wearing one.

It's like being governed by a cargo cult.

Its.a.mess.

This government blew the first lockdown but I’d really rather not have another one & also this government are by no means alone, just look at France & Spain. Even Italy’s cases are now creeping up again.

The theory of Trace & Test is great, but there isn’t total compliance in the UK population + lots of asymptomatic cases & of course we want to keep schools open.

I think realistically, there is a time limit waiting for vaccines/treatment because people will not accept living like this for the next 10+ years. A lot of us have had enough and it’s not even been 10 months.

If there is no vaccine/treatment, I can see something akin to Sweden’s initial lighter touch approach being adopted.

If lockdowns worked in eradicating the virus we would not be in the position we are now...

To me repeating lockdown is just the definition of madness: repeating the same failing strategy while hoping for a different outcome.

The first full lockdown should have been used to prepare track and trace, testing, quarantine for visitors and boost the health service capacity.

The government failed to do any of that.

We trashed the economy and let people with conditions like cancer die for lack of treatment, created a mental health crisis, increased domestic violence...

So no, there is no rational whatsoever to repeat a lockdown especially as there is no exit strategy being presented and the government has not learned anything.

Not to mention the fact that these measures are being taken without the scrutiny of parliament.

Enough is enough.

There is no scenario where no one dies until (and if...) there is a virus.

My initial comment above should read 'until there is a vaccine' of course, not 'virus'...

Lockdowns just kick the can down the road and hit the poorest the hardest. It is just a delay mechanism. However, given the state of the NHS even pre-Covid, I am not sure there will be another solution. I don't know who is more important, an 80 year old who has had a happy long life but is still fit and healthy otherwise (and very much loved by their family) or a young poor child, out of school again, in a neglected household. In fact, I have been watching David Attenborough and thinking about how much he and his generation have done for us. I would like the older people protected but the youngest in society too. On that basis, I agree with schools remain open at all costs and close everything else and encourage elderly to stay home as much as possible. But it is pretty miserable isn't it? If you think you may only have a limited amount of time left on this earth, do you really want to stay home. It has to be an individual's choice at the end of the day. For my part, 40s something with healthy children happy with us doing the "herd immunity" bit.

One of the WHO envoys has come out and said don't lock down, it's just too damaging for society.

You really should watch the whole interview. It starts from about 15 minutes:

This interview is being very badly misrepresented by certain parts of the media.

OP I'm hugely sceptical of lockdowns and a lot of the measures in place, as I am fairly certain that they will cause more damage longer term than the excess mortality from the virus itself.

I say almost certain, but I'm very certain indeed that it's a global catastrophe, the brunt of which will be borne by the global poor.

I really feel that we need to challenge this absolutele blind spot that has developed through the constant rolling reporting, that has focussed everyone and everything on covid to the detriment of everything else.

It's like being governed by a cargo cult.

I suspect we don't agree on approach overall, but this I do wholeheartedly agree with, DH and I have been saying it with increased bemusement for weeks now.

@DumplingsAndStew

Do we just lock vulnerable people away, denying them care, company, medical treatment, food, etc?

Yes that is exactly what I was thinking, we will deny them care, medication and food. Heck, we may as well just leave them die alone.

Except of course that isn't what I meant.

Protecting the vulnerable would mean others don't have to lose their jobs. Vulnerable people can still have food, care, company.

In the height of the first peak, were people denied food?

What I would really really like is a cheap rapid response test. Something I could purchase myself and use before eg. visiting an elderly relative. That and a vaccine. The rest lockdown or not and to what extent etc.. -is just speculation as far as I am concerned, a stab in the dark as to what might or might not be better in the long run. I think we just have to accept that this VIRUS is a killer either directly or indirectly and there will be many losers, those being the very poor. And our poor are still better off than the poor in developing countries. And yes I bet there will be significant cuts to foreign aid budgets on the back of this virus.

Had we not had first lockdown we would have infected a lot of people in summer and before flu season.

Current timing is madness

I don’t see the point in any of these wishy washy measures, even tier 3 is half assed.

Either lockdown or don’t.

I don’t see the point in closing down/strangling business when they are responsible for only around 3% of the spread.

But schools are left open, accounting for up to 40%.

Parents around here seem be of the same opinion. While our dc are in schools we won’t be bothering with any other measures. They can’t possibly police the whole country, so we will continue to meet up as usual round each other’s houses.

If one of our dc get it we all will, may as well carry on as normal until they are forced to see sense.

You can’t just ‘protect the vulnerable’. It’s not as easy as that, if it was in sure they would have done it by now. Every vulnerable person will inevitably be in contact with non vulnerable people so it’s an impossible task.

The vulnerable

All over 70s particularly over 80s who account for 60% of deaths. Those who are over 60 account for around 90% of deaths.

Those under 60s with particular vulnerability such as the immune compromised.

Obese is a risk factor but it’s a risk factor for almost every disease.

BAME are not genetically vulnerable, the reason they are over represented is because they are more likely to work in public facing roles and live in cities where the outbreak is concentrated.

The median age in the UK is 40. There has been only 37 deaths of those under 40 without a condition.

Also I would introduce a furlough style system for the vulnerable who are employed. They Would be paid for staying home and shielding.

I don’t want another Lockdown but then we need to make masks compulsory, including in schools.

There are times when lockdowns cause more harm than good, of course, but there are also times when the do more good than harm.

Once the NHS becomes overwhelmed then people will start dying in far greater numbers because they can't access medical care, lockdown when things are getting out of control is the lesser of two evils. When infection rates are low, yes they do more harm than good.

It's not simply a case of lockdown = good or bad, it depends very much on the situation when applied.

I don't like lockdowns but I agree with them and they do work. It worked in March and can work again

Lockdowns are to slow down the spread of the virus in order to prevent the health services from becoming overwhelmed in a short space of time. For me it's as simple as that

Do you have a medical/scientific background OP? It always helps to know about such qualifications when assessing how much credibility to apply poster’s views.

So the vulnerable just shield indefinitely and can have no contact with the outside world at all, that’s the plan, yes?

Because obviously with the virus out there running free through the rest of the community it would pose much more of a risk to them than now when there are at least some restrictions in place to lessen transmission.

Sounds great OP - what could possibly go wrong?

One of the WHO envoys has come out and said don't lock down, it's just too damaging for society.

Dr David Nabarro has said that lockdowns should not be the primary recourse for governments, unless absolutely necessary (to prepare, regroup, prevent healthcare being overwhelmed)

He also said in March - in an Imperial College article

Dr Nabarro also set out some recommendations to slow the pandemic:
Everyone should practice good hygiene and cough etiquette
Maintain physical separation from others
Make tests widely available so that people can know their COVID-19 status
There must be a high suspicion of COVID-19 in people with respiratory symptoms
Rapid diagnostic services must be easily accessible.Those with COVID-19 should be counselled, be treated as necessary, and their contacts should be traced.
They, in turn, should be kept under surveillance, isolated and supported.
Even those with mild symptoms may be highly infectious: physical distancing is important especially around vulnerable people.

His one statement about lockdown, is being taken out of context, and bizarrely used as an argument by the herd immunity/Barrington gang...

What he suggested in March is what should have been being put in place for reopening, but was massively fucked up (Dr Nabarro didn't say that...I did earlier).

Finally, a sensible place where I may get answers to questions I'm wondering without being slagged off. So here's what I've been wondering re: lockdowns.

1. why do you think we can get herd immunity without a vaccine when this has never been done before?

2. why do you think we can get her immunity when we don't know how long the antibodies last and the number of reinfections?

There was an interesting article which I found comparing the post viral effects to that of lupus. I have a vested interest because I have lupus, and wouldn't wish it on anyone. It's 18mths for rheumatology referral here, I don't even get regular appointments but seen when needed. If this similarity turns out to be true, the pressure on the NHS will be extreme, as well as on the welfare system. Lupus is relatively rare, buut it involves a lot of specialities, not just rheumatology. Cardiac, neurology, nephrology etc. The impact will be massive. The effects of this are proven to be not linked to the severity of the covid you have, so no way to predict it. Is this taken into account when lockdowns are being dismissed and herd immunity advocated?

Yes lockdowns work at slowing Covid but they come with massive economic and societal cost.

Unemployment is already projected to hit 4 million or 12%. A second lockdown and or no deal brexit could double this.

We are sacrificing our own wealth and jobs and the next generations future.

What level of unemployment and poverty should the young accept over this?

@Ecosse

Not only child abuse, domestic violence, violence against animals, and at a lower level but still worrying family breakdown whether that means divorce or young adults being kicked out of the family home unreasonably. It's very hard being cooped up together and tempers fray (never an excuse for violence but it's a catalyst).