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.

Covidiot I don't see the relevance of the OP's background. We are completely in the land of the unknown here, which is why we have seen scientists with countless letters after their names be massively wrong in their projections repeatedly during this pandemic (yet curiously none are ever held to account). The overriding question is, will lockdown do more harm than good. Absolutely nobody knows the answer to that question - and anybody who says otherwise is lying - and we may not find out for several years (when the ramifications from these lockdowns are still being felt).

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

And having no lockdown also comes with massive economic and societal cost.

It's a balance

OP - there is a famous stat, every 1 pc rise in unemployment corresponds with x amount of deaths.

Are schools actually driving spread or just representing their communities?
The local news reports of bubbles 'popping' seem to be very much a case here or a couple of cases there and no evidence of superspreading. The case in our school came via a parent's workplace.

Anyway lockdown simply causes far more diverse, widespread, longer lasting issues and is of dubious impact in actually reducing mortality when compared to the wider consequences of lockdown.

@PuppyMonkey

No one is suggesting the vulnerable are just locked away indefinitely. I would want to see rapid testing so that family and friends could visit them safely.

But if it is not ok for the vulnerable to stay at home to protect themselves, why is it better to lock everyone in their homes and destroy the economy in the process?

If lockdowns by area are a thing why arent lockdown by circumstances? Lets get everyone 65 and over to stop being allowed in pubs and restaurants. No picking up kids from school. Lets have OAP only shopping in every supermarket 7am - 9am.

I am in Sheffield - we were forced in lockdown when our levels (compared to London) were low and forced out of it when again, compared to London, were still high. Taken on thousands of students and NOW have high cases. This has been forced on us from London. I want to see more local input, and those that are vulnerable having more access to help/quieter shopping etc - the rest of us need to carry on.

Not only child abuse, domestic violence, violence against animals...

But if we have no lockdown, the services to help with these things will collapse. They would be inundated with cases, especially the health services and not only that, many staff would be on sick leave or in isolation if the virus is left to run free

This is why governments, not just the UK, are using light lockdowns and strict lockdowns alternately. It's a balance between the two

I see the dangers of another lockdown, and I was especially upset during the last one with what happened to those who needed ongoing medical care or needed a timely diagnosis, like the two-week pathway. I think it will be a while until we know exactly how many died because of lockdown (heart attacks that didn’t go to A&E when they should have, cancer not diagnosed in enough time to treat it, chemo or other treatments interrupted, etc.).

But I think herd immunity is incredibly dangerous, especially with what we’re just starting to learn about this disease. In a survey of some 3900 people who had COVID, over half report trouble concentrating months later. There was a huge article about COVID “brain fog” in the New York Times yesterday. Another medical paper found that 78 out of 100 people had abnormalities in their heart, usually inflammation, when they were imaged 10 weeks after they had COVID, and these were patients who were not vulnerable. So I do still think it’s very important that people try not to catch COVID because you have absolutely no idea what effects it may have on you, short and long term. I already find the idea of extra deaths caused in the name of herd immunity hard to deal with, but when you think of the economic cost of possibly millions of people with long-term post-COVID illnesses (If you go the herd immunity route), then those extra deaths in the name of “saving the economy” will have been pointless.

As dark as it is to say, and it’s very dark indeed, your plan would work if we knew for sure that when you became ill with COVID, you either got better in two weeks or died. But increasingly we’re finding out that’s not the case at all; even if they had very few symptoms while ill with COVID, this disease may permanently alter someone’s health, even if they were previously not vulnerable.

No one is advocating letting the virus ‘run free’ @Flaxmeadow- I don’t know why you keep arguing against this when it’s not the position held by many people that I can see at all.

No one is advocating letting the virus ‘run free’ @Flaxmeadow- I don’t know why you keep arguing against this when it’s not the position held by many people that I can see at all

Then what are they advocating?

Lockdowns may work to reduce spread of covid, but the question is, is that worth it or will the long term impacts of that be worse overall than the societal impact of the excess mortality?

In terms of immunity, people keep talking about antibodies but seem to ignore or not be aware of t cell research. Antibodies are short term but if you have the appropriate t cells post infection you will remanufacture them quickly and won't get a second infection or will get it mildly.
So not "herd immunity" perhaps in the sense that its eradicated but more that its no longer novel and therefore not as dangerous.

This is a good explanation about COVID and the immune systems ways of fighting it.

www.lji.org/news-events/news/post/t-cells-take-the-lead-in-controlling-sars-cov-2-and-reducing-covid-19-disease-severity/

@Flaxmeadow

Personally I would retain the current rule of six restrictions, mask-wearing and social distancing and I would re-introduce shielding for the vulnerable.

That is not letting the virus ‘run free’.

Ecosse

So you do agree with a lockdown, albeit a light one

Thank you for mentioning T Cells because media seem to be ignoring their existence!

@Flaxmeadow

The rule of six is not a lockdown. I would not close any businesses that are currently open.

Ultimately I would want to get to a position where all restrictions are removed and then the vulnerable can be shielded when necessary. But we need an effective test and trace system to do that.

What I do not support at all is closing down the economy and imposing huge restrictions on people’s liberty.

In terms of immunity, people keep talking about antibodies but seem to ignore or not be aware of t cell research. Antibodies are short term but if you have the appropriate t cells post infection you will remanufacture them quickly and won't get a second infection or will get it mildly. So not "herd immunity" perhaps in the sense that its eradicated but more that its no longer novel and therefore not as dangerous.

What happens when The Vulnerable™ are allowed out again? They won't have developed the appropriate t cells so it will be just as dangerous for them as it is now.

Ecosse

But what you're proposing has already been tried and it isn't working. What now?

@LangClegsInSpace

Hopefully by then a vaccine will be available or infections reduced through herd immunity.

The vulnerable are not currently being shielded @Flaxmeadow

But MaxNormal's point was that 'herd immunity' would likely be through t cell response, so the virus would still be circulating but people would (hopefully) be less unwell the second time they caught it.

Are you really suggesting 'the vulnerable' remove themselves from society until we have a vaccine?

The vulnerable are not currently being shielded

The vulnerable were shielded until recently

How would you enforce this shielding, given your stance on "peoples liberty"? Would you leave it up to the individual to decide? Because that has already been tried as well

@LangClegsInSpace

Are you really suggesting that everyone stay at home and we shut down the economy until we have a vaccine?

[quote Ecosse]@LangClegsInSpace

Are you really suggesting that everyone stay at home and we shut down the economy until we have a vaccine?[/quote]
No, I'm suggesting the same as you - sort out test and trace.

[quote Yetiyoga]@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?[/quote]
What about the rest of my post?