Covid measures 'a monument of collective hysteria and folly'

[RonaLisa]

The Guardian is not my natural habitat, but this is spot on.

It needs to be shouted from the rooftops.

@Msmcc1212

The only thing that could have been worse for me than lockdown (financially, emotionally, mentally, practically) would be one of my children dying (not specifically of Covid - for any reason at all).

What about living with the knowledge that people were being left to die when they could be saved? Or, living with the fear that if you need an ambulance it’s going to take hours, or there will be no room in ICU should you require treatment. Anyone can trip and fall and end up needing intensive care. Even you OP.

As PP pointed out, it’s not about individual risk. It’s the collective risk of the NHS being overwhelmed to the point it breaks down and we are left to fend for ourselves if ill or in an accident.

It’s always been about trying to level off the curve so that the impact on the NHS and related services (e.g funeral homes) was near to manageable and that the impact on the economy was lessened. There are numerous accounts out there of the lived experience for nurses and doctors - even with the measures it was/is grim. If everyone was ill at the same time services would struggle and the economy fair as badly or possibly worse than it is.

It’s a difficult balancing act and one I wouldn’t want to be in charge of.

Borris and his cronies have done a shockingly bad job IMO but doing nothing would have been worse. Not sacking DC was a nail in the coffin in terms of public good will and conformity.

In terms of democracy being eroded - well that is true. But it was already happening. The likes of Dominic Cummings and Aaron Banks etc, the interference of Russia, in the Brexit and Election votes showed that. Money and powerful lobbying has too much influence. Not to mention the rolling back of our civil liberties undertaken by Blair in the 90s.

If we are not careful, we are on our way to totalitarianism - which I don’t want and probably very few would want. But I do think the powers to enforce lockdown were needed. You clearly can’t rely on people making the right short term choices for the greater good (climate change for example) and so legislation is then needed.

We have the power though. One thing we can do at the next election is:
Read party manifestos directly and listen to politicians directly rather than rely on media sound bites and easily manipulated social media.

Ignoring Covid and not following guidelines will not address the issue of the erosion of democracy and would only serve to put us all at greater risk.

I agree with all of this.

The leadership and the mixed messages from the start and all the way through have been damaging. Our country is divided and I'm not surprised. If we had had a strong and clear explanation of the seriousness of the virus and made very clear what the country would be like with no restrictions it may have been very different. Eg masks; they were of no use, then some use and finally mandatory but how many months did that take. Comments such as the 'great Summer getaway', eat out, schools back no matter what, all ok by Christmas just keep the message going that there is no problem. Terrible, terrible, leadership. Yes wonderful for schools to go back but they put no effective measures in place. Look at Japan and other Asian countries and their schools have perspex screens and masks worn all day.

[quote Chessie678]@Sheepandcow
But I'm saying that it is very unclear that lockdowns save lives but lockdowns do almost certainly reduce life expectancy, not necessarily right now but in future.

Long term unemployment and poverty reduce life expectancy. This is well studied. So even if lockdown does save a life from covid, if at the same time it knocks ten years off someone else's life due to them being left jobless and in poverty, there is no gain from lockdown (unless you think a covid death matters more than a non-covid death). But lockdown also removes other fundamental rights so is worse in that respect.

You may well disagree with me as to whether lockdowns do more harm than good. It is a very complex question and basically unknowable at this point in time. I am just saying that if you believe as I do - that lockdowns probably do more harm than good even if we are only taking life expectancy and health into account - it is not selfish to believe that we shouldn't do them.[/quote]
100% agree.

I am also a lawyer - an employment one - so it shouldn't be a surprise when I say all I've dealt with are redundancies since March. It has been extremely heartbreaking hearing what people face when being made redundant - potential homes lost, worry about feeding kids, resulting mental illness (and we've had numerous threats of suicide).

But hey, it's OK - as long as no one is dying of COVID....

Or, living with the fear that if you need an ambulance it’s going to take hours, or there will be no room in ICU should you require treatment. Anyone can trip and fall and end up needing intensive care. Even you OP.

What the liberty brigade fail to realise/accept is it's ultimately all about hospital capacity. Without measures to stop the spread thousands would have been dying through the spring, and now winter particularly, in their homes because there's no hospital bed for them. Or dying in hospital emergency rooms.

Added to the fact there'd be no capacity to deal with other health emergencies.

I would agree @RedToothBrush I think they started okay but then panicked when they saw how much it would cost. Countries that are wealthier have funnelled a lot of money into track and trace and other systems to allow more controlled reopening.

A friend of mine lives in the UAE and the restrictions there are still very tight, especially in the oil ports like Abu Dhabi. Schools are part time or online completely. And anyone and everyone gets a test if they need it and the turn around is minutes. This allows for other things, such as soft play, restaurants and malls to reopen much more safely.

What astounds next is that there is no government quarantine centres for returning travellers as there is in NZ, Aus, China etc.

And there is only just barely the kind of track and trace that can pin point infections. Yet we are all told to eat out to help out, get the kids back to school and carry on going on half term holidays. Madness.

The leadership and the mixed messages from the start and all the way through have been damaging. Our country is divided and I'm not surprised. If we had had a strong and clear explanation of the seriousness of the virus and made very clear what the country would be like with no restrictions it may have been very different.

Nor did it help to have Boris and the Tory press shouting for everyone to get back to the office at the same time schools and universities were opening back up as normal.

@DoorWars

I said back in feb that this would be looked on in history by socialogists and historians as a collective hysteria fuelled by social and 34 hour media

Absolutely. I read an I read an interesting article and it shown the past flu epidemics in America from the 1900s. CV isn’t even one of their biggest epidemics. It’s basically on par with 1968 Hong Kong flu.

Tv and SM ( Internet) has caused huge hysteria and the breakdown of society and civil liberties.

I think there are two main issues.

There is the question of how much harm lockdown does in itself and whether more moderate measures do less harm. I believe that lockdown is likely to cause more harm than it prevents and think most of the population are underestimating the long term effects and overestimating what lockdowns can achieve. This isn't about the harm of having to wear a mask against the harm of lives lost to covid but the harm of long term loss of livelihoods and ensuing poverty.

Then there is whether it is reasonable to place such severe restrictions on people's freedom to achieve the good effects of lockdown. I don't believe it is the role of government to prevent people seeing family in their own homes, for example. That is essentially a political view (though I would hardly call it an extreme libertarian one) and it seems that many don't share it. But I think most would agree that the government shouldn't be restricting those freedoms without good evidence that this will actually save lives overall.

If you believe that the harm caused by lockdowns is very great you're less likely to believe that restrictions on freedom are justified so the two are linked.

As a thought experiment, if, in normal times, there was a child in your child's class who had a compromised immune system such that any childhood disease e.g. flu could potentially kill him or her, would you be willing to accept significant restrictions on your child's freedom in order to protect the other child from these illnesses. For example, if you were told that your child should never attend a playdate or birthday party or go to any club or get a Saturday job because that would put the other child at risk, would you accept that? The immuno-compromised child understandably wants as normal a school experience as possible and his or her life is at risk if other children spread disease around. But if we follow the logic that the immuno-compromised child's right to life is the most important thing, it becomes reasonable to restrict other children's right to a normal childhood and social experiences, which are frivolous in comparison. That is essentially what we are asking of people.

I've asked before on here but never get an answer: how many of those calling for more restrictions have been - or will be - severely economically impacted if we carry on like this? I mean in terms of job losses, potential loss of home etc?
It's very easy to adopt the moral high ground and accuse the rest of us of being uncaring when you are not having your life turned upside down by these restrictions.

@annabel85

The leadership and the mixed messages from the start and all the way through have been damaging. Our country is divided and I'm not surprised. If we had had a strong and clear explanation of the seriousness of the virus and made very clear what the country would be like with no restrictions it may have been very different.

Nor did it help to have Boris and the Tory press shouting for everyone to get back to the office at the same time schools and universities were opening back up as normal.

oh yes I forgot about that one! And public transport. At one point Londoners were being encouraged to get back on the tube to help London Transport. Now it's avoid public transport if you can and work from home again if you can.

What about living with the knowledge that people were being left to die when they could be saved?

But at what cost?

@Cgar2018

You’ve spectacularly missed the point. It’s not about no one dying. And anyone who thinks it is has not been paying attention properly. It’s about stopping the entire country grinding to a halt under the weight of mass sickness because the NHS has collapsed. This didn’t happen in the spring because we lockdown.

And by mass sickness I means the 10% of cases that present with sever symptoms. SAGE say we are looking at 25,000 hospitalisations with COVID alone by the end of Nov. What happens to people with other life threatening conditions at that point? Where do they go? Or do they just die at home?

This thing either needs a lot of money throwing at it for extra beds, social distancing measures and track and trace that actually works.

Or we have to limit people’s movements to stop the spread before it overwhelms the health service and brings daily life to a halt by proxy.

@toxtethOgradyUSA

I've asked before on here but never get an answer: how many of those calling for more restrictions have been - or will be - severely economically impacted if we carry on like this? I mean in terms of job losses, potential loss of home etc? It's very easy to adopt the moral high ground and accuse the rest of us of being uncaring when you are not having your life turned upside down by these restrictions.

Very few. Most are SAHM, others on benefits. When some poor sod speaks up and says they’ve been made redundant, how will they pay their rent or mortgage, or fears losing their job...you mostly get tumbleweed. Apart from us shift workers, most people of working age are too busy...working...to spend any time in sites like this.

Some very thoughtful, intelligent and measured posts from @Chessie678

@Hyperfish101

Hmmmm he has some useful things to say but I’m not a fan of libertarianism in general.

I think there are no right answers with the pandemic and only time will tell if the options taken were the right ones.

The voice of reason. Could not agree more.

What an ignorant individual you are. Personally I have a mortgage, my husband is self employed and after shielding can only get work for 4 days a week. I have two teenagers one of whom is sitting GCEs next year. Our income has been badly affected. I work in a SEN school part time where there is no social distancing within my bubble.

the above post is in response to @IheartNiles

@MaxNormal

What about living with the knowledge that people were being left to die when they could be saved?

But we live with that knowledge every day, or should. I've said this before but 5 million children die globally each year due to poverty. We could have changed that but we weren't interested.
No-one has explained why I should be more or especially upset about covid deaths.

Whatever the rights and wrongs of what we should do, I do agree the moral relativism is fascinating. When it comes to covid, we must save lives no matter the cost, while in developing nations children are dying of malaria for want of an 80p mosquito net and we don’t hear a word about it.

@Chessie678

I think there are two main issues.

There is the question of how much harm lockdown does in itself and whether more moderate measures do less harm. I believe that lockdown is likely to cause more harm than it prevents and think most of the population are underestimating the long term effects and overestimating what lockdowns can achieve. This isn't about the harm of having to wear a mask against the harm of lives lost to covid but the harm of long term loss of livelihoods and ensuing poverty.

Then there is whether it is reasonable to place such severe restrictions on people's freedom to achieve the good effects of lockdown. I don't believe it is the role of government to prevent people seeing family in their own homes, for example. That is essentially a political view (though I would hardly call it an extreme libertarian one) and it seems that many don't share it. But I think most would agree that the government shouldn't be restricting those freedoms without good evidence that this will actually save lives overall.

If you believe that the harm caused by lockdowns is very great you're less likely to believe that restrictions on freedom are justified so the two are linked.

As a thought experiment, if, in normal times, there was a child in your child's class who had a compromised immune system such that any childhood disease e.g. flu could potentially kill him or her, would you be willing to accept significant restrictions on your child's freedom in order to protect the other child from these illnesses. For example, if you were told that your child should never attend a playdate or birthday party or go to any club or get a Saturday job because that would put the other child at risk, would you accept that? The immuno-compromised child understandably wants as normal a school experience as possible and his or her life is at risk if other children spread disease around. But if we follow the logic that the immuno-compromised child's right to life is the most important thing, it becomes reasonable to restrict other children's right to a normal childhood and social experiences, which are frivolous in comparison. That is essentially what we are asking of people.

Really interesting post.

What about living with the knowledge that people were being left to die when they could be saved?

I am fed up of people saying this.

Someone on the radio put it correctly when they said should we all drive at 30 mph, everywhere, to stop road traffic deaths? No because we accept the risk and carry on regardless.

Corona is no different. Every day we make a trade off for deaths - in every aspect of life so why now are saving lives the number one priority?

I think people have lost perspective, there cannot be life without death. Death is part of the cycle.

We have a problem in the World with ageing populations, our kids kids will suffer if people carrying living longer and longer.

Call me brutal, but people dying is NOT a negative thing. Life can't carry on if everyone lives forever.

What about living with the knowledge that people were being left to die when they could be saved?

But we make such decisions every day, and unfortunately not every life can be saved. We have limited resources as a society and need to decide how best to allocate them.

There has never been an issue so divided where I agree to some extent with both 'sides'

@Purplewithred

He goes on to say:

“Citizens should be treated as rational actors, capable of taking decisions for themselves and managing personal risk.”

Which I think is total bollocks, unfortunately.

The measures were not designed to reduce personal risk - ie the risk of Covid to each of us separately. The measures were designed to reduce the flow of very ill people to hospitals, given that hospitals had almost no capacity to take them in.

If the measures hadn't been put in place and we had each acted only taking into account our personal individual risk from coronavirus then my guess is that things would have been much much worse than they have been.

I agree

@Sonnenscheins

Maybe it’s time we all stopped being so monumentally selfish. It’s odd that it hasn’t occurred to people that COVID is a direct result of western consumer culture and the exploitation of the Chinese workforce. Wuhan is a massively over industrialised city where the combination of exploitation of local wildlife and massive over population led to the creation of a disease that means that we all have to change our lifestyles. The irony is enormous.

I don't understand @BelleSausage ?

[quote BelleSausage]@Sonnenscheins

Maybe it’s time we all stopped being so monumentally selfish. It’s odd that it hasn’t occurred to people that COVID is a direct result of western consumer culture and the exploitation of the Chinese workforce. Wuhan is a massively over industrialised city where the combination of exploitation of local wildlife and massive over population led to the creation of a disease that means that we all have to change our lifestyles. The irony is enormous.[/quote]
This is rubbish. Over the past 100 years we’ve had significant ‘epidemics’ - some worse than this. It’s just that in the internet and news outlets have way more control then ever to what people see and read.