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.

@Chessie678 that's a really interesting and thought-provoking post, thank you.

@BelleSausage I'm far past fed up of the "selfish" epithet being chucked around. It seems to have become synonyous with "people not thinking and behaving exactly as I think they should". Realistically, most people will prioritise the welfare of themselves and their families.

I wonder what SM and media outlets would have made of Hong Kong Flu 1968 in today’s climate it’s estimated that it killed between 1-4 MILLON people world wide

www.britannica.com/event/1968-flu-pandemic

[quote BelleSausage]@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.[/quote]
I'd like to understand what your solution is, because it is patently clear that 'stop and start' lockdowns Do. Not. Work. This virus (even with a vaccine it seems) will not disappear. A lockdown will ensure it simply slumbers away, only to awaken on re-opening.

If you say I've "missed the point" and am "not paying attention" properly re: health consequences then let me at least enlighten you on the economic consequences. It's the younger generation's jobs that are going. It's their education that's being interrupted. Debts and deficits of unimaginable scale. So continuing with a 'stop and start' lockdown is simply not viable long term. This is a solution that is going to condemn millions and millions of people to a lot of misery and unhappiness (and even the WHO have said it should only be used as last resort).

SAGE say a lot of things but have also been woefully off the mark. I'd also like to know how they anticipate the NHS be funded with millions off PAYE (and why I've always argued SAGE should at have a couple of economists on it).

I think the only thing we can agree on is chucking money at T&T - but it seems the Tories don't want to remove that contract from their beloved Ms Harding.

I agree Cgar2018 that Sage should have a couple of economists on. I also think it should be more accountable. Its scientists have made lots of predictions during this pandemic which have not just been wrong but spectacularly wrong. Yet nobody has been held to account and most of them can still look forward to a gold plated pension and no doubt a seat in the House of Lords for some of them. How can that be right?

[quote MaxNormal]@Chessie678 that's a really interesting and thought-provoking post, thank you.

@BelleSausage I'm far past fed up of the "selfish" epithet being chucked around. It seems to have become synonyous with "people not thinking and behaving exactly as I think they should". Realistically, most people will prioritise the welfare of themselves and their families.[/quote]
Agreed. We're ALL selfish, but we just apply that term to others to support an argument. Think lockdown is too strict? You're selfish because thousands might die of COVID as a result. Think it's not strict enough? You're selfish because you're ignoring of the mental health consequences and longer-term economic cost. And so on....

It's a stupid way of arguing, but I can see why we do it - it's very emotive and that cuts through facts more easily that having to find other facts to counter a point of view.

@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.

Oh yes, agree with every word. Many, many people will not make sacrifices for the greater good. It this pandemic has taught us anything it's this.

Many, many people will not make sacrifices for the greater good

But this is so relative. Why should they, really? Who in their right minds can be judged for not, for instance, chosing to let their business go under and having no means of support?
Are we even sure that this approach of lockdown and restrictions will be for the greater good, long term, and not the greater of two evils?

This was never about saving lives though.

We have never pulled out all the stops like this to save lives before. There are many instances where we could have done but didn’t. Heck, as has been pointed out on this thread, we couldn’t even be arsed with the tiny expenditure and organisation that would result in saving thousands of lives in the developing world.

This was about governments’ fear of health services being overrun and them seeming out of control. They were all too aware of the dangerous position it put them in.

Should so many people have been forced to shut down businesses, not see their family and friends, give up fundamental human rights because governments did not make contingencies for this? No, I don’t think so. This crisis is fundamentally a failure of planning.

One lockdown was probably forgivable in the circumstances, but every time after that, when governments force further sacrifices from the people because of their own inability to deal with the crisis in other ways, then their failure becomes apparent.

The first lock down has been largely wasted by Western Europe. That will be judged harshly in retrospect.

Many, many people will not make sacrifices for the greater good

Why should it be expected that people fall into poverty and depression, to take pressure off a health service they might never use and have paid significant tax to support already?

I'm not talking about not supporting businesses or letting those businesses go under, although I think that will be an inevitable result of a global pandemic.

I'm taking about things like seeing other people in as safe a way as possible, social distancing, masks etc. People insisting that they just have to have that mass get together or that party because their lives would be so awful if they didn't.

It's awful for everyone right now, but their seem to be a minority who won't alter their behaviour at all. That's makes me sad and I think it's made the sick and elderly feel particularly bad because the rhetoric is that they are expendable. I worry about where our society is going from here.

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.

So again we come back to the fact that people's liberties have been severely curtailed to try and mask the fact that the NHS has been savaged and is not fit for purpose i.e treating ill people.

And this is ok with people???

You cannot run a national health service on the cheap.

there not their.

@HesterShaw1

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.

So again we come back to the fact that people's liberties have been severely curtailed to try and mask the fact that the NHS has been savaged and is not fit for purpose i.e treating ill people.

And this is ok with people???

You cannot run a national health service on the cheap.

I don't think any health care system in any country can cope well with a global pandemic, although I agree that ours is worse than it should be by a long way.

@SheepandCow

Chilling that a lawyer (solicitor or barrister?) talks of 'fundamental rights' then dismisses the most fundamental right of all. The right to life.

Whilst we're on the subject of rights. Close behind the right to life is the right to shelter. Something many are still denied in this country. It would be nice to see such vocal campaigning to change that. Instead of fighting to prolong the pandemic.

As for Freeeedoom. A poster on another thread put it well (apologies to you if you're here because I can't remember your name to credit you).
Your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins.

Depends how one conceives of rights. Is "the right to life" active and positive - requiring the deliberate action of others - or is it passive and negative, i.e., a right of non-interference? I have always understood and agreed with it in the latter sense, which is to say, as a right not to be killed (at least, without one's consent). But it seems that the right to life is now construed by many as an entitlement to be kept alive, indefinitely, and at whatever cost. I'm not sure that can be justified...

Further to the points made in the article, I would add that this is the first time in history that the entire world has essentially been under a state of dictatorship. The Covid superstate - unistate? - has been instituted. There's nowhere to run... Coviania?

knittingaddict you are missing the point. The smaller sacrifices such as wearing masks, social distancing etc most of us are happy to make. The people who are anti-lockdown have repeatedly said that. The sacrifices they wont make is merrily going along with policies which will probably see them lose their jobs, businesses and homes. I cannot imagine there would be many people at all who would make that sacrifice. Here's a question: would you make that sacrifice? I think it's a bit rich making such statements if you wouldnt.

I don't think any health care system in any country can cope well with a global pandemic, although I agree that ours is worse than it should be by a long way.

That's a fair point, but you only have to compare the spring death rates between the UK and Germany to see the difference that early intervention and bigger critical care capacity can make. Our elderly people were cleared out of hospitals and sent to die in care homes purely to try and hide it when they started dying in large numbers.

In all this people forget that dying of Covid often means multi-organ failure and a month on a ventilator (which you don’t know about but your family do).

I don’t get why it’s ok to practically wish that on a sector of the population. The whole world is dealing with it, the government is bad at it, natural herd immunity’s dodgy as fuck, and people believe shit about Sweden that’s misinterpreted by unscientists on the Internet. However at heart if we do nothing an increasing number of people die a lingering death, and in turn the economy’s fucked anyway because eventually it will be impossible not to lock down even more harshly.

@toxtethOgradyUSA

knittingaddict you are missing the point. The smaller sacrifices such as wearing masks, social distancing etc most of us are happy to make. The people who are anti-lockdown have repeatedly said that. The sacrifices they wont make is merrily going along with policies which will probably see them lose their jobs, businesses and homes. I cannot imagine there would be many people at all who would make that sacrifice. Here's a question: would you make that sacrifice? I think it's a bit rich making such statements if you wouldnt.

The thing is what do you want me to do that will save jobs, businesses and homes? What do you want me to do as an individual? What do you want anyone to do?

I have facilitated my daughter's ability to work, I have eaten outside, I have ordered takeaways, I have regular deliveries every week to support businesses. I won't eat inside or go to the pub and I won't go to the hairdressers. I'm not just doing that to protect myself, I'm doing it to protect others too.

If you are anti lockdown, how will you protect people and protect the health care system?

@nibdedibble

In all this people forget that dying of Covid often means multi-organ failure and a month on a ventilator (which you don’t know about but your family do).

I don’t get why it’s ok to practically wish that on a sector of the population. The whole world is dealing with it, the government is bad at it, natural herd immunity’s dodgy as fuck, and people believe shit about Sweden that’s misinterpreted by unscientists on the Internet. However at heart if we do nothing an increasing number of people die a lingering death, and in turn the economy’s fucked anyway because eventually it will be impossible not to lock down even more harshly.

Is it not the case that earlier intervention and improved therapies and knowledge of the virus means that way fewer people are ventilated than at the start?

I have no idea either why the government is ignoring the evidence about Vitamin D when it comes to reducing the severity of the disease. Or what happened to their "public health campaign about obesity" i.e a few adverts in the summer showing overweight people exercising.

The vitamin D link isn’t there - it’s a good idea to supplement at this time of year anyway but afaik there’s no evidence it improves outcomes substantially for Covid (a paper was released recently but as is so common, the press reported one thing and the paper expressly dies not say that thing 🤦🏻‍♀️).

Outcomes are better than in Feb but people still die obviously, and it’s not a quick death very often. It is hard all round to imagine the reality of it.

*Many, many people will not make sacrifices for the greater good
*
Why should it be expected that people fall into poverty and depression, to take pressure off a health service they might never use and have paid significant tax to support already?

Yes, it depends on what the costs of making those sacrifices are. If it means losing their jobs, suffering mental illnesses, huge tax burdens for their children etc, then no, people probably won't.

@nibdedibble

In all this people forget that dying of Covid often means multi-organ failure and a month on a ventilator (which you don’t know about but your family do).

I don’t get why it’s ok to practically wish that on a sector of the population. The whole world is dealing with it, the government is bad at it, natural herd immunity’s dodgy as fuck, and people believe shit about Sweden that’s misinterpreted by unscientists on the Internet. However at heart if we do nothing an increasing number of people die a lingering death, and in turn the economy’s fucked anyway because eventually it will be impossible not to lock down even more harshly.

Death from suicide due to the depression that has become increasingly worse due to repeated, endless lockdowns is also pretty unpleasant, as is death from the cancer that could have been diagnosed and treated in April which is now metastatic and terminal. The deaths that will occur from poverty and unemployment are also likely to not be fun. Why is your concern only for one type of death? Why is it that sufferers of covid are the only ones who count? That's a genuine, serious question.

The 'selfish' argument is an interesting one.

If you've ever been in a position to have more than the bear minimum - money to spare, warm clothes to wear, plenty of food to eat - and you've walked past a homeless person on the street without giving them what you had to spare, then you are selfish. You have kept things that you didn't really need when someone else obviously needed them. That, in general, is considered normal and acceptable.

Yet, people wanting a job so they can feed their families is selfish.

Weird.

TheDailyCarbuncle, my very serious answer to that (and I’ve had a family suicide amongst lockdown isolation so I’m not being glib) is that allowing Covid to rip through the population will cause nhs overwhelm on a massive scale, it won’t help anyone’s mental health problems, services will be put on hold through illness, and eventually there will be further recession anyway.

All we have here are several flavours of shit sandwich. Nobody’s having it easy (unless it’s the recipients of government contracts but that’s another thread). Morally speaking, if there is a demonstrable direct path between opening up all our previous freedoms and people dying, do we take that path?

@nibdedibble

TheDailyCarbuncle, my very serious answer to that (and I’ve had a family suicide amongst lockdown isolation so I’m not being glib) is that allowing Covid to rip through the population will cause nhs overwhelm on a massive scale, it won’t help anyone’s mental health problems, services will be put on hold through illness, and eventually there will be further recession anyway.

All we have here are several flavours of shit sandwich. Nobody’s having it easy (unless it’s the recipients of government contracts but that’s another thread). Morally speaking, if there is a demonstrable direct path between opening up all our previous freedoms and people dying, do we take that path?

You could equally ask, if there's a demonstrable direct or indirect path between restrictions/lockdowns and people dying, do we take that path?

All the 'ripping through the population' scenarios are guesses and predictions, not fact. The effect of lockdown is fact - the effects are already there, to be seen. So why are we prioritising possible deaths over actual deaths? Why is the focus so entirely on one thing?