To think we have gone collectively insane in our response to covid

[PlumsAreNotTheOnlyFruit]

This is something I have thought for a while. I feel like we are in the grip of insanity when it comes to our response to covid.

We seem to be prepared to destroy our economy, get into massive debt, surrender our freedom and mess up our children's education over covid.

It's a virus which can and will spread, and now seems more virulent than ever. Unless you have a total eradication policy, which is impossible for the UK to implement now anyway, then only mitigation is possible.

All of Europe whatever their policies have been now have many cases. Why do we have to suffer covid AND watch our businesses go under with a potential decade of economic misery.

How many lives have been saved by our policies? Has anyone even done an analysis? We reject cancer drugs because we say they are too expensive for the number of years of life saved. We allow polluting diesel vehicles to drive in urban areas despite the 40,000 who die each year from the effects of air pollution. Why is covid different?

I am cross that we haven't thrown everything at expanding health care capacity since March and instead have spent our money paying people not to work after closing things down.

Right now I feel that the virus will continue to spread whatever we do and that that our focus should be on shielding the most vulnerable until they can be vaccinated. I realise that isn't likely to be 100% effective but neither are our present policies.

It's all about saving the MOST amount of lives. That's what lockdown will do

That’s actually not necessarily true. It will certainly save lives which would have been lost to covid, and will probably save lives generally in the short term

Longer term, the human cost in terms of premature death and lost years is likely to be horrific. The link between a recession and public health seems to be really underestimated by many of the public.

If the government have modelled the overall lost years of life in the long term from covid vs lockdown then I would be genuinely interested to see what it says.

@outofthemoon

Frankly321 is not genuine, I am certain. Sounds demented.

Maybe, or possibly someone with opposing views to the OP whose mental health is suffering because of the existence of this divide in society.

The stress and suffering of peoples mental health isn’t exclusively felt by those who disagree with restrictions.

Totally agree with you op.

@Frankly321

Frankly too many people seem incapable of obeying basic instructions to stay the fuck at home.

You would never know there is meant to be a lockdown in place with the number or people and cars about.

We need the army in now to fine the fuckers and cart them off to jail.

It is not hard- Unless you are a key worker, STAY THE FUCK AT HOME AT ALL TIMES.

Except that’s not what the law actually says, is it? Never has been.

Do you generally support people being thrown in jail when they aren’t breaking the law? Would you like it if it happened to you? Have you thought of moving to North Korea?

I wonder whether there is middle ground to be found in this conversation.

One of the things that grieves me so in all this and has from the start is the great polarisation. One side are accused of being selfish, stupid murderers, the other as hysterical, power-crazed lockdown fanatics. Language such as that in the OPs title doesn't help - the 'collective insanity' and cries of 'madness' across the board.

I weigh in on the side of needing the restrictions because of my reading around of the subject and trust of the majority of the scientists. I have lost my own income and my health has been badly affected (already CEV, haven't had an important appt I need all year, just routine ones), and yet I see outside of all that to what this is doing and might do at a societal level.

I also see the great damage it is doing, as many on this thread attest to. I grieve at levels of domestic violence rising, at mental health services being decimated. All those things I care deeply about. I struggle when people use hyperbole about the number of suicides when at present they are no higher than average, and haven't been all year (in fact lower through the spring and summer - a lot of interesting studies about how some peoples mental health was improved) and hope that they don't become so (I fear they will.)

And then I also see the rising numbers and the pattern of exponential growth and the impact that is having on services (see the London thread, for example.) I worry greatly about how it will impact these already fragile things even further.

What I'm trying to say is that we are able to be concerned about both these things. When those of us who believe in restrictions and to some extent lockdowns talk about this we are accused of only caring about Covid. But I think it's very rare that this is actually true; most of us care deeply about societal issues as a whole, and see our positions as being a testament to that concern.

What I am asking, I suppose, is for a more nuanced conversation, a kinder one, a one where we find common ground, share good information, propose helpful solutions and practical things we can all do to help. This mud slinging has to stop. It's getting out of hand and isn't helping in any way.

We can do better.

@Madhairday

I wonder whether there is middle ground to be found in this conversation.

One of the things that grieves me so in all this and has from the start is the great polarisation. One side are accused of being selfish, stupid murderers, the other as hysterical, power-crazed lockdown fanatics. Language such as that in the OPs title doesn't help - the 'collective insanity' and cries of 'madness' across the board.

I weigh in on the side of needing the restrictions because of my reading around of the subject and trust of the majority of the scientists. I have lost my own income and my health has been badly affected (already CEV, haven't had an important appt I need all year, just routine ones), and yet I see outside of all that to what this is doing and might do at a societal level.

I also see the great damage it is doing, as many on this thread attest to. I grieve at levels of domestic violence rising, at mental health services being decimated. All those things I care deeply about. I struggle when people use hyperbole about the number of suicides when at present they are no higher than average, and haven't been all year (in fact lower through the spring and summer - a lot of interesting studies about how some peoples mental health was improved) and hope that they don't become so (I fear they will.)

And then I also see the rising numbers and the pattern of exponential growth and the impact that is having on services (see the London thread, for example.) I worry greatly about how it will impact these already fragile things even further.

What I'm trying to say is that we are able to be concerned about both these things. When those of us who believe in restrictions and to some extent lockdowns talk about this we are accused of only caring about Covid. But I think it's very rare that this is actually true; most of us care deeply about societal issues as a whole, and see our positions as being a testament to that concern.

What I am asking, I suppose, is for a more nuanced conversation, a kinder one, a one where we find common ground, share good information, propose helpful solutions and practical things we can all do to help. This mud slinging has to stop. It's getting out of hand and isn't helping in any way.

We can do better.

Please can you link to your comment about 2020 suicide figures being no higher than average? I looked at the ONS website last weekend and it was stated on there that suicide figures for the lockdown periods won’t be published for a while.

@Madhairday spot on!!! A brilliant post.

I know there are lots of people questioning things but still taking the precautions. Questioning is good

It is indeed, and those saying how effectively the China "coped" might want to consider what would happen to folk who criticised their regime ... no that they'd dare

Hancock and Sturgeon shouting about 1 death being 1 death too many

I wasn't aware of this - probably because I listen to neither - but given what's at stake they must be utterly deranged if they're basing policy on this concept

Totally agree with the OP. When the mortality figures emerge I am not convinced it will be much worse than flu and while every death is a loss, a disease like this one does not justify the massive human cost of the lockdowns. I am not a COVID denialist and know the disease can be nasty and sometimes fatal but believe we should all do our own risk assessment as we always have during every other epidemic.

@southeastdweller this from the BMJ. As I said, this is only what is known at the moment - there is not that upward trend at present but this may well change with further evidence and further lockdown measures etc. I think it's always a mistake to weaponise suicide, the whole you mustn't do this because it might make people take their own lives - the Samaritans always warn against that kind of rhetoric and it can take you into some difficult waters ethically.

www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4352

@Madhairday I think on the whole this thread has been good for people listening to each other.

I still feel there has been a disproportionate reaction in terms of the repeated lockdowns and that we will look back and wonder why we did such harm to our economy and whether it was worth it.

Because many countries in Europe have done the same thing I wonder if there is some sort of group think going on. Perhaps it is sunk costs fallacy. We have spent so much now that we have to keep going with this strategy.

I am not sure how many lives we are going to save, over and above those we could have saved with non lockdown mitigation methods. Or how many will be lost in the long term because of damage to the economy.

I am not an extremist person though by nature and I do understand the concerns on this thread about ICU capacity. I still think we could have made at least some progress towards increasing capacity since March but there would probably always have been a problem.

I'd say almost 80,000 and counting (ONS latest figures of those who died of, not with, Covid) are far, far worse than even the worst flu year, @SheeshazAZ09 - and these numbers are with all the restrictions. I really do dread to think of what they would be without.

Denial is a primitive response to unpleasant circumstances that one would prefer were not happening, and so is rage. I know many in the United States have also entered a long trance of collective denial regarding the severity, or in some cases, the reality of the Covid-19 pandemic. That is playing out now with a death every 60 seconds. The post-Thanksgiving infections are bearing fruit, with Christmas celebrations and New Year's Eve celebrations likely to add onto that burden of disease and death. Right now, California is stocking up on an additional 5000 bodybags and is calling in an additional sixty refrigerated storage units to support overflowing morgues. I think many who post on MN seem to have no appreciation of wider news, and see the world through a strange insular prism that involves only them and their immediate contacts. I find it very strange. The insanity here is to pretend this pandemic isn't significant or real.

Don't think anyone is pretending this isn't significant or real cbt944, certainly not on this thread......

Maybe not vintage vixen but there are shared views with a subset that do think precisely that and seem disproportionally active on the internet and social media.

@Cornettoninja

Maybe not vintage vixen but there are shared views with a subset that do think precisely that and seem disproportionally active on the internet and social media.

Yes you're right, not denying there are Covid deniers/minimisers out there, just as there are lockdown fanatics too.

cbt's post was just so random!

Well, it's like Brexit. Many are critical and not supportive of current lockdown measures, but wouldn't say it to the faces of acquaintances and even friends/family for fear of an argument. I certainly don't make all my opinions clear to friends I'm not that close to, or people that I know won't agree. But online you can be more honest. Probably why everyone is shocked that Tories always win - no-one IRL ever admits to voting for them!

I don't think anyone on here has said the disease is made up or there's actually no pandemic; just that it is a comparatively mild disease and that the response in terms of pound per life "saved" is completely disproportionate, when taking into account societal costs and also to future lives.

@vickyp0llard

I don't think anyone on here has said the disease is made up or there's actually no pandemic; just that it is a comparatively mild disease and that the response in terms of pound per life "saved" is completely disproportionate, when taking into account societal costs and also to future lives.

Yes I was just on another thread (tier 4 and its raining, don't judge me there's nothing else to do!) with the title "will you financially survive another lockdown."

Some really sad stories there - people literally who will not be able to pay their mortgages and will go bankrupt. Really desperate situations.

With the vaccine roll out gathering pace, would it not make more sense for the older generation (over 65’s) to just stay in for 6m. It must be possible. No work to go to, families/whoever to deliver food to the door or they get all the slots online. They then get vaccinated and once done they come back out again. Is that not possible? These airy fairy lockdowns don’t work as the last one has shown. Cases up to 36000 within weeks of it ending.

@hopingforonlychild
I don't doubt that the majority still support lockdowns. I am just surprised that there is still such support for them given how disastrous and unsuccessful they have been.

I am suspicious of the extent of support for lockdowns reported by yougov polls. Before masks were made mandatory in shops hardly anyone was wearing them but according to yougov something like 60% of people supported them being mandatory. So either people are hypocrites or there is something off about the polls. I also found the polls on the Christmas rules a bit hard to believe just because most people I know had planned to see family at Christmas but that may just be due to the demographic I'm in. Equally anecdotally, I am in a Tier 2 city and the cafes and shops are as busy as normal - if 75% of these people support lockdown why are they out at cafes (appreciating that those who are out and about are probably the 25% who are more likely to be anti-lockdown).

People partly support lockdowns because there has been so much government propaganda to try to make them support them and because they have mostly been insulated from the worst effects - the government is basically bribing people to support them. As an example, my hairdresser told me that he had enjoyed lockdown and thought we should do it again because he enjoyed having the time off with his toddler and wasn't too concerned about not being allowed to see his family because his neighbours wouldn't dob him in. If he wasn't receiving 80% pay (or had worse neighbours) he might be less supportive of lockdowns but they have to be paid for at some point.

And I'm not sure lockdown should be a decision put to democratic vote. Lockdown policies strip people of basic rights and have vastly unequal impact. Law (such as human rights law) usually tries to protect minority interests in those cases. So, for example, a lot of people may not really care about maternity rights / the rights of factory workers / the rights of foreign criminals living in the UK because it doesn't affect them but the law still protects the minority group or interest.

In my view, the default position should be that people are free to live their lives as they want to unless there is a very sound and evidence based reason to remove that freedom i.e. the burden of proof should be on the government. I can't see how lockdown or many of the other restrictions meet that threshold. Many of the restrictions sound like they were made up in the middle of the night by a civil servant on the back of a fag packet e.g. curfews but these things effect people's lives and livelihoods. And as others have mentioned no real attempt has been made to quantify the damage done by lockdowns so how can it be evidence based?

@suggestionsplease1
I have often thought that it feels like domestic abuse. It's the gaslighting from the government, particularly Hancock, which gets to me. The telling people to go and get tested and then telling them off for selfishly using up all the tests; eat out to help out followed by blaming young people for another spike in infections; masks don't work to fines for not wearing one in public places, 4,000 deaths a day to 1,500 to 1,000, anything prefaced with "following the science" and, perhaps most of all, the shifting end goal of it all from flattening the curve to what appeared to be a lacklustre attempt at eradication over the summer to "save lives".

There is definitely group think going on

Problem is that our leaders have backed themselves into a corner

Cases fall? Mustn’t let up just in case

Cases rise? Must impose more restrictions

It is never ending. There is no way out. We are stuck in purgatory.

@LKJG this is exactly what my sibling and I have done with my elderly relative, supported them to stay at home. It has had a bad effect on their physical and mental health though. They don't have dementia so I have left it up to them whether to come for Christmas and they have chosen not to. Really hoping they will get the vaccine soon.

My in laws are doing similar but faring better as they have each other. A bit younger so they are able to organise deliveries etc themselves.

I don't think any of them want or need us to be locked down too or business's to be destroyed.

I also think there is an element of "rabbit hole politics " at play here.
For example if the Government were to change its approach at this stage to say just the elderly and vulnerable staying at home then most voters would question why did we just waste £300 billion when we could have done that in the beginning (although this unfairly assumes hindsight).

I'm not getting into whether the current approach is right or wrong but the Government is now too far down the rabbit hole financially and politically to change direction.

For example if the Government were to change its approach at this stage to say just the elderly and vulnerable staying at home then most voters would question why did we just waste £300 billion when we could have done that in the beginning (although this unfairly assumes hindsight).

That would be millions of people though some of whom will be working age.