Lockdown will claim 560,000 lives. Are lockdown fanatics are killing people.

[Billie18]

Worrying reports coming out indicating that Lockdowns will end up claiming the equivalent of more than 500,000 lives because of the health impact of the 'deep and prolonged recession that they will cause. It has been obvious that restrictive lock down measures will impact on the health of the whole population but concern has been shouted down by those in favor of lockdowns. But will those ignoring the dangers of lockdowns on the entire population be responsible for killing huge numbers of people. Killing far more people than any virus.

@TheDailyCarbunkle people do know there will be repercussions due to lockdown, but there would be repercussions if we didn't lockdown. There is a pandemic, or are you so clever that you could find a solution where people wouldn't die due to the virus and there would be no economic repercussions either.

Had this approach been taken day one, cases would never have gotten to the point where everywhere was overrun. But even now, this approach would be better, just by default. Good data is better than bad data, always.

Better than what, though? What you’re advocating is that affected areas are treated like Vò. Which was locked down. So you’re advocating lockdown with better data-gathering? And how do you resource that data-gathering when you scale it up to an entire country?

I absolutely agree that we should have taken more of this approach in the first place, but that’s not really a solution to the situation we’ve got right now, is it?

Ah, never mind, I see you’re ‘out now’ having entirely failed to convince everyone of your great solution, despite typing it in bold. Shame.

@TheDailyCarbunkle

The 'what's the alternative'? posts really bother me because it indicates that this generation has zero imagination or ingenuity if they think that just closing everything is the best we can do. Lockdown is the most moronic possible 'solution' to the situation, there is no nuance or thought put into it, it's literally 'shit, fuck everything in the bin.' As a 'strategy' it's straight out of the playbook of a panicking halfwit.

Fine, so what’s the alternative? People ask that question because they can’t think of a way of controlling the virus without lockdown (since hands, face, space clearly isn’t working), and they believe that allowing the virus to run unchecked is not acceptable.

I think it is for people saying that lockdown is the wrong choice to come up with a better one. If you think laissez-faire is the answer, say so. And then explain how the economy and people’s mental and physical health will escape unscathed. My hunch is that they won’t.

@TheDailyCarbunkle

It is so strange how saying "there may be alternatives to lockdown that cause less harm overall" is somehow seen as being dismissive of the pandemic, and lumps you in with anti-vaxxers and conspiracy theorists.

It seems reflective of the extent of anxiety people are living with.

Lots of schools are unfit for purpose and every year thousands of children leave illiterate and innumerate
This is why I get cross when people are whinging about their child missing out on their education. Thousands of children miss out on their education because of disruptive children making classrooms ineffective.

'find this incredibly dismissive because you do not talk about Covid victims in the same way. Do you say to the obese person who died of Covid - well they could have lost some weight?'

What? 2 completely different situations.

Any suicide is a tragedy but to suggest closing gyms causes suicides is extreme. We can all exercise outdoors and meet one other person whilst doing so.

@Billie18

Worrying reports coming out indicating that Lockdowns will end up claiming the equivalent of more than 500,000 lives because of the health impact of the 'deep and prolonged recession that they will cause. It has been obvious that restrictive lock down measures will impact on the health of the whole population but concern has been shouted down by those in favor of lockdowns. But will those ignoring the dangers of lockdowns on the entire population be responsible for killing huge numbers of people. Killing far more people than any virus.

But it’s not “people” as in the public that have put everyone in lockdown. It’s the government and advisors. They haven’t done it just for fun, it’s based on strong evidence that a lot more lives will be destroyed if we don’t lockdown. Ffs we aren’t in lockdown because we enjoy it. It’s awful. However, we don’t have any other choice. Have you not been watching the news or reading the reports of the state of the nhs? The data is all there just in case you have missed it. How many extra lives will be lost if people can’t get treatment or an ambulance for things like heart attacks, infections, broken bones, appendicitis etc.

'people do know there will be repercussions due to lockdown, but there would be repercussions if we didn't lockdown'

Yes and the repercussions if we didn't would be far, far greater.

It's not rocket science is it.

I could come up with a solution, with the right team behind me. It would definitely be better than lockdown, because lockdown is the most destructive and least effective solution possible.

So why don't you crack on? Given your expertise I'm sure the Govt. will fund you, as that seems to be the only thing stopping you saving the world...

@TheDailyCarbunkle I’m interested in hearing how your plan would work in practise for the U.K. as a whole if it’s such an effective and simple plan? so far it’s only worked in a tiny village. How would you scale it up? If you are going to monitor the entire U.K. divided into small areas how will you track who moves where if there is no lockdown? What number of people would be needed to track the entire countries movements to ensure no one is missed? Or would you ban people moving between their small designated areas in which case having many of the characteristics of lockdown:

• mental health issues of not being allowed see family or friends if you have none locally
• students who attend a college away from their small neighbourhood not being able to access their education, ditto universities
• firms who can’t survive if only small neighbourhoods in their locality can visit their shop/business
• hospitality if people can’t leave their small neighbourhood
• bars/nightclubs who can’t open due to lack of patrons as people have to stay within areas

What about people who have to travel outside their small neighbourhood to go to a hospital? In an emergency situation - how do you plan to track those people?

@GetOffYourHighHorse

'find this incredibly dismissive because you do not talk about Covid victims in the same way. Do you say to the obese person who died of Covid - well they could have lost some weight?'

What? 2 completely different situations.

Any suicide is a tragedy but to suggest closing gyms causes suicides is extreme. We can all exercise outdoors and meet one other person whilst doing so.

We can all lose weight?

How are they different?

Where did I say there won't be serious repercussions from lockdown? I'm not saying that, I'm saying that the reasoning behind your opinion that more will die from the affect of lockdown than from the virus is fundamentally flawed. The figure quoted in the OP is blatantly misleading. Half a million over what time frame. A year, that's a huge problem, ten years, less so and time to put things in place to counteract the issues that arise.

I am a virologists doing work for the Govt right now in an advisory capacity.

Don't believe me? Yeah, it's really easy to make up reasons why you should take me seriously.

So really your argument is that although you don’t have a better solution than the teams of top scientists working on this worldwide, if you only had the right team behind you you’re sure you could think of one??? confused

And after months of this poster declaring grandiosely that lockdowns shouldn't happen ever, not even as a last resort, that's pretty much all they've ever offered as an alternative, ie nothing.

Plenty of people will (and have) die(d) because of lockdown. Some examples are -
- Without being able to go out or access the correct support , some people with MH problems will commit suicide.
- Without a smear test (either because it was cancelled or they felt discouraged to go) some people will not know they have cervical cancer, until it is too late to treat.
- Without dental check ups, some oral cancer will go undetected, the the person will die.
- A person with a heart problem misses their apt because they are too fearful to go to a hospital.

But each of these examples would also happen due to too many local covid cases. In fact the more cases, the more fearful people are of accessing healthcare and dentistry, and the less likely the health system is to be able to treat them anyway.

It isn't just about numbers, it's also about how we get there as a society. Even if you could show that eg there would eventually be 50,000 more deaths with lockdowns vs simply letting cases rise (the only alternative actually on offer right now), the route to getting those 50k fewer deaths by avoiding emergency lockdowns would involve going through a period of chaotic closure of society, panic and disorder as people try and fail to get medical treatment, many more people dying at home, and a "bring out your dead" scenario for dealing with those deaths at home. It wouldn't be "life as normal other than for those with covid" - it wouldn't be life as normal for anyone and the trauma would be huge.

There's a ceiling on the number of patients hospitals can treat, and an uncontrolled epidemic would take us many times over that. I've seen no evidence as to how we could avoid this, if we just let cases rise at any point before vaccination is widespread. Proclamations about how its fine really, from an actuarial point of view the numbers will look better this way in the end (and remember we've no proof that's even the case), would be small comfort.

'A year, that's a huge problem, ten years, less so and time to put things in place to counteract the issues that arise.'

Yes. Some people still depressingly think 'easy just protect the old and sicklies! and let the rest of us do what we like innit!' is a good plan.

@eeeyoresmiles I agree with a lot of what you say but DH is a dentist and dental check ups are most definitely happening during this lockdown and myself, a close friend, an aunt of mine and many other people I know have had/are continuing to have cancer treatment during the first lockdown and this one.

I think people are exaggerating the amount of missed appointments.

@eeeyoresmiles sorry I've just seen you were quoting someone else. Phone wouldn't load your full comment 🤦‍♀️

I don’t get how the small sectors plan is any different to lockdown.

I don’t know why @TheDailyCarbunkle thinks we don’t understand that lockdown comes at a terrible long-term cost. We do and many of us have said we do, repeatedly. Lockdowns are catastrophic. It’s just that all the outcomes of a global pandemic are catastrophic and all we can do is try to choose the least damaging of all the possible catastrophes coming our way. But even the least damaging option is going to have vast repercussions which will harm us all. There isn’t an alternative that doesn’t.

Can we please stop with the simplistic speculations on causes of suicide - both from those who know someone who took their own life and those responding to them. Suicide is usually a reaction to a complex, multifactorial situation and the Samaritans themselves ask people not to attribute simple or sole causes to completed suicides.

'thinks we don’t understand that lockdown comes at a terrible long-term cost. We do and many of us have said we do, repeatedly. Lockdowns are catastrophic. It’s just that all the outcomes of a global pandemic are catastrophic and all we can do is try to choose the least damaging of all the possible catastrophes coming our way'

Absolutely this.

I'm astounded that there are people who don't recognise how poverty can kill.

In winter 2017/2018 there were over 50,000 EXCESS deaths. Some due to flu with an ineffective jab.
17,000 due to not being able to afford to heat a home.

www.endfuelpoverty.org.uk/cold-homes-killed-17000-during-winter-2017-18/#:~:text=In%202017%2F18%20there%20were,on%20record%20since%201975%2F76.

8,500 excess deaths last winter due to fuel poverty, which I recall being a relatively mild winter, unlike this one and they're getting it will be much higher this year.
We could be tackling fuel poverty, nutrition etc. and saving many lives..... Year on year we are happy for this situation to be sustained, because it's not contagious.

www.nea.org.uk/news/271120-01/

@TheDailyCarbunkle

And that choice isn't between lockdown or no lockdown.

Lockdown isn't a solution, it's a panic measure. It doesn't actually solve any problems. It delays some covid infections while at the same time creating a very long list of other problems. A 'solution' that 'saves' some people (many of whom will later get covid anyway) while killing others is not a solution.

Think of it this way: a child is very very unlikely to personally suffer from covid - they may get it but they are almost 100% guaranteed to be fine. However, there is no way on earth they can escape the effects of lockdown - those will affect them, no matter what.

And for the people who say 'children suffer from losing family members' - I'm not sure how many loving parents/grandparents would say 'yes destroy this child's future to delay my exposure to covid.' And yet that's what's happening.

My husband’s dad died when he was 6 years old. That death had a massive impact on his mother’s mental health. She had a breakdown and struggled financially. This led to a childhood neglect for my husband...no clothes, no new shoes, no bed, barely any food as she’d stay in bed. He lived on jam sandwiches. He had nothing, the house was neglected, ceilings falling down, broken shower, no hot water, mould, leaking toilets etc. He was not made to attend school. He was out during the night getting into trouble with the police. His mum checked out in her grief and it lasted a lifetime.

It was only when I met him as a teenager that he began to spend more time with my family and began to be taken care of. He was helped financially, began studying, ended up going to uni with me via an access course.

His siblings weren’t so lucky. Their lives and the lives of their children are just repeating the cycle.

Even though DH has a nice life now and a good job, the loss of his dad weighs on him heavily. 34 years on, he will have days where he misses his dad. Resents his mother. And although he’s not one to show emotion, he will choke back his distress. You can see it. He’s had periods of severe depression. In his 20s relied on antidepressants. The damage lasts a lifetime.

I think you underestimate the impact that death of a parent can have on a young child. True, many bounce back...are or seem fine...but many won’t. It’ll often depend on age and individual circumstances.

There is no easy answer to the original question and I have never more though a saying applied ‘stuck between a rock and a hard place’. That’s where we are. There is no good choice. Only two bad choices and the final decision is a moral decision (or as moral as it can be).
This is the nature of wars and pandemics. Which bad choice do we take?

OP - with lockdown and restrictions we are at the point where doctors are going to have to make decisions about who lives and who dies. If you or a member of your family has a major car accident, heart attack, or a late diagnosis of something like type 1 diabetes the fact that the hospitals are overwhelmed may mean that the person with a medical emergency doesn't get the help that they need.

I don't think anyone at all is in denial about the impact of lockdown. But what do you suggest we do - allow the healthcare system to become overun and take our chances?

[quote Mrsmummy90]@eeeyoresmiles I agree with a lot of what you say but DH is a dentist and dental check ups are most definitely happening during this lockdown and myself, a close friend, an aunt of mine and many other people I know have had/are continuing to have cancer treatment during the first lockdown and this one.

I think people are exaggerating the amount of missed appointments.[/quote]
Would 4.4million cancer scans persuade you that it is not an exaggeration?

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/12/17/44m-cancer-scans-missed-hospitals-told-cancel-non-essential/