Questions for pro lockdown people

[SooziQue]

I have found myself a sceptic. Don't get me wrong, I believe Covid is a very real and nasty illness, I am pro vaccine and I have no time for 5G conspiracy theories and such like.

However, the evidence that we have, that is the hard data, not the computer models or predictions, just doesn't seem to show that lockdowns are worth the devastation they cause.

We can now compare like for like countries. The U.K. and Sweden, Peru and Brazil, Florida and California as well as many other states and countries which did and did not lockdown, are in similar hemispheres, similar temperatures etc. Denmark has even released a study after putting several counties into local lockdowns which has suggested they don't work.

I have seen (although not read them all) over 30 peer reviewed studies suggesting that strict lockdowns have little impact on mortality when compared with milder NPIs such as hand washing, limiting numbers meeting indoors (but not banning it), avoiding contact such as hugging and kissing etc.

There appears to be no noticeable increases in deaths after large "super spreader" events such as mass protests, the US Super Bowl, even the BBC admitted that there didn't seem to be a noticeable Christmas spike. Studies have suggested eat out to help out had little impact on the winter resurgence. In November the new strain spread rapidly and cases increased during the lockdown.

Now, we're following the exact same trajectory as Sweden who has imposed very mild NPIs.

I can get on board with having locked down in March as we had no idea what we were dealing with and I believe we could have possible been in a similar position to New Zealand had we acted much earlier (not the week suggested by the press but several weeks) including closing the boarders etc. However, I don't believe it is possible to now eradicate the virus. Particularly when we are mass testing the way we are.

Even if this virus was to completely disappear from the face of the earth, if the government went ahead as planned with testing on school children using LFTs which are known to have lower false positive rates than PCRs, we'd still be getting around 19000 positive test results per week.

I don't want any rude replies or anything, I am just trying to understand. I think, unfortunately, as a society we've all started simply choosing a side and sticking with it, never questioning or seeking to understand. I have questioned myself a lot over this issue and feel im sure I must be missing something. The more and more time that passes and that we remain locked down the less I understand so I thought I'd open up that dialogue.

Has anyone been a lockdown sceptic and switched sides?

Do people think any level of risk is acceptable? If the answer is no, what about flu risk, heart disease? Etc. If yes, how much? And how does the false positive rate impact your feelings about this?

Are people concerned about the false positive rate and the implications that poses for our future freedom?

My understanding is the vaccine doesn't stop people catching and spreading the virus. Does this mean that those in hospital who get the infection will still go down as a coronavirus death? Even when it was merely present but they were brought to hospital for different reasons entirely? Nosocomial spread is around 40 to 50% I believe. Does this not impact upon people's thinking regarding lockdowns?

1 in 6 over 85s die each year. How many people have lost relatives and loved ones this year anyway after being forced apart in the name of keeping them safe? A year is a long time when you're elderly. It's a big risk to assume you'll still be alive next year.

I don't know anyone who is "pro-lockdown", just people who feel it was the least worst option. All the various arguments for and against have been hashed out 000's of times on MN.

Might be helpful though, if you link to the peer reviewed studies that have reached the various conclusions you outline in your post?

Profound. Thanks. That's really answered my question and changed my opinion.

Yes; many of them are collected here

www.aier.org/article/lockdowns-do-not-control-the-coronavirus-the-evidence/

Interestingly, as quoted from the above link:

In a saner world, the burden of proof really should belong to the lockdowners, since it is they who overthrew 100 years of public-health wisdom and replaced it with an untested, top-down imposition on freedom and human rights. They never accepted that burden. They took it as axiomatic that a virus could be intimidated and frightened by credentials, edicts, speeches, and masked gendarmes.

@pinkearedcow

I don't know anyone who is "pro-lockdown", just people who feel it was the least worst option. All the various arguments for and against have been hashed out 000's of times on MN.

Yes!

@SooziQue

Interestingly, as quoted from the above link:

In a saner world, the burden of proof really should belong to the lockdowners, since it is they who overthrew 100 years of public-health wisdom and replaced it with an untested, top-down imposition on freedom and human rights. They never accepted that burden. They took it as axiomatic that a virus could be intimidated and frightened by credentials, edicts, speeches, and masked gendarmes.

Although I would not quite put it like that this has sort of been my point. Where is the evidence this does less harm than not locking down especially re schools.

The American Institute for Economic Research (AIER) is a right wing, climate change denying think tank, who were the backers of the Great Barrington Declaration. Hardly an unbiased source.
www.lse.ac.uk/granthaminstitute/news/organisers-of-anti-lockdown-declaration-have-track-record-of-promoting-denial-of-health-and-environmental-risks/

@Barbadosgirl in all the aforementioned peer reviewed studies showing that lockdowns have had very little impact. In the graphs showing the virus path in pretty open Sweden vs quite closed uk. This is what I mean, there is literally a wealth of evidence showing this now widely and easily available. We can compare projections to realities. The claims of what would happen to countries if they didn't lockdown vs what actually happened. Such as the over 90000 deaths Neil Ferguson predicted for Sweden vs the actual under 10000 deaths they had. The same with Florida. If you want to talk about masks, compare north and South Dakota. The evidence IS there. This is my point. I feel I have looked and have questioned myself and am giving the opposite side the benefit of the doubt that they have done the same and have come to a different conclusion and id like them to explain their findings and reasonings. Not just their opinions which they haven't fully researched.

I'm a sceptic too. I have been since the summer. Reading likewise views has, in all seriousness, kept me sane.

I'm also pro vaccine (had 1st dose) and I don't deny covid.

It's like a new religion and those that don't subscribe to lockdown are heretics/ostracised/excommunicated! I honestly believe when they write the history books futures generations will think it was a huge over reaction. Mass hysteria on a near global scale.

[quote CoffeeandCroissant]The American Institute for Economic Research (AIER) is a right wing, climate change denying think tank, who were the backers of the Great Barrington Declaration. Hardly an unbiased source.
www.lse.ac.uk/granthaminstitute/news/organisers-of-anti-lockdown-declaration-have-track-record-of-promoting-denial-of-health-and-environmental-risks/[/quote]
What is wrong with the idea behind focused protection signed by hundreds of thousands of scientists and doctors exactly?

Also, as shown with the Danish mask study, journals will not publish studies when they're not "politically expedient". Also the AIER did not publish these studies they have simply collected them into one place. Science has become politics masquerading as science. Science is not certain or unchangeable.

Hang on a sec, there was no post-Christmas spike? Really?!

I am very worried about false positives but anyone who says that is treated as some sort of idiot.
As prevalence falls, mass testing of asymptomatic people will lead to an unacceptably high false positive rate, in my opinion.

[quote SooziQue]Profound. Thanks. That's really answered my question and changed my opinion.

Yes; many of them are collected here

www.aier.org/article/lockdowns-do-not-control-the-coronavirus-the-evidence/[/quote]
Why so rude? I wasn't attempting to be profoud or change your opinion (and certainly am not inclined to engage with you now). But thanks for the link.

Profound, even.

I only supported lockdown in the initial stages when we did not know what we were dealing with, I now think we have done far more harm than good and it’s quite sickening to see people turning on each other.

I have done lots of research into lockdown, masks, vaccines and the thing that concerns me the most is the suppression of genuine scientific research that does not fit the agenda.

What is wrong with the idea behind focused protection signed by hundreds of thousands of scientists and doctors exactly?

It hasn't been signed by "hundreds of thousands of scientists and doctors" and what is wrong with it has been discussed multiple times on here, (use the search function). The emergence of variants of concern and the even better than expected efficacy of vaccines has made the GBD approach even more irrelevant.

www.theguardian.com/world/2020/oct/09/herd-immunity-letter-signed-fake-experts-dr-johnny-bananas-covid

I'm a skeptic in that I don't think schools should be closed - I don't think the evidence supports the need for them to be closed and I think it's doing way more harm than good.

More generally we need to return to normality once deaths and hospitalisations are under control.

Looking just at the link URL, it hardly seems an unbiased and objective collection of reports and data. The emotive language you go on to quote just flags this up even more.

I believe the monarch of Sweden stated on television that he thought it had been a mistake not to have imposed firmer lockdown restrictions in Sweden.

Data seems to be suggesting that the vaccination does reduce transmission of the virus, although it is not yet a clear cut picture as to the extent it is reduced.

LFTs may have a lower amount of false positives, but unfortunately they (or at least some types of them) have an extremely high number of false negatives, which is far more concerning, especially in schools which act as vectors for transmission. Studies when they first came to schools showed between 3 and 50% accuracy in picking up positive cases (same people also did the PCR tests on the same day.) Pick whichever number in that range you like depending on which of the studies you prefer. None are good!

Lockdown is crap. It's boring, isolating, stressful. It's screwed up livelihoods and cost businesses. It's messed up mental health and created even more divisions in our country. It's provided a handy cover to ignore much of the chaos surrounding arrangements and results of Brexit. It's made teaching and learning beyond difficult.

But it's still better than letting an unknown virus and its subsequent, equally unknown, variants rip through the country unchecked. Look at what it's done with the restrictions that were put in place. And don't say "they were all old/underlying health conditions" as if that means those lives don't count. Also remember the many, many people suffering from long term consequences of Covid. There was a report out a week or so ago (can't find link unfortunately) saying those should be of greater concern than the numbers of dead, as the long term impact of those is going to be serious - damaged lungs, damaged circulatory systems.

This won’t go down well on here ! Yet I agree the fact that we have had such a severe lockdown apparently now the 2nd most severe and have such a high number of deaths shows lockdown hasn’t worked too well. Well not with Covid anyway but great news that it’s erased the flu! Which incidentally kills young children as well as old people each year yet no one bats an eyelid on that .

I don’t deny the existence of covid but the response does not seem proportional.

People who believe in rubbish like the "great Barrington declaration" are airheads.

Ah so lateral flow tests have a higher rate of false negatives? Good

@MyBossIsATwat

Hang on a sec, there was no post-Christmas spike? Really?!

Again, this is not my opinion. I'm literally quoting the bbc. Apparently it appeared that the spike was a continuation of a trend which started before Xmas. According to the bbc. Not me.

I'm with you OP. I think critical thinking about this kind of topic and not blindly believing what you're being told is a good thing (what I teach my kids). I believe lockdown will eventually,in maybe 10 years when lots of studies and investigations are conducted,will be shown to be incredibly damaging in general. I don't believe that it was the only option. I do believe the Government were so shit scared at suggesting anything else after they'd realised we'd fucked up. I believe there are many many many worse things than covid that have been caused by lockdown. Two off the top of my head that I've heard about....people with Alzheimer's declining about 10 years worth in the space of a year,teenage Cancer patients being made to attend appointments alone (sometimes being given bad news). I could go on and on. People will argue that it wasn't to protect lives,it was to save the NHS without even questioning why a service we publicly fund,needs saving by the general population and not the people in charge. Blind belief without questioning or holding to account yet again.

Finally,I believe we have a massive issue with discussing the realities in death in this country and Covid,and lockdown, seems to have exacerbated it.

@reformedcharacters

I only supported lockdown in the initial stages when we did not know what we were dealing with, I now think we have done far more harm than good and it’s quite sickening to see people turning on each other.

I have done lots of research into lockdown, masks, vaccines and the thing that concerns me the most is the suppression of genuine scientific research that does not fit the agenda.

Could you point me in the direction of some of the suppressed data. Always interested to read two side of an argument.

Here’s a starting point, there’s some interesting points in the responses section although note that some come from people without expertise.

www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4425