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.

[quote CoffeeandCroissant]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[/quote]
Yes obviously there were some fake signatures which I understand were removed. As with many of these things. However, I highly doubt all 800 signatures are false. I personally know of at least several which are not! Also this is all very old news from before the latest wave which is the one which I think has really shown that strict lockdowns are pretty ineffective. However, I haven't actually mentioned the GBD and agree that with vaccines etc it is now irrelevant.

I agree with you. I'm no covid denier, I know plenty of people who've had it and several people who died of it, but I still think our lockdown approach has been heavy handed and had too many ill effects in other ways.

in all the aforementioned peer reviewed studies showing that lockdowns ...

They aren't all peer -reviewed, many are only preprints. I know because I'm a ruddy co-author on one of them (still preprint even now, many months later).

I can't understand why AIER hasn't even defined what is & isn't a 'Lockdown'. Without that clear definition, their summary of literature they think supports their view - is meaningless.

I have no idea about lockdown and I am willing to be convinced that they were a waste of time but I am finding it hard to get past
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"
Firstly the vaccine has been show to massively reduce risk for catching and transmitting the virus , secondly even if it didn't, what has that got to do with saying saying who died of Covid acually died of Covid?

I am interested in the fact that Sweden seems to have had similar trends to us but I am equally interested in why for instance other Nordic countries are doing better than Sweden

I don’t think anyone is claiming that lockdown doesn’t cause harm, least of all Messrs Whitty, Vallance et al. It’s more that what was likely to happen without lockdown was unthinkable, i.e. desperately sick people (with Covid and other things) unable to be admitted to hospital because there is literally no room.

I have thought about this.... the effects of an overrun hospital are visible and so immediately distressing that most people would go to great lengths to avoid it. The harms of lockdown are likely to be longer term, harder for us to quantify, and we are therefore apt to dismiss them in favour of more immediate concerns. I don’t feel I have the expertise to be able to compare, to be honest.

Here’s one thing in your OP I can’t let pass, though:

My understanding is the vaccine doesn't stop people catching and spreading the virus

The clinical trials which led to the vaccines being approved for use showed that they were effective in preventing symptomatic Covid, and completely effective in preventing serious disease and death - no hospitalisations, no deaths. There is now real-world data which confirms this - efficacy well in excess of 90% in preventing symptomatic Covid is being shown. Hospitalisations and deaths, there have been some, which is to be expected in a larger group including many older and sicker people than the trial group. But still over 98% reduction in hospitalisations and deaths.

There have also been data released in the last couple of weeks showing that both Pfizer and AZ significantly reduce infection - by around 2/3. And if you’re not infected, you can’t transmit.

So, I am puzzled as to how - given you are all about the data - you can say that vaccines don’t prevent you catching and transmitting Covid? They do! Not 100%, but substantially. And that is going to make a massive difference.

So, how many people do you think would have died or needed hospital treatment if we’d had no lockdown? Given that WITH a lockdown, it was pushing 2,000 deaths a day at one point.

You think lockdowns don’t work, so the number would be lower?

@Lancrelady80 thanks for your response! I'll take your response in order.

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.
So it's not meant to be an unbiased collection. As I've said upthread it's simply a place where the studies I mentioned are collected into one space for ease of access.

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. there are lots of people in every country on either side of the debate. However, I don't place much scientific faith in the monarchy. Sweden has now had to begin providing protection for scientists and researchers after increases in threats through this debate.

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. hopefully! But we're to remain in an effective lockdown for at least another 7 weeks to 3 months which seems cruelly long when cases have already come down so much.

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! This is why I can't understand why governments don't insist on confirmatory tests for both negative and positive patients tbh. If they're going to rely as they are on mass screening. I'm not convinced schools are the hotbed of disease they've been portrayed as, teachers have been found to be at no higher risk than most professions during the pandemic. Transmission from chilren to adults is unlikely. Agree to some extent with more protection in secondaries and above. And think teachers should have priority vaccines which would solve manyyyy issues.

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.

But is it? That's my question. The data does not support that. There are also many other NPIs which can be utilised between full scale lockdown and letting it rip. Should nightclubs be closed? In my opinion yes. Should grandparents be allowed to see their grandchildren? Without a doubt yes. Stopping this is cruel and inhumane IMO and data is beginning to support this when you consider the unlikelihood of asymptomatic spread. All lives do undoubtedly count but if I had to choose between saving a healthy 13 year old or a frail 78 year old I'd save the 13 year old. So absolutely their lives count but what has been the cost of saving those lives? Increased in mental health and suicide, missed cancer screening, delayed treatment, a population too scared to go to the hospital when having a heart attack. Even now there are nurses I know in general practice who are being asked to see patients only when urgent. Much of general practice is about prevention. Nurses often would see patients routinely for health checks which pick up high blood pressure, diabetes etc. Which are now not taking place. These diseases kill. If left unchecked these people could die of something entirely preventable, worst case scenario. Best case scenario they're doing irreparable damage to their kidneys etc. I don't deny the seriousness of long Covid but post viral fatigue is not new. Many patients will suffer post pneumonia for example or after the flu, strep throat. Glandular fever! I think everyone knows a kid at school who ended up missing a full year due to glandular fever. Purely on a cost benefit analysis, I don't think the lockdown stands up to it.

I agree OP.
The pro lockdown fanatics make no allowance for the lives lost through lockdowns.
Most of them are in safe jobs, wfh or are on furlough.

@CoffeeandCroissant I love it when people discredit another viewpoint by decrying it as ‘right wing’, lol.
Left wing and right wing are old hat, the battle now is between authoritarians and libertarians.
Many BAME’s are refusing vaccines, are they ‘right wing’ too?
A bit less lazy stereotyping please.

I wfh and have done for almost a year now but do not support continued lockdown. Despite being on full pay my MH is on the floor as I’m unhappy in my job and would love to tell my employer to get screwed but I can’t. I’m too scared to leave my current role due to the uncertainty and the current state of my MH.

I’m also stuck in a private rent and despite being on decent pay I’m struggling financially and finding it hard to ever see an end to this.

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.

I'm confused about what you are trying to say here. The climate of the places you have listed are nothing like the UK. Temperature wise both Florida and California have much higher averages than the UK. Sweden is generally colder but is a big country so the average difference between say Kiruna, in the north, and Malmo, in the south, can be as much as 20 degrees. The equator passes through Brazil but most of the country is in the southern hemisphere, Peru is most definitely in the southern hemisphere, both countries are much warmer and significantly different to the UK in economic terms.

@FOJN

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.

I'm confused about what you are trying to say here. The climate of the places you have listed are nothing like the UK. Temperature wise both Florida and California have much higher averages than the UK. Sweden is generally colder but is a big country so the average difference between say Kiruna, in the north, and Malmo, in the south, can be as much as 20 degrees. The equator passes through Brazil but most of the country is in the southern hemisphere, Peru is most definitely in the southern hemisphere, both countries are much warmer and significantly different to the UK in economic terms.

I think the poster is not comparing those countries with the UK (except Sweden), but with each other. Eg Peru locked down and Brazil didn’t, California locked down and Florida hasn’t recently.

@PuzzledObserver I completely agree with you. An overwhelmed health service is a short term emergency directly attributable to covid. The harms of lockdown will be more chronic and less tangible. I think that’s what’s behind it rather than any assessment of which causes less harm overall.

mobile.twitter.com/the_brumby/status/1349478829002133506

Heres a link to about 20 reports that lockdowns dont work. That theres no correlation between high death rate and cases to the restrictions.

We are now into our third lockdown and we have the highest death rate. Proof is in the pudding.

@DuchessofHastings1

We are now into our third lockdown and we have the highest death rate. Proof is in the pudding

You appear to be implying that if we had not locked down, the death rate would have been lower. I simply don’t understand how that could be the case. More social contact = fewer Covid deaths..... how?

[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]
You're not an epidemiologist and are simply acting as an echo chamber for that article. You haven't read the original articles (some of which are pre-prints and not actually peer reviewed), assessed the methods, risk of bias, context etc.

In addition, it is meaningless to decide on a hypothesis, i.e., "lockdowns aren't effective" and then find all the evidence that supports it and present it.

To answer this question in a unbiased way, a team of epidemiologists/economists need to conduct a systematic review. This means thoroughly searching all databases for relevant articles, assessing methodology, risk of bias, venerability before bringing all findings together to draw conclusions.

If I wanted to, I could say "HRT is linked to suicide" and do a little search which I'm sure would identify some positive studies. I could then write those up in a persuasive way, blissfully ignoring the vast body of evidence that went against my original view.

Ok bizzare autocorrect, "venerability" should of course be generalisability...

I change my mind several times a day about this. But I’ve felt for a while that the arguments for the effectiveness of lockdowns etc. have a lot of religious fervour about them.

What do you think the lockdowns were for OP? Did you have any experience of the ambulances queuing up to get patients into hospital last month? As a Doctor I feel like I live in a parallel universe when I read these threads. I am pro-lockdown. I hate lockdown. I hate reading all these threads about 'pro-lockdown fanatics'. Do you think the death rates would have been better if we hadn't locked down? If all the hospital beds are full of patients with Covid and there are no beds left for anything else do you think that people would survive emergencies that two years ago it would be really rare to die from? Like appendicitis? When the beds are full, where do you put the cancer patients? Do you think that not locking down would have improved the care of patients with cancer? When the Covid rates are really high, people are too scared to go to A&E with their heart attacks and are staying at home and dying, so many could have survived if we had properly suppressed the rates.

The whole point of these lockdowns was to take some pressure off the NHS so that it could continue to function. The other countries you are comparing to don't have free healthcare at the point of contact. They don't have the financial constraints we have. The NHS has been chronically underfunded for years and people keep voting for this to continue.

Many BAME’s are refusing vaccines, are they ‘right wing’ too
A few people in poorer communities are vaccine hesitant. When you couple the fact that the Government have lied so many times during this pandemic WITH the fact that they have shat on poorer communities for the past eleven years, its not hard to see why.

There is critical thinking but disagreeing with whatever the current status quo is does not automatically mean you are "critically thinking".

"Peer reviewed" does still not automatically mean good quality research. Am I right in my understanding that the analysis also included unpublished studies or are you referring to the fact that they did not publish the studies themselves because it's a meta analysis?

Also of course bias is important. Absolutely of course it is. If a large think tank with a preformed and very pertinent agenda is the organisation behind a study, then that is a huge bias!

And again strange to refer to people as lockdowners/ pro lockdowners. Everyone is always turning everything onto a partisan issue.

Here are the graphs of infection rates from before Christmas and after Christmas (lockdown).

If lockdowns ‘don’t work’, then why have the infection rates come down? And the deaths?

@oldegg123 amen

@PearlescentIridescent

There is critical thinking but disagreeing with whatever the current status quo is does not automatically mean you are "critically thinking".

"Peer reviewed" does still not automatically mean good quality research. Am I right in my understanding that the analysis also included unpublished studies or are you referring to the fact that they did not publish the studies themselves because it's a meta analysis?

Also of course bias is important. Absolutely of course it is. If a large think tank with a preformed and very pertinent agenda is the organisation behind a study, then that is a huge bias!

And again strange to refer to people as lockdowners/ pro lockdowners. Everyone is always turning everything onto a partisan issue.

The article that the OP linked to is just a list of cherry picked studies that did not find evidence of lockdown efficacy. It's certainly not a systematic review or meta-analysis, or even a narrative synthesis.

As I've said upthread it's simply a place where the studies I mentioned are collected into one space for ease of access.

But that won't be all the data. The problem with the site being completely biased is that it will have only picked the papers that agree with what it wants to argue.

The problem with this discussion is that it gets polarisied into being pro or anti lockdown. And I doubt it's that simple. For a start a lot of the countries where there is no 'lockdown' aren't exactly restriction free and those restrictions vary as case rates vary. And you can be pro 1 lockdown in order to put additional measures to control the virus but against the rest because you think Covid should be controlled differently. You can also be anti a general policy of lockdowns while still recognising that it might be the only option as a last resort at any particular moment.

The thing is lockdowns are effective and bringing case number right down. The problem, and what we should probably be looking at, is what you do when you get there to keep them down.

I'm with you OP