Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Covid

Mumsnet doesn't verify the qualifications of users. If you have medical concerns, please consult a healthcare professional.

Questions for pro lockdown people

109 replies

SooziQue · 25/02/2021 16:51

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.

OP posts:
StepOutOfLine · 26/02/2021 10:20

@pinkearedcow

Phew, the OP has gone to a lot of effort and I applaud them for that. Sadly all they have done IMHO is rehearse the arguments that have been dragged out time and time again, right down to the hit by a bus/car crash-recorded-as-covid-death trope. There is nothing new here.
Yep. Astroturfing 101.
HarveySchlumpfenburger · 26/02/2021 10:30

Interesting choice of subject for a first post, OP.

Silverthorny · 26/02/2021 10:32

@SooziQue I’ve had 3 experiences within my friends and family that have made me support lockdown.

  1. my mum had a large cancer removed in Oct, and just as she left hospital her ward was being moved to another part of the hospital with Covid measures. She needs a stoma reversal now, but is delayed due to hospital completely overwhelmed with Covid cases (her area was particularly bad). I think a great many NHS hospitals are saying they’ve seen nothing like this before, ambulances queuing etc. So lockdown was needed to support the NHS.
  2. a child family member had Covid mildly last year, and suffered a PIMS reaction this year. I think there is a lot that is still unknown about the virus, and new mutations arising that could be vaccine resistant. Child family member had a very high temperature, but tested negative for Covid. She needed urgent hospital care in an overwhelmed hospital. Had we need been in lockdown she may not have got the care she desperately needed.
  3. a mid thirties Covid sceptic/anti lockdown friend of mine caught Covid badly and was hospitalised for 3 days with Covid pneumonia. She said it was like nothing she has ever experienced before and subsequently write a very long FB post urging others to take the virus very seriously.

We are not comparable to Sweden, we are multicultural and densely populated. We - as a country - tend to question, defy and protest against rules. Countries like Sweden/South Korea are more compliant and work together as a society. We needed harsher measures because while a great many people can be trusted to do the right thing, there are many people who don’t.

pinkearedcow · 26/02/2021 10:41

@RafaIsTheKingOfClay

Interesting choice of subject for a first post, OP.
Indeed.

Maybe my tin foil hat is too tight, but in the past couple of months I have become very suspicious that there are bots on this site. The core script is always the same, even when it's padded out to the extreme.

SooziQue · 26/02/2021 10:50

@pinkearedcow

Phew, the OP has gone to a lot of effort and I applaud them for that. Sadly all they have done IMHO is rehearse the arguments that have been dragged out time and time again, right down to the hit by a bus/car crash-recorded-as-covid-death trope. There is nothing new here.
This is not my first post I have simply changed usernames as I figured this could potentially be outing, particularly in regard to my job etc. And didn't want other posts linking but feel free to have mumsnet check this.

In addition your argument is basically "well I have heard this before" with no alternative argument made. Aside from the one poster above who mentions secondary school transmission (thanks, will look into this) the argument has been pretty weak. It's either "prove lockdowns don't work or else that means they do".

I am not going to read through hundreds of posts to make sure I don't make similar points to other people. Have you considered that they are similar because they are valid? A better and more thoughtout argument than "this is your first post you must be fake" and the textual equivalent of an eyeroll which is what you've just posted.

OP posts:
Sittingonabench · 26/02/2021 11:01

I’ve tried to follow your logic but I’m afraid I’ve struggled as the points seem to be ever shifting, starting with evidence from studies and then shifting to more emotive issues without evidence, stories etc. Starting with Covid specific arguments then shifting to mental health, economic, education impact etc. To support your views when challenged. While not saying these are not valid considerations it appears you have formed your view which is shared by your friends (that’s normal we naturally move to spheres of people with similar values) and it doesn’t appear that you are open to other perspectives and are expecting people to change your mind. You have made up your mind and that’s fine. FWIW I do not agree with what you appear to be saying - that lockdowns have had no effect in reducing deaths. The data from the U.K. is clear and directly linked to the dates of lockdowns showing radically reduced death rate. Lockdown will have negative impacts on mental health and other areas, but currently appears to be the lesser of two evils.

pinkearedcow · 26/02/2021 11:02

In addition your argument is basically "well I have heard this before" with no alternative argument made

Well I have heard it all before! I have also spent hours on here debating the points you've raised and have realised what a waste of time it is.

mac12 · 26/02/2021 11:07

You know Sweden isn’t the land of the free you imagine, right? It’s got all sorts of measures in place including masks, now all being introduced too late to prevent thousands of deaths & huge numbers with Long Covid.

SooziQue · 26/02/2021 11:13

@pinkearedcow

In addition your argument is basically "well I have heard this before" with no alternative argument made

Well I have heard it all before! I have also spent hours on here debating the points you've raised and have realised what a waste of time it is.

Then why bother commenting at all? I've basically said how I think and feel about it, I've said the data I've seen seems to support this. Is there something obvious I am missing? Because I can't understand why, looking at the data and based on the experiences I am having on the front line of the nhs, why we are in this lockdown. I could understand the initial lockdown but again it went on for far too long. This one has been nonsensical from start to finish. We're expected to believe tier 4 restrictions didn't work because, what, people in Derbyshire were causing cases to rise in London? Tier 4 was a localised lockdown which didn't work... why would a National one?
OP posts:
SooziQue · 26/02/2021 11:22

"The data from the U.K. is clear and directly linked to the dates of lockdowns showing radically reduced death rate."

The data from other countries without lockdowns follow the exact same trajectory. All viruses have a peak. The March lockdown began AFTER the peak. The November lockdown showed cases rising. Even the January peak is contested.

In addition, where is the reverse seen? In terms of protests, super bowl celebrations in the US, thanksgiving, etc. As I've said, the BBC have described the Christmas spike as a continuation of a trend which had already begun and couldn't be directly blamed on christmas. Post me a graph that shows this. This is what I am asking for. Not just your opinion because I don't think a few opinions is going to change the opinion I have formed based on a combination of experience AND data which I have seen including the data I've seen which suggests lockdowns have worked to reduce mortality so far.

OP posts:
noblegiraffe · 26/02/2021 11:39

The March lockdown began AFTER the peak.

But people were restricting their activities before the March lockdown which would have had an impact on what was previously totally unmitigated transmission. People didn't wait for lockdown, because they knew Boris was an incompetent oaf when his main advice was 'don't book any cruises, old people'.

SooziQue · 26/02/2021 11:40
  • @SooziQue I’ve had 3 experiences within my friends and family that have made me support lockdown.
  1. my mum had a large cancer removed in Oct, and just as she left hospital her ward was being moved to another part of the hospital with Covid measures. She needs a stoma reversal now, but is delayed due to hospital completely overwhelmed with Covid cases (her area was particularly bad). I think a great many NHS hospitals are saying they’ve seen nothing like this before, ambulances queuing etc. So lockdown was needed to support the NHS.
  2. a child family member had Covid mildly last year, and suffered a PIMS reaction this year. I think there is a lot that is still unknown about the virus, and new mutations arising that could be vaccine resistant. Child family member had a very high temperature, but tested negative for Covid. She needed urgent hospital care in an overwhelmed hospital. Had we need been in lockdown she may not have got the care she desperately needed.
  3. a mid thirties Covid sceptic/anti lockdown friend of mine caught Covid badly and was hospitalised for 3 days with Covid pneumonia. She said it was like nothing she has ever experienced before and subsequently write a very long FB post urging others to take the virus very seriously.

We are not comparable to Sweden, we are multicultural and densely populated. We - as a country - tend to question, defy and protest against rules. Countries like Sweden/South Korea are more compliant and work together as a society. We needed harsher measures because while a great many people can be trusted to do the right thing, there are many people who don’t.*

Thanks for this post. I can see why you would support the lockdowns based on this on a purely emotive level. I am not denying it is a nasty disease. However, it is my belief that without lockdowns we would not be in a significantly worse position due to the virus.

I believe much of the issues in hospitals are chronic in terms of lack of funding, lack of staffing etc. and the Covid measures are making everything more difficult. This includes the processes of isolating patients, the testing, the time consuming act of applying PPE and everything that that entails. Due to having to isolate patients, in some instances, bed capacity is lost. Also, self isolation measures mean that wards are understaffed, staff absences are high. All factors which affect how busy it is perceived to be. Plus the constant propaganda. I wonder if it's a bit of a self fulfilling prophecy in some instances. You're told you're busy and under pressure so you feel you're busy and under pressure. That said, I am sure the nhs is extremely busy. Just like every winter.

Clearly being locked down, one of the strictest lockdowns in the world, has still allowed these things to happen and has still seen us with one of the highest rates of death in the world. My argument is simply that, this being the case, there's no solid evidence they are effective.

Also we can compare with Sweden. Sweden is very multicultural and the urbanised population of Sweden is not dissimilar to that of the U.K.

So yes there are fewer of them per square mile of land, but most of them are not living rurally up in the North Pole.

Also, this same argument could be applied to London vs Cumbria, or England vs Scotland.

OP posts:
noblegiraffe · 26/02/2021 11:44

Clearly being locked down, one of the strictest lockdowns in the world, has still allowed these things to happen and has still seen us with one of the highest rates of death in the world.

But we haven't been in 'one of the strictest lockdowns in the world' since last March.

Do you think the highest death rate in the world could be attributed to the many times since last March that we haven't been in 'one of the strictest lockdowns in the world' and the stupid decisions that were made outside of lockdown (e.g. sending elderly covid patients back to care homes, lack of PPE, no quarantining at the borders, no mitigation measures in schools etc)?

oldegg123 · 26/02/2021 11:48

@SooziQue

Is there something obvious I am missing? Because I can't understand why, looking at the data and based on the experiences I am having on the front line of the nhs, why we are in this lockdown. I could understand the initial lockdown but again it went on for far too long.

As I and PPs upthread have posted, which you did not engage with, you have only shared a website which has cherry picked studies which shows lockdown policies aren't effective.

It is meaningless to decide on a hypothesis and then only present data agreeing with it. You need a team of epidemiologists/economists to systematically identify all studies (regardless of findings), assess methodology and risk of bias, and then draw conclusions.

Rowanapp · 26/02/2021 11:50

Totally agree OP.
I supported the first lockdown. Now surely if we are going to take such extreme measures with a huge amount of documented harm we need to be sure they are genuinely saving lives. And I agree the evidence just is not there.
Another important point is around the covid deaths. It is impossible to tell which of these are avoidable or not. People say if covid is 1a on the death cert that means the person would not have died if covid wasn't around so more lockdown would save lives. That is untrue, many people who are end of life die of an infection but normally might not have been tested, so might have sepsis or respiratory tract infection on the death cert + their underlying chronic conditions which were making them so vulnerable to infection in 1b,c or 2. These deaths are being replaced by covid deaths in my experience.

SooziQue · 26/02/2021 11:51

@noblegiraffe

The March lockdown began AFTER the peak.

But people were restricting their activities before the March lockdown which would have had an impact on what was previously totally unmitigated transmission. People didn't wait for lockdown, because they knew Boris was an incompetent oaf when his main advice was 'don't book any cruises, old people'.

You're totally missing my point. THIS is my point. Allow people the freedom to choose. If people choosing not to go socially berserk was enough then, why are we legally being forced into this strict lockdown now? As I have said I am not against mitigation strategies. I am against harsh lockdowns where we are unable to meet a friend for a coffee or allow our children to go to school or see their families. I am not against, for example, the closure of nightclubs or restricted numbers meeting in restaurants and seating service. If the government told us they were doing four weeks on and four weeks off of lockdowns for the next year, I think that would work better than this depressing permalockdown with no end really in sight. Although this seems to be changing, it's only a matter of time before one of Boris' famous U Turns isn't it? Particularly when they are suggesting cases need to be "in the hundreds, not the thousands" but want to do mass testing which would have a false positive rate alone in the thousands.
OP posts:
SooziQue · 26/02/2021 11:53

@noblegiraffe

Clearly being locked down, one of the strictest lockdowns in the world, has still allowed these things to happen and has still seen us with one of the highest rates of death in the world.

But we haven't been in 'one of the strictest lockdowns in the world' since last March.

Do you think the highest death rate in the world could be attributed to the many times since last March that we haven't been in 'one of the strictest lockdowns in the world' and the stupid decisions that were made outside of lockdown (e.g. sending elderly covid patients back to care homes, lack of PPE, no quarantining at the borders, no mitigation measures in schools etc)?

Literally upthread someone has said the U.K. has the sixth strictest lockdown. Just saying what I've just read. Also, no. The virus is seasonal. Everyone can see that. So being locked down in July is a waste of time. We have been pretty locked down for most of the 12 months though, haven't we? Or have I missed the period when nightclubs opened, we were allowed unlimited gatherings indoors with as many guests as we'd like? And so on
OP posts:
SooziQue · 26/02/2021 11:55

@noblegiraffe

Clearly being locked down, one of the strictest lockdowns in the world, has still allowed these things to happen and has still seen us with one of the highest rates of death in the world.

But we haven't been in 'one of the strictest lockdowns in the world' since last March.

Do you think the highest death rate in the world could be attributed to the many times since last March that we haven't been in 'one of the strictest lockdowns in the world' and the stupid decisions that were made outside of lockdown (e.g. sending elderly covid patients back to care homes, lack of PPE, no quarantining at the borders, no mitigation measures in schools etc)?

Sorry, yes I do believe at the time I said to my colleagues "surely sending patients out of hospital rapidly and into care homes is going to lead to absolute disaster?"

You're forgetting to look at the rest of the world also. Who has been in a longer, stricter lockdown? Who hasn't? And how have they coped?

OP posts:
SooziQue · 26/02/2021 11:57

[quote oldegg123]@SooziQue

Is there something obvious I am missing? Because I can't understand why, looking at the data and based on the experiences I am having on the front line of the nhs, why we are in this lockdown. I could understand the initial lockdown but again it went on for far too long.

As I and PPs upthread have posted, which you did not engage with, you have only shared a website which has cherry picked studies which shows lockdown policies aren't effective.

It is meaningless to decide on a hypothesis and then only present data agreeing with it. You need a team of epidemiologists/economists to systematically identify all studies (regardless of findings), assess methodology and risk of bias, and then draw conclusions.[/quote]
I am literally asking posters to point me to this information. I have shared what I have read and have been told "oh that's cherry picked" "that's not representative" "you're biased"

Yes. I know. That's the point! I am not here trying to change your mind to be the same as mine. I am asking what I have missed????

OP posts:
SooziQue · 26/02/2021 11:59

@Rowanapp

Totally agree OP. I supported the first lockdown. Now surely if we are going to take such extreme measures with a huge amount of documented harm we need to be sure they are genuinely saving lives. And I agree the evidence just is not there. Another important point is around the covid deaths. It is impossible to tell which of these are avoidable or not. People say if covid is 1a on the death cert that means the person would not have died if covid wasn't around so more lockdown would save lives. That is untrue, many people who are end of life die of an infection but normally might not have been tested, so might have sepsis or respiratory tract infection on the death cert + their underlying chronic conditions which were making them so vulnerable to infection in 1b,c or 2. These deaths are being replaced by covid deaths in my experience.
Totally agree with this regarding the end of life. The vast majority of people don't realise that, for example, when a patient breaks a hip and ends up hospitalised there's a massive chance they'll die. Usually due to a chest infection.

The nursing home which my practice looks after had 10 deaths in December 2019. They went down as dementia. In December 2020 there were seven, all coded as Covid.

OP posts:
noblegiraffe · 26/02/2021 11:59

Literally upthread someone has said the U.K. has the sixth strictest lockdown.

At the moment. And there are lots of major measures we haven’t implemented that other countries have.

Allow people the freedom to choose.

Do you mean allow people like you to have unlimited family gatherings while other more sensible people restrict their activities in an effort to bring the infection rates down? Meaning that it takes far longer or doesn’t work?

Or have I missed the period when nightclubs opened, we were allowed unlimited gatherings indoors with as many guests as we'd like?

Guess what they did in the countries where those things are now allowed?

oldegg123 · 26/02/2021 12:03

I am literally asking posters to point me to this information. I have shared what I have read and have been told "oh that's cherry picked" "that's not representative" "you're biased"

Yes. I know. That's the point! I am not here trying to change your mind to be the same as mine. I am asking what I have missed????

But you're not asking what you've missed, you're inferring that lockdowns don't work, from "the data"?

Surely, as a clinician you can see that is isn't robust science to present all studies that agree with you, and then write "The pro-lockdown evidence is shockingly thin" (from the website you linked), without any further comment?

I'm not going to start a systematic review for efficacy of lockdown policy, because a) it isn't in my job description and b) it is not useful to link studies without actually reading them, understanding the methodology and assessing risk of bias (which you have not done for those articles), I'm just asking you to consider that only presenting evidence that agrees with your viewpoint is not a robust way to draw conclusions.

Silverthorny · 26/02/2021 12:09

@SooziQue what I mean more is multinational I think? London is a big international hub, frequent travellers. I’d say more compatible to France or Spain. I would think of Sweden as more isolated/less travelled to? Also I think the are more accepting/compliant of the rules in place. I also think that being an island has not helped - although I’m not sure why! It feel like we are more enclosed to the virus.

To me - it was all about supporting the NHS. It was emotive for me, but we mustn’t lose sight that a ‘statistic’ is a precious life. The 10 year old child I know is just utterly, utterly beautiful - in every way. The pain of not knowing what was wrong, what might happen was unbearable. Our hospitals are poorly funded/resourced - perhaps Sweden knew they could rely on their health system. Without lockdown I’m not sure where they would have been - and it was pretty desperate and unmanageable anyway. I kept thinking I will support lockdown, and keep strong for the amazing surgeon who battled for 5 hours non stop to save my mums life. It’s what she would have wanted me to do.

Silverthorny · 26/02/2021 12:09

Comparable not compatible!!

Rowanapp · 26/02/2021 12:10

Lockdowns are highly damaging to society and individuals. Therefore surely the burden of proof is that they work, not the other way around? Especially now we are a year in. Desperate times for desperate measures worked first time but now? There is absolutely no hard evidence that lockdown measures this spring and summer will mean less covid this winter. Zero covid isn't realistic. So why continue? The virus is out there now and will mutate. The hypothesis that lock downs will stop that is very very unproven. Meanwhile we are causing huge harm to many.

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.

This thread is closed and is no longer accepting replies. Click here to start a new thread.

Swipe left for the next trending thread