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.

@oldegg123

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.

Literally wrote in my op that I am seeking to understand and asked if I am missing something. Added the data I had seen and which seemed to me to be the more reliable on the assumption that someone would come along with information to challenge this. Had I not added the information, I would have been asked to. Like when I said "i have seen studies which state.." and then I was ASKED to link to them, which I did to then be attacked for linking to biased studies. If you haven't got a real argument or any evidence other than your feelings, that's fine. You can think what you like. I don't care. I was asking for information to help me understand where other people are coming from. This has not been forthcoming so I can only assume we are entrenched now in what is basically an ideological battle with the vast majority on either side having formed one opinion a year ago and never having bothered to question themselves. And that's fine. I am now simply more convinced that I'm not actually missing anything and it has just become some form of fanaticism.

I've stated throughout the thread that I don't believe lockdowns work and provided the evidence to support this.

I have stated throughout the thread that I am not an "open society and let it rip" person either. I believe measures should be taken but that in the grand scheme of things the strict lockdown is no more effective than MILD NPIs which is what I am advocating for.

I think it's all about the NHS, one could argue that the obvious answer is to properly fund organise and provision the NHS, increase capacity so that we can cope with higher numbers of covid patients, make the UK all about healthcare
But this is so heinously antithetical to the tory agenda that they will do anything they can to deflect confuse gaslight etc.

@Rowanapp

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.

From your post it doesn't seem like you understand that higher transmission = higher rates of mutation. It is not binary.

Very high mutation rates and emergence of new strains are due to poorly controlled outbreaks with high levels of infection. This is why all the new variants of interest have come from countries with poor control of coronavirus (UK, Brazil, South Africa)

Totally agree about idealogical fanaticism. The public discourse on this I find frankly bizarre. Although I am a regular mumsnet user. I am posting on this anonymous forum rather than other social media because I worry about being personally attacked as some sort of uncaring fascist were I to question the logic and evidence underlying the public health approach to covid 19.

I’m a sceptic too

So obviously I’m also selfish and murderous.

I agree that the burden of proof should be on the pro-lockdown stance to prove it works. Instead we’ve turned on its head the whole scientific method and done it anyway.

The global comparisons of lockdown vs. no lockdown graphs are so obvious to anyone, I can’t fathom how people can’t digest it 🤷‍♀️

But then people don’t make good decisions when they are in a state of panic.

oldegg123 - The virus is going to mutate whatever we do. It is out there, we can't get to zero covid. If numbers are low it might mutate less but if you want to lock the whole country down for months at an end with the massive harms that will cause you had better be extremely sure 1. What your end goal is and 2. That your end goal will be achieved.
I do not see any good evidence that continuing lock down now will mean less or no mutations next autumn and winter. Community transmission was very low in August but still we had higher levels in the winter this year. The Kent variant was noted in November. (although I would dispute those higher levels in the second wave actually produced more deaths than a bad flu season)

I suppose the only way of proving that having a lockdown doesn't make any difference on the death rates, is to reopen the country back up for 2/3 months to see what happens.
It's great if it proves that having everything back to normal doesn't increase the Covid death rate but on the other hand how do we know that a complete reopen won't push the Covid death & other avoidable death rates sky high?
But what politician wants to take that risk?

Well I suppose it’s a case of first do no harm.

Like the OP I don’t think we should just forget about covid. We should continue with hygiene and distancing in shops, hospitality and leisure facilities, WFH where possible and avoiding very large crowded indoor events. We should certainly vaccinate all we can. And people with viral symptoms should stay home. Less sure of the benefits of mass testing but I’ll leave that for others to comment on. We can continue all this and let what we need to do urgently happen which is to allow people to see those they love and care for, whether they live 5, 50 or 500 miles away, inside or outside in a way and time of their choosing, not policed by these bizarre regulations of what we are “allowed” to do. Also not completely decimate the hospitality and small retail sector.

We’ve fallen for a fallacy of thinking we can control everything. We can’t. We know the lockdown is causing harm. It might bring some future benefits but that is uncertain.
It’s undermining our basic human right to a family life that is certain.

Politicians cannot control with any certainty how many people die in this country of covid or anything else. They can only do things that try and help. If they stopped all lockdown measures hard right now (not what I’m suggesting) and put the money into proper joined up public health policies on reducing inequalities, cutting pollution and creating healthy spaces for people they would save more lives I really and truly believe.

Funny because the research I have read is more widely available and says the opposite. ALL options are bad options. Overwhelming health services and NHS staff walking out ain't going to work.