Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Covid

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

Original poster

For those that want one, please remember this problem with lockdowns!

153 replies

Thurstyy · 31/12/2021 09:38

Not economic or social, but the fact that it is really not good that we are all shut away not catching the usual viruses OTHER than Covid.

My son has been hospitalised 3 times this year with viruses which are not Covid. The nurses and doctors in the children's ward at the hospital told me they were seeing much more of it this year, with more severe cases of OTHER normal viruses because people were prevented from mixing so much last year. When he had bronchiolitis in Sept the nurse who came to see him at home said they were being prepared for the worst RSV season because of this and barely anyone knows or talks about it.

The typical yearly bugs have made my son so so much more poorly than Covid ever did when he had that and it could well be because his immune system was not given the chance last year to properly build up against them.

It is not good for us to live in a sterile environment.

There are other problems caused by only considering Covid and I'm sick of people caring about nothing else.

OP posts:
TenLittleDinos · 31/12/2021 10:55

@LynxGiftsetAndSocks

Other impacts of lockdown were considered

The conclusion drawn was that lockdown would benefit more people overall

Can you link to this cost/benefit analysis? I’ve been looking for one for 18 months and can’t find one.
2boysand1princess · 31/12/2021 10:59

@Thurstyy

Not economic or social, but the fact that it is really not good that we are all shut away not catching the usual viruses OTHER than Covid.

My son has been hospitalised 3 times this year with viruses which are not Covid. The nurses and doctors in the children's ward at the hospital told me they were seeing much more of it this year, with more severe cases of OTHER normal viruses because people were prevented from mixing so much last year. When he had bronchiolitis in Sept the nurse who came to see him at home said they were being prepared for the worst RSV season because of this and barely anyone knows or talks about it.

The typical yearly bugs have made my son so so much more poorly than Covid ever did when he had that and it could well be because his immune system was not given the chance last year to properly build up against them.

It is not good for us to live in a sterile environment.

There are other problems caused by only considering Covid and I'm sick of people caring about nothing else.

How true is this though? Pre covid, my healthy kids (no underlying health issues) had many stays in hospital for viruses. As soon as they hit day care/pre school and first years of primary, I have had to spend countless nights in a&e and then overnight stays in the children’s ward for fevers (usually tonsillitis or chest infections) I have 2 sisters with similar aged kids and one of my sisters went through the exact same thing with hers, but the other sister has never even had to get antibiotics for her kids as they are so good at fighting off infections. With my eldest, it became such a regular occurrence to have a trip to the hospital for his fevers that we actually pulled him out of day care, can’t remember now but I think we did the same for the second DC too. I was constantly taking time off work during winter due to poorly kids.
toomuchlaundry · 31/12/2021 11:01

DH has a client who runs care homes. In the first year of COVID they managed to avoid any COVID cases. They had far fewer deaths in the homes because other viruses weren’t being brought in, notably norovirus

godmum56 · 31/12/2021 11:13

Even in lockdown we are not living in a sterile environment and with the very greatest respect to community nurses (I used to manage them in a mixed team of community staff), I wouldn't be taking immunology advice from them. Research article here only says maybe or could and from research in Australia the suggestion is that RSV is no more prevalent or virulent but could surge because everybody who will get it will get it over a shorter span of time. Additionally i did find one brief comment from america that RSV is more dangerous in younger small children than in older ones, so delaying the age at which it is caught might actually be beneficial.
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8087417/

I would call it a factor in lockdowns rather than a huge problem.....and of course so many children of keyworkers still go to school or daycare and are exchanging bacteria and viruses anyway.

Sirzy · 31/12/2021 11:20

It’s a hard balancing act though, I wouldn’t like to be the one making the decisions.

Ds is a chronic asthmatic who is bad enough he was in the shielding list. He has had far far fewer chest infections than he would normally.

However because of how overstretched hospitals have been he had urgent tests delayed for a year for something that turned out to be potentially life threatening without treatment.

It’s not a black and white situation In any way.

Dutchesss · 31/12/2021 11:23

No one wants to lock down but there definitely needs to be a societal shift where people with contagious diseases (not just covid) stay at home rather than expose others.

I was thinking about this the other day, would it work in reality though? Don't we need things like chicken pox and common colds to spread through children to keep herd immunity? I don't know, it's a genuine question. The reason a chicken pox vaccine isn't given in the UK is to keep herd immunity and because having the virus gives better immunity, or so I'm led to believe.

LynxGiftsetAndSocks · 31/12/2021 11:24

@TenLittleDinos

I'm writing on a 2 bit chat forum...mumsnet.... not a fucking dissertation!!!

'Link' indeed! GrinGrinGrin

TenLittleDinos · 31/12/2021 11:26

[quote LynxGiftsetAndSocks]@TenLittleDinos

I'm writing on a 2 bit chat forum...mumsnet.... not a fucking dissertation!!!

'Link' indeed! GrinGrinGrin[/quote]
Ah apologies, I just thought by saying what you did that you had some evidence it had actually happened Grin.
It hasn’t, by the way. There is no cost/benefit analysis for lockdowns.

LynxGiftsetAndSocks · 31/12/2021 11:28

Initially covid seemed to affect more people..... unlike omicron where it's milder

If we didn't have the lockdowns more staff would have been off leaving some provisions with no staff

So your kid wouldn't have been able to go to nursery to catch chicken pox if all the staff were off! So you'd be no further forward

karmakameleon · 31/12/2021 11:29

@Dutchesss

No one wants to lock down but there definitely needs to be a societal shift where people with contagious diseases (not just covid) stay at home rather than expose others.

I was thinking about this the other day, would it work in reality though? Don't we need things like chicken pox and common colds to spread through children to keep herd immunity? I don't know, it's a genuine question. The reason a chicken pox vaccine isn't given in the UK is to keep herd immunity and because having the virus gives better immunity, or so I'm led to believe.

Chickenpox will always spread as it is contagious well before children first display symptoms and generally it is relatively harmless if caught as a child.

I was thinking more about norovirus and similar. Pre Covid we seemed to have vomiting bugs all the time. Between three children one was always bringing them home. Since Covid we haven’t had one and I’m assuming that parents feel better able to keep children at home for 48 hours because they can wfh.

LynxGiftsetAndSocks · 31/12/2021 11:29

@TenLittleDinos

I didn't mention cost/analysis in any postConfused

rrhuth · 31/12/2021 11:29

I'm saying other impacts of lockdowns should be considered.

No shit.

Do you think the government/advisers didn't consider the other impacts??? Just decided to lockdown on a whim?

LynxGiftsetAndSocks · 31/12/2021 11:30

@TenLittleDinos do you have proof there has been no cost/analysis by anyone??

Diddytv · 31/12/2021 11:33

Yes but if we ignore coronavirus and try to carry in as normal, coronavirus doesnt just go away. We have coronavirus alongside all the other usual issues. I think there is no easy answer, we are in the middle of a global pandemic and we can’t just say “let’s stop thinking about covid and treating it and everything will go back to how it was before”

TenLittleDinos · 31/12/2021 11:34

[quote LynxGiftsetAndSocks]@TenLittleDinos

I didn't mention cost/analysis in any postConfused
[/quote]
You said that

Other impacts of lockdown were considered

The conclusion drawn was that lockdown would benefit more people overall

This isn’t actually true. Or if it is, the government have continuously refused to provide any of the information that led to that decision.
The lockdown was to protect the NHS from collapse at that point in time. They have no idea what the long term impacts of it will be.

KrispyBrussels · 31/12/2021 11:34

Yes op it's a serious point.

KrispyBrussels · 31/12/2021 11:35

I think babies and young children will be seen to have come off badly in this.

QueBarbaridad · 31/12/2021 11:37

This article in the I explains the function of lockdowns in England:
inews.co.uk/opinion/lockdowns-government-boosts-nhs-capacity-covid-1368440
It’s a common mistake to think that the Government has pursued lockdown to prevent people dying from the coronavirus. What we’ve actually done – at least in England – is to pursue a policy aimed at letting people die from the coronavirus up until the point that this interferes with the NHS’s ability to provide medical services to everyone else.

bordermidgebite · 31/12/2021 11:42

The idea being that protection of the NHS was to the greater good

They didn't think they needed to spell out the cost benefit of that

LynxGiftsetAndSocks · 31/12/2021 11:44

It's obvious that it was considered further than protecting the NHS

There were parts drawn in like walking outdoors, meeting one other person outdoors for walking, key workers and vulnerable children

If it was JUST about protecting the NHS then it would have been stricter.

Original poster
Thurstyy · 31/12/2021 11:51

@rrhuth

I'm saying other impacts of lockdowns should be considered.

No shit.

Do you think the government/advisers didn't consider the other impacts??? Just decided to lockdown on a whim?

Yes. I'm talking about the people asking for another one. Not necessarily government or their advisors. If that's okay with you?
OP posts:
QueBarbaridad · 31/12/2021 11:54

Who is asking for another lockdown?

rrhuth · 31/12/2021 11:57

@QueBarbaridad

Who is asking for another lockdown?
Quite. Total straw man argument.
QueBarbaridad · 31/12/2021 12:04

@LynxGiftsetAndSocks

It's obvious that it was considered further than protecting the NHS

There were parts drawn in like walking outdoors, meeting one other person outdoors for walking, key workers and vulnerable children

If it was JUST about protecting the NHS then it would have been stricter.

Not obvious to me. Protecting the vulnerable protects the NHS. That lockdowns might have been stricter doesn’t imply to me that their ultimate purpose wasn’t to protect the NHS. Could you explain what you mean, please.
LynxGiftsetAndSocks · 31/12/2021 12:06

Every country worldwide had a lockdown...or 2

How many of those had a NHS to protect?