For a lot of people, it took BorisWineGate before they were able to feel any compassion for those who suffered due to some of the OTT restrictions of 2020

[greenteafiend]

Because there are a number of people (on here and in other places) who are now finally happy to show sympathy for those who gave birth alone, died alone or were unable to say goodbye to loved ones or hug a suicidal friend, even though they spent most of 2020 supporting even the most insane measures, repeatedly calling for even harsher ones, and saying the most horrible things to people who tried to talk about how desperate they were feeling. And then spent most of 2021 demanding more and tougher restrictions too.

You know who you are. And you can sod off with Boris, frankly.

I see that ghastly Owen Jones (the eternal barometer of weasle-word turncoat politics) is now trying to pivot in this way on Twitter. I'm happy to say that he's being mocked soundly.

I do hear you @Lalalablahblahblah but the past 2 years has most definitely been taken up by severe neuroticism on here, full on fear induced hysteria

We’ll never know what hospitalisations would have been like, we could look to places like Sweden as say…not that different but that’s another ‘conspiracy theory’ (except it’s not) And it’s only a few weeks ago there were cries for more lockdowns, accusations of the government being murderers etc, yet here we are, relatively unscathed and omicron on the retreat.

Why is it a horrible thread? OP is justifiably angry at the morons and judgemental sad sacks who called for ridiculous and useless measures and who lacked empathy for others going through a hard time. They existed, and certainly on here. The amount of sneering and trivialising of some people’s mental health was appalling to read.

We knew the death rate pretty much very early on (unless we did that thing where we don’t trust ‘foreign data’ again), we knew who was vulnerable, but yes the first lockdown “three weeks to flatten the curve” was accepted by most to enable the NHS to prepare.

After that, what was the purpose? What did it achieve other than decimation of society. Our well formulated functional systems are now creaking at the seams, every public service (not just the NHS) is a shambles, the economy is trashed and we have a whole generation of kids whose life chances are diminished (you’ll have seen the literature around illiteracy)

I remember early on hearing it said that if lockdowns worked there would be a whole kickback against them because people would never see the actual alternatives. And I think that's been true. I also think to an extent we are rewriting history. We forget the 1k plus people a day dying in early 2021, we forget what it was like before vaccines, we forget why we had to make those decisions. We forget that it was a new illness and nobody knew anything. We forget that we didn't really know how it spread. It's all very well to talk about petty rules (and I do agree some of them were off the wall) but decisions had to be made in the face of catastrophe, and when massive decisions like that are made they can always seem arbitrary (eg rule of 6 - there has to be a cut off, so why not 6, etc.)

I too got frustrated by the curtain twitchers but also by those who from the start minimised it and made vulnerable people feel like we were not worth anything - and a whole lot of that went on. And the thing was, whenever people shouted about the rules being oppressive etc, they never seemed to have another solution. And that's the thing. I still can't see one. A whole lot of people went for the whole shield the vulnerable and crack on line, but that was unworkable and all it would have done was isolate a whole lot of very vulnerable people even more starkly. That's why it makes no sense to me that so often on here posters talking about how it was inhumane to not allow care home residents visitors were also going down that line of thinking (GBD and all that.) It confused me and upset me.

As someone who had to shield this pandemic has really affected my mental health and it's affected how I see many people, in a negative way. And that's very much to do with the polarisation; from the people who discounted mental health effects through to the anti vaxxers outside schools, from those who called people who were just wanting to do their best 'lockdown lovers' through to Boris and the whole party shitshow.

I think all I'm trying to say is that is was possible to be very concerned about the effects of lockdown while supporting lockdown and restrictions. It's possible to be both very concerned about the effects of covid now in terms of long term disease as well as want things to be back to normal and try and live as normally as possible (what I am doing despite being CEV to an extent.)

There's a lot of crowing on this thread from those who were sceptical at the start, a lot of oh look ,we were right all along. But it's just so much more nuanced. No one was 'right', we simply didn't have the luxury of the ability to be right or wrong, we had to respond to a quickly moving situation and try our best to keep things going in healthcare. And it broke the NHS, it really did, it was pretty much broken anyway (thank you Tories) and this pushed it over the edge.

So let's just allow a little nuance, a little kindness and understanding that things aren't actually that cut and dried.

said it in 2020, I said it in 2021 what was needed was harsh restrictions on the vulnerable
@vickyc90 shielding was probably the most inhumane thing. The ECV were initially told not to leave the house. No daily walks, no trips to the supermarket. Nothing. If the whole family didn't shield together you were supposed to socially f distance in the home too. Cooking and eating meals separately. No hugging your children etc etc Yet plenty of people were happy to inflict this on the vulnerable almost indefinitely because at that time no one knew but when vaccines would come but were moaning about 2 weeks isolation destroying their child's mental health. ECV kids can be locked away forever though.
Throughout the pandemic those tolerating or accepting restrictions were necessary were called LockLovwrs. Well get this. The periods where schools and relevant SN and MH services were inaccessible was probably the worst period for my physical and Mental Health but I accepted it was necessary
If shielding the vulnerable could have worked than it would have been done. But the vulnerable tend to need regular tests and hospital visits etc. If other mitigation weren't in place these visits would have been even more risky.
Throughout the Pandemic though of course I had an awareness of how certain groups were affected more. I had every sympathy for those living alone and those who lost their livelihoods etc.

The OP has a point however, in that there was ahugeamount of minimising and gaslighting about the impact from several sections of society (and yes, on here) at the time and immediately after lockdown measures.

It hasn't even gone away. I read a 'you were only asked to sit on your couch and watch Netflix' here a few weeks ago.

Yes @TheKeatingFive I remember that and it was wrong but I think one of the lines which stuck in my head most was in one of the regular shield the vulnerable and let the rest of us crack on threads during a period of tiers not lockdown was.
"The vulnerable should stay at home temporarily to spoil everyone else being locked up."
Funnily enough no one was being locked up at that point bar the shielding and nobody knew how temporary it would be. Such horrible word play which I will remain with me.

Prevent everyone else being locked up.

@Madhairday

I remember early on hearing it said that if lockdowns worked there would be a whole kickback against them because people would never see the actual alternatives. And I think that's been true. I also think to an extent we are rewriting history. We forget the 1k plus people a day dying in early 2021, we forget what it was like before vaccines, we forget why we had to make those decisions. We forget that it was a new illness and nobody knew anything. We forget that we didn't really know how it spread. It's all very well to talk about petty rules (and I do agree some of them were off the wall) but decisions had to be made in the face of catastrophe, and when massive decisions like that are made they can always seem arbitrary (eg rule of 6 - there has to be a cut off, so why not 6, etc.)

I too got frustrated by the curtain twitchers but also by those who from the start minimised it and made vulnerable people feel like we were not worth anything - and a whole lot of that went on. And the thing was, whenever people shouted about the rules being oppressive etc, they never seemed to have another solution. And that's the thing. I still can't see one. A whole lot of people went for the whole shield the vulnerable and crack on line, but that was unworkable and all it would have done was isolate a whole lot of very vulnerable people even more starkly. That's why it makes no sense to me that so often on here posters talking about how it was inhumane to not allow care home residents visitors were also going down that line of thinking (GBD and all that.) It confused me and upset me.

As someone who had to shield this pandemic has really affected my mental health and it's affected how I see many people, in a negative way. And that's very much to do with the polarisation; from the people who discounted mental health effects through to the anti vaxxers outside schools, from those who called people who were just wanting to do their best 'lockdown lovers' through to Boris and the whole party shitshow.

I think all I'm trying to say is that is was possible to be very concerned about the effects of lockdown while supporting lockdown and restrictions. It's possible to be both very concerned about the effects of covid now in terms of long term disease as well as want things to be back to normal and try and live as normally as possible (what I am doing despite being CEV to an extent.)

There's a lot of crowing on this thread from those who were sceptical at the start, a lot of oh look ,we were right all along. But it's just so much more nuanced. No one was 'right', we simply didn't have the luxury of the ability to be right or wrong, we had to respond to a quickly moving situation and try our best to keep things going in healthcare. And it broke the NHS, it really did, it was pretty much broken anyway (thank you Tories) and this pushed it over the edge.

So let's just allow a little nuance, a little kindness and understanding that things aren't actually that cut and dried.

I disagree. Those in charge should have looked at death and hospitalisation figures in circa April 2020. It was apparent then that the virus was most likely to effect the elderly and those with underlying illnesses.

Like the OP I strongly believe far too little thought was given to the 'healthy' in terms of the mental health effects, reduced facility for those needing medical treatment eg knee replacement patients, alongside our reluctance to contact GP's for ailments that could of been treated easily if caught early.

Imagine being in constant pain & unable to walk any distance for an extra Year waiting on a joint replacement. Was that acceptable as collateral damage?
Was the previously healthy teenager, now suffering agoraphobia and unable to attend School reasonable collateral damage?
What about the Woman that didn't get a mammogram and didn't want to bother with that little lump in her breast. Is her cancer collateral damage?

'The vulnerable' aren't one cohort with the same interests. We locked down to prioritise the welfare of some of them over that of others, let's have it right

The ECV were told to shield and the reason for this was twofold but of course most people seem to see it as the vulnerable doing it for their own benefit only and everyone well was restricted to protect them.
Yet it was clear all along that they brought in restrictions as they didn't want to overwhelm the NHS and a big part of that was shielding the vulnerable. A Tory Gvt wouldn't have provided crappy food parcels and toy vouchers for ECV kids if they weren't really worried about the NHS coping with very sick people. Many were approached about DNRs too.

@southeastdweller

Why is it a horrible thread? OP is justifiably angry at the morons and judgemental sad sacks who called for ridiculous and useless measures and who lacked empathy for others going through a hard time. They existed, and certainly on here. The amount of sneering and trivialising of some people’s mental health was appalling to read.

Oh, the irony.

We had 3000 hospitalisations a day last winter before everyone was vaccinated. Can I please see our all knowing OPs projections of what those figures would have been without a lockdown.

Why are people still not actually reading the OP?

@Northsoutheastwest76

'The vulnerable' aren't one cohort with the same interests. We locked down to prioritise the welfare of some of them over that of others, let's have it right

The ECV were told to shield and the reason for this was twofold but of course most people seem to see it as the vulnerable doing it for their own benefit only and everyone well was restricted to protect them.
Yet it was clear all along that they brought in restrictions as they didn't want to overwhelm the NHS and a big part of that was shielding the vulnerable. A Tory Gvt wouldn't have provided crappy food parcels and toy vouchers for ECV kids if they weren't really worried about the NHS coping with very sick people. Many were approached about DNRs too.

Well, the ECV who shielded did do that for their own protection, which is fair enough, but I agree with you about the government motivations, food vouchers etc.

But the ECV are of course only one group of vulnerable people, plenty of whom don't use the NHS much. It was about priorities.

There was no excuse for people making up rules that didn't exist and saying that no reasonable adjustments should be given no matter how distressed that made some vulnerable people.

Well the only ECV I know need regular blood tests due to medication so they were definitely still accessing NHS very regularly. Consultant appointments were busy zoom but bloods were very much still required.

Well what about the Mental Health of the ECV that many people wanted to lock up until the avaccine came and still do according to this thread.

@VikingOnTheFridge but the reason shielding was introduced was ultimately to protect the NHS. They didn't want the pesky vulnerable clogging up beds that could be utilised by more worthy candidates like 50 something overweight men. Remind you of anyone Boris!

There were arseholes on both sides. People lacking entirely in compassion.

[quote Northsoutheastwest76]@VikingOnTheFridge but the reason shielding was introduced was ultimately to protect the NHS. They didn't want the pesky vulnerable clogging up beds that could be utilised by more worthy candidates like 50 something overweight men. Remind you of anyone Boris![/quote]
Again though that's still a choice about who to prioritise: vulnerable groups do not all use the NHS equally. Some people are much less at risk from a temporary overwhelming than others.

The only reason lockdowns were tolerated was furlough. If all those millions of people had lost their job and had no income it would have been very different.

Like the OP I strongly believe far too little thought was given to the 'healthy' in terms of the mental health effects, reduced facility for those needing medical treatment eg knee replacement patients, alongside our reluctance to contact GP's for ailments that could of been treated easily if caught early. Imagine being in constant pain & unable to walk any distance for an extra Year waiting on a joint replacement. Was that acceptable as collateral damage?

Your post makes no sense. You talk about 'the healthy' and then go on to describe effects on vulnerable people. I don't understand why you think things would have been better for the people you mention if we had not locked down. With the hospitals even more overrun with covid, the routine operations would have been pushed even further down the list. The hypothetical knee replacements would have had an even longer wait, the mental health services even more broken.

This argument has never made sense from the beginning, though. It's as if people think that ignoring covid would mean that hospital services would have operated as normal and there would have been no other fallout. It's just baffling.

And the science did show from the start that the majority of people dying and with serious illness were elderly or vulnerable, which was why we were advised to shield. They also found that small percentages of huge numbers are still big numbers, and those 'healthy' you seem so concerned about were still getting sick and dying. (My friend's child, in their 20s, for one. My neighbour, in their 40s. No conditions. Not overweight. Nothing.) Are you suggesting that this 'collateral damage' doesn't matter?

O yes @Madhairday those poor cancer patients who are still vulnerable now. In fact as you say COVID kept under control is essential for them snd sways has been. Plus screening services continued. The NHS also took over private hospitals to provide care fir cancer patients. Everyone I know with cancer still treatment. My ftien in her 40s who was diagnosed with metastatic cancer in 2019 is still here and found well. Yes there were sad cases where cancer was missed but that sadly isn't a new thing. My Aunt died of undiagnosed lung cancer back in 2012. Only discovered on Post Mortom. Doctors blamed symptoms on a pre existing condition she had.
I also remember watching Hospital in the early days and the last transplant patient they transplanted caught COVID and was very poorly indeed.

@icedpuddles

The only reason lockdowns were tolerated was furlough. If all those millions of people had lost their job and had no income it would have been very different.

This is true, and it's also the reason the lockdowns reduced case numbers.