Anyone want a perpetual lockdown

[beentoldcomputersaysno]

I often see posters accused of wanting continual lockdowns, despite their post not suggesting it. I often assume it's done to deflect or antagonise posters who suggest a health measure(s) to adapt to life post-2019. However, is there anyone who posts on this board that does want perpetual lockdowns?

@Emergency73

No but out of politicians, economists, the scientific community - I would put my faith in the scientific community. This is a virus - so virologists/a professor in mucosal infection and immunity - I’m going to listen and put my faith in what they say - rather than an economist. Yes you can separate out - in terms of which expert you are inclined to listen to.

The problem here is that you evidently think there's a 'the science'. There is not, couldn't be when the pandemic still continues, and if there were it certainly couldn't be divorced from economics. Your professor in immunity isn't an expert in the impact of greater obesity, for example, much less on how to model what policy leads to more years of life lost. Not a criticism of him or her either, no reason why they would be, only of people who fail to understand this.

What we do know is that lockdown wasn't in the disaster planning pre covid. Then China did it in an ultimately unsuccessful attempt to contain the virus. And lots of the rest of the world started following suit. When this has all finished, we're going to have to look very carefully at why.

I actually think it wasn't politically realistic for the UK not to take that approach by the time lockdown was announced, not when we had a populist and ineffective leader, which takes us back to the point earlier in the thread about decisions being inevitably political.

@Emergency73

No but out of politicians, economists, the scientific community - I would put my faith in the scientific community. This is a virus - so virologists/a professor in mucosal infection and immunity - I’m going to listen and put my faith in what they say - rather than an economist. Yes you can separate out - in terms of which expert you are inclined to listen to.

FFS neither of these categories of expert is up to speed on the other's discipline. You don't seek economic advise from virologists just as you don't seek health advice from economists. What should happen, of course, is that governments ask for recommendations from both types and then work out the best combination of measures. But we have a global problem with a spreading tendency to elect raging arseholes who govern by slogan and who are motivated by money and power.

@Emergency73

‘Gut feeling’/hunch.

Based on what the scientific community/WHO have said about lockdowns which is - that in an emergency situation where hospitals cannot cope, in order to readdress resources - a lockdown is advised

Also based on the fact that the only papers I’ve seen that advise against lockdown are from the economic community, and controversial scientists such as Karol Sikora.

But I’m happy to read your definitive evidence what they don’t work?

The fact is that there isn’t any - either way. Do your hunch is not better than my hunch.

Karol Sikora isn't a "controversial scientist"

He's a leading oncologist fgs

That’s all very well @Wreath21, as long as people don’t base their political views on duff epidemiology.

I loved the pandemic so yes a total shutdown would be great.

(I'm not joking or trolling. 2020 was fantastic IMO)

Tell us more @WorstXmasEver
What made it so good?

@QueBarbaridad

That’s all very well *@Wreath21*, as long as people don’t base their political views on duff epidemiology.

It's not good if they base them on either duff economics or total ignorance of the problems caused by inequality, either.

Yes, while an epidemiologist would have more expertise on the spread of disease, he or she is unlikely to have an expert view on number of deaths cause by economic effects of covid measures.

It will be some time even before we know how many deaths in the health system have been the result of coviid measures - we know many cancers are going undiagnosed but it will be years before that can be quantified. And we still really don't know whether many measures made any real difference at all in numbers or simply changed the timing.

@SuperWoofing

I’d say claiming you are an honorary professor at a leading university, when you are not - is pretty controversial?

@VikingOnTheFridge - yes, these things do interplay. I do think it’s very important to look at the motivation behind each source, the qualifications, the expertise. And if there is a yes or no situation, a decision - I would go with the consensus of global thought by scientists who are experts in the field of virology/infectious diseases. But I do agree that they would put saving lives from the virus over the economy. If the threat has now passed, I probably would listen more to economic thinking which would now present as the emergency.

@MangyInseam

“Undiagnosed cancer” - from speaking to a cancer surgeon who was working in one of the worst hit hospitals during the pandemic - she was pulled away from her cancer patients to deal with the influx of Covid patients to her hospital.

A person admitted to A and E because they cannot breath needs immediate treatment/help to ease suffering - whatever their age. They cannot and should not be ignored. They need resources/human resources.
I would say this is an argument FOR lockdown. If a hospital cannot treat all its patients due to a sudden in-surge of Covid patients, then something needs to be done to stop that hospital becoming overwhelmed.

[quote Emergency73]@SuperWoofing

I’d say claiming you are an honorary professor at a leading university, when you are not - is pretty controversial?

@VikingOnTheFridge - yes, these things do interplay. I do think it’s very important to look at the motivation behind each source, the qualifications, the expertise. And if there is a yes or no situation, a decision - I would go with the consensus of global thought by scientists who are experts in the field of virology/infectious diseases. But I do agree that they would put saving lives from the virus over the economy. If the threat has now passed, I probably would listen more to economic thinking which would now present as the emergency.[/quote]
So what you're basically doing here is ranking dealing with the virus (optimistically assuming there'll be a consensus) above anything else, basically on principle. You don't mention scientific and medical expertise in relation to other health issues. Because even if it were possible to divorce public health from the wider social, economic and political context, which it isn't, you'd still have to balance years lost from covid against years lost due to obesity, inequality etc. They're all killers. There's no inherent moral argument why one matters more than another. @MangyInseam post is quite correct.

If you want to say you just care more about lost years from infectious diseases specifically than eg obesity because that's your personal preference, by all means make that argument but it certainly isn't anything other than what you like. In particular it wouldn't represent any kind of ethical argument.

No I said the issue that is presenting itself as the current emergency should be given most weight. I’ve never said ignore all other issues. At all. But you seem to be very happy to misrepresent what I say, so I’m not sure it’s worth discussing the point with you.

You seem to be placing all your thinking on everything EXCEPT what the consensus of global medical thinking was regarding Covid in 2020. You seem to be discrediting and discounting it altogether. Yet - it was what the vast majority of medical experts agreed on worldwide. So I’m not sure why your not placing any value at all in what they said.

And we still really don't know whether many measures made any real difference at all in numbers or simply changed the timing.

Delaying cases was the obvious thing to do as treatments improved and vaccines were developed.

“Because even if it were possible to divorce public health from the wider social, economic and political context, which it isn't, you'd still have to balance years lost from covid against years lost due to obesity, inequality etc. They're all killers. There's no inherent moral argument why one matters more than another.”

Most people do work on the principle that the needs of someone in immediate peril of death trump those of people who may suffer in the rescue attempt.

@Emergency73

No I said the issue that is presenting itself as the current emergency should be given most weight. I’ve never said ignore all other issues. At all. But you seem to be very happy to misrepresent what I say, so I’m not sure it’s worth discussing the point with you.

You seem to be placing all your thinking on everything EXCEPT what the consensus of global medical thinking was regarding Covid in 2020. You seem to be discrediting and discounting it altogether. Yet - it was what the vast majority of medical experts agreed on worldwide. So I’m not sure why your not placing any value at all in what they said.

Your post did ignore them, though. You continually conflate health with covid responses, which is wrong even if it were possible to consider health in a bubble, which it isn't. Whether you are able to accept that is immaterial. And as I said, it's fine to prioritise one health issue over others because your subjective preference is that it's more important, just don't pretend it's anything more than it is. In particular the idea that there was a global medical consensus on what to prioritise and what option would do least harm in 2020 is something that's going to require more proof than you saying there was.

Most people do work on the principle that the needs of someone in immediate peril of death trump those of people who may suffer in the rescue attempt

It's interesting that you think covid is the immediate peril here but people dying during lockdown due to eg DV and health deterioration don't fall into that category. If you're going to try and use that analytical framework here, we need to tease out exactly why that is. And then we can have a think about whether it's good public health or not. I certainly agree that lots of people have taken a very short term and narrow approach when considering covid measures, you're correct there, but that doesn't tell us whether it was a good idea.

@MangyInseam

Yes, while an epidemiologist would have more expertise on the spread of disease, he or she is unlikely to have an expert view on number of deaths cause by economic effects of covid measures.

It will be some time even before we know how many deaths in the health system have been the result of coviid measures - we know many cancers are going undiagnosed but it will be years before that can be quantified. And we still really don't know whether many measures made any real difference at all in numbers or simply changed the timing.

Definitely.

But I’m not saying that!

I’m saying that in 2020 there was an out of control virus that was killing people globally, with no method of controlling infection spread. No vaccine, and no way of controlling severe symptoms and hospitalisations.

With a death toll of 5.4 million and hospitals collapsing should you completely ignore that - in an emergency?

Or do you address that emergency issue, and then address the knock on emergency issues once the initial emergency has been brought under control.

DV and health deterioration do fall under that category because how do you support those issues when people are unable to provide support because of ill health - or because they are so overwhelmed by emergency Covid cases that they simply cannot balance their resources in order to support these other issues.

@Emergency73

But I’m not saying that!

I’m saying that in 2020 there was an out of control virus that was killing people globally, with no method of controlling infection spread. No vaccine, and no way of controlling severe symptoms and hospitalisations.

With a death toll of 5.4 million and hospitals collapsing should you completely ignore that - in an emergency?

Or do you address that emergency issue, and then address the knock on emergency issues once the initial emergency has been brought under control.

DV and health deterioration do fall under that category because how do you support those issues when people are unable to provide support because of ill health - or because they are so overwhelmed by emergency Covid cases that they simply cannot balance their resources in order to support these other issues.

Yes, that is exactly what you're saying.

You are arguing that it was right to address the emergency issue in a particular way (one that certainly didn't stop it being an ongoing issue, the argument would make more sense if it had) as distinct from any other options, even if doing so ultimately led to more years lost. But it was never going to work that way, once covid was out in the world. We weren't going to be able to park the other issues while we locked down, and lockdown made many of them worse while creating others.

Also, DV in particular most certainly does not fall into that category. Lockdown, specifically, meant making lots of vulnerable people stay at home with their abusers. Not covid, lockdown. It was not a surprise that this had consequences. That was inevitable.

Health deterioration, depends. I actually should've been more precise with my wording there so that's on me, as I was thinking specifically about people whose health declined and who died earlier because of the loss of normality, human contact and structure. People who were reliant on structures and interactions that lockdown removed from them.

The 2020 lockdown controlled the spread of infection until we had the vaccine to prevent severe symptoms and hospitalisations.

DV cases rose by about 80 000 compared to the previous year which is appalling - representing 1/5 of total crimes.

DV was a major issue prior to Covid, and lockdown exacerbated the issue.

Domestic homicides didn’t increase dramatically in the UK during lockdown, according to Aug 2021 data. They remained fairly stable - unless you have conflicting data?

To reverse the issue - if domestic violence was a sudden emergency issue, that 5.4 million were dying globally from DV, that hospitals were overwhelmed with DV cases, I would be saying exactly the same. That we should be listening to worldwide expertise on DV, and prioritising what they advise. But you’d disagree there too, for the reasons you’ve stated above?

Glad you now accept that DV was worsened as a consequence of lockdown. We got there in the end, even if you couldn't resist pointing out that it was a problem pre covid as though that actually needed saying.

For your final paragraph, if DV were a specific epidemic with the trajectory that tends to entail, that hadn't existed before 2019 and that we had responded to with lockdowns that had worsened some existing problems and created others, I'd be similarly disinclined to place reliance on anyone's faith based approach that it was the best way to deal with the issue. Particularly when the DV 'pandemic' was still ongoing. And the individuals concerned were given to delusions that their wish to prioritise a particular group of vulnerable was more ethical than others, or meant extremist political views.

I have not said that at all. I’ve said continually - in almost every post - that lockdowns cause harm.

WHO etc don’t recommend lockdown, only in a desperate situation. Yes the pandemic is ongoing, but there is a way to control severe symptoms and hospitalisations. I doubt further lockdowns will be necessary, and I think only a minority of governments in Europe thought they were needed to control Omicron.

It is ethically right to save lives.

There are groups out there who are very much in support of extremist politics and exploiting the pandemic - I think it would be naive to ignore. Look at Canada.

What is it in Canada that you are seeing?

Presume it’s the truckers protests, but remember we had the BLM protests here, and XR. And also the curtailing of the right to protest.

I don’t really see Canada as particularly right wing politically.

www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.cbc.ca/amp/1.5617710

@puppetear

www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna15218

www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/feb/08/ottawa-truckers-protest-anti-vaxx-canada