Do you think that at times what we have referred to as ‘the science’ has got it wrong?

[MarshaBradyo]

I’m thinking about the many times people said well it’s going to go badly wrong and the science backs this up

But a few times this hasn’t happened

July opening
Omicron and not doing ‘circuit breaker’ and not ending in lockdown
Not getting close to best case for omicron

And so on - maybe other examples

What do you think - was it unnecessarily pessimistic?

@Delatron

There’s a middle ground between ‘uncontrolled pandemic’ and full on lockdown that goes on far too long. That’s where the discussion lies.

See Sweden (which yes blah blah we couldn’t have done here) but their economy comes out of this far stronger, children didn’t miss out on school, hospitals weren’t overwhelmed despite everyone thinking they’d done completely they wrong thing and it would be carnage. Their waiting lists are in far better shape that ours too (partly due to crap NHS) but it shows lockdown in all cases multiple times over and over again may not be the right call.

Well, we have been in the middle ground between Eastern style suppression of infection and Swedish style lower measures.

The government initially wanted to go for herd immunity and only reluctantly gave up on that plan (after we had the Cheltenham Festival and so on, in 2020).

We have had very little border control, for example. In the name of the economy and keeping our syle of life and position as a global hub.

Britain has been following a middle way (as has been mentioned).

I think there's been an appetite on here for somehow deciding that we have "learned" that suppression measures don't work; but a) we have learned no such thing and b) if we do get another pandemic we will have to respond to it based on the information we have at the time, just as we responded to this one.

Of course lockdown works to suppress a virus. That’s in no doubt. What we don’t know is if the measures we took were proportionate to the risk.

I think the government has admitted they regret keeping the schools closed for so long the first time around. So maybe lessons are being learnt.

There always has to be a balance. It’s very nuanced. I don’t think we got the balance right. Especially in the first lockdown. Others think our measures weren’t harsh or tough enough...

Of course lockdown works to suppress a virus. That’s in no doubt. What we don’t know is if the measures we took were proportionate to the risk.

It's not really about whether something is proportionate, it's whether the harms of increased coronavirus transmission outweigh the harms of suppression measures @Delatron

This doesn't just include the direct risks of coronavirus infection, it includes the risks of having a large proportion of the population ill or isolating in a short time period.

The UK were very very hesitant to apply measures and we certainly gambled on more mild restrictions in the hope they wouldn't be outweighed.

You’re just going round in circles @herecomesthsun

Its kind of the same thing. Were the measures proportionate? And yes do the harms of coronavirus outweigh the harms of suppression measures? I know we don’t agree on the answers but yes those are the questions we should be asking.

It’s almost like you’re arguing with me for the sake of it. Not for the first time!

@herecomesthsun

Yeah, Chris Whitty has said several times that you can't just prioritise the economy and not deal with the health issues in a pandemic; we are still getting the same old arguments though on this thread.

People don't or won't deal with the issues...

What I felt Chris Whitty was repeatedly trying to get across was that while the advice he was giving was about minimising spread of Covid, as that was his remit, being CMO, it was important to bear in mind that there were other issues to consider such as the economy, people's mental health, education etc, which were outside his remit.

@amicissimma

He was pointing out that the NHS and other services cannot effectively deal with things like screening, surgeries, mental health issues etc if they are overwhelmed with COVID.

This is why it's a false dichotomy to claim that by not applying measures to deal with coronavirus, you're benefitting other aspects of people's health.

as that was his remit, being CMO, it was important to bear in mind that there were other issues to consider such as the economy, people's mental health, education etc, which were outside his remit.

Well that's odd then, because when the JCVI said that when they could only consider health benefits of covid vaccinations for teens, they referred the decision to the CMOs who were able to give the go ahead as they were able to also consider the impact on education.

Thought these articles interesting:

www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/environment/2022/jan/26/improved-air-quality-first-lockdown-saved-800-lives-europe

And this Michigan study seems more balanced in the way it addresses both science and economics:

The study found that from March through August 2020, implementing widespread lockdowns and other mitigation in the United States potentially saved more lives (866,350 to 1,711,150) than the number of lives potentially lost (57,922 to 245,055) that were attributable to the economic downturn.

However, the results are more ambiguous when looking at the quality-adjusted life expectancy added by lockdown (4,886,214 to 9,650,886) vs. quality-adjusted life years lost (2,093,811 to 8,858,444) due to the economic downturn.

This is because many of the people saved were high-risk older adults with multiple illnesses and fewer healthy years left to live, while those most impacted by the economy were younger people in service jobs and other lower-paying occupations who found themselves without employer-provided health insurance and, in many cases, unable to pay for health care or even life-saving medications. A quality adjusted life year is one year of life in perfect health.

The study, published in PLOS One, should not be used to justify more lockdown measures, Yakusheva said. Nor is it a retroactive endorsement of the strict economic lockdown approach the U.S. imposed during the first six months of the pandemic.

I think the quality adjusted life expectancy figure is key in that study, and a good way to measure.

And it’s good to see a study that is not catastrophising/cherry picking/smoke screening either way, but addressing the harms on both sides. It’s close. Quality of live is lost by both scenarios.

@Delatron

You’re just going round in circles *@herecomesthsun*

Its kind of the same thing. Were the measures proportionate? And yes do the harms of coronavirus outweigh the harms of suppression measures? I know we don’t agree on the answers but yes those are the questions we should be asking.

It’s almost like you’re arguing with me for the sake of it. Not for the first time!

No, I'm not the one going round in circles here.

We can't argue away the fact of having been in a pandemic with a new disease and we can't prevent future governments from behaving in a responsible way if a similar situation arises in future.