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?

@GoldenOmber

But there never was a ‘scientific consensus’ on the best exact range of society-wide measures to tackle a pandemic.

Prof A the virologist can’t tell you about the mental health of kids. Prof B the sociologist can’t tell you about household viral transmission. Prof C the nutritional epidemiologist can’t tell you about how to make sure childhood vaccines still go ahead in lockdown or during a national covid vaccine rollout. Prof D the behavioural psychologist can’t weigh up the costs and benefits between protecting nursing homes from covid and depriving dementia patients of friends, family and the outside world, even just in terms of health. And neither can anyone else, because partly that’s about values not about one scientific truth we just have to uncover.

Everyone can give part of the picture, but it’s absolutely right that the overall society-wide decisions should be made by elected politicians based on that information, not by some Twitter grifter with a PhD who’s now presenting himself as an expert on everything under the sun.

Exactly. And this is the problem with the whole 'the science' concept. Same with the 'NHS guidelines', presumably for pandemic management, that are mentioned a few posts on from this. People want something that doesn't exist, and then a subset of them get arsey when that's pointed out. It's why the whole issue is and always has been unavoidably political.

I don’t know in detail what Chris Whitty has said, but I have great respect for him. So as an individual - yes. But surely there is not a great disparity between what he says - and the consensus guidance you’d get by looking at NHS guidelines?

I do think it’s such a vital conversation to have, because we absolutely need to learn how to deal with a similar situation in the future, to deal with it better, and to minimise the impact on children’s needs.

No one wants a lockdown, they are harmful - and it should have been managed better. But I think it was necessary as an emergency measure when Covid was out of control.

indeed people who consider that it was definitely the right decision should be willing to own the reality that school closures did cause harm and that this harm was foreseeable.

And was acknowledged and attempts were made to mitigate, which is something that is often overlooked. It is wrong and insulting to say (not you) that 'scared adults' turned a 'blind eye' for their own protection. Schools bust a gut to feed hungry kids, going around delivering food when the govt had forgotten that FSM were even a thing. Efforts were also made for the vulnerable kids. Some who weren't in school were being phoned every day. I was phoning my tutor group weekly, and counselling anxious kids whose exams had been cancelled and their life thrown in the air through a pandemic was certainly something I never trained for. There was a lot of anxiety caused by returning to school too. People who bang on about what's 'best for the kids' often don't seem to have that much contact with them or awareness about the conditions in schools that means that 'schools open' isn't the panacea for all ills or bastion of educational excellence they might like to think it is.

But to continually focus on lockdown as the cause of all evil is wrong, and not getting to the very heart of the issue. A vulnerable child was vulnerable pre lockdown. And it is THIS that needs to be tackled. THIS.

The business of worst case scenarios is interesting. Long ago when I was working in a planning kind of role, we always developed three scenarios. One was what we thought was most likely, one was the most dangerous, and one alternate, all of which went into the ongoing planning process and were monitored to try and stay ahead of events.

But in the end it was up to the leadership to decide which of these possibilities was the one that they would take action on, and how, which involved all kinds of considerations such as resources and just judgement. There were consequences to choosing to plan for the most dangerous scenario if it didn't come to pass and that needed to be taken into account.

@Emergency73

But to continually focus on lockdown as the cause of all evil is wrong, and not getting to the very heart of the issue. A vulnerable child was vulnerable pre lockdown. And it is THIS that needs to be tackled. THIS.

Everyone became potentially vulnerable to lockdown - particularly children

People are focussing too much on a sub set even though it was worse in many ways.

Re pp anyone going on about people ‘banging on’ god that is irritating. This thread seems good at not involving all that old hat language.

Thoughtful posts by most.

@Emergency73

I don’t know in detail what Chris Whitty has said, but I have great respect for him. So as an individual - yes. But surely there is not a great disparity between what he says - and the consensus guidance you’d get by looking at NHS guidelines?

I do think it’s such a vital conversation to have, because we absolutely need to learn how to deal with a similar situation in the future, to deal with it better, and to minimise the impact on children’s needs.

No one wants a lockdown, they are harmful - and it should have been managed better. But I think it was necessary as an emergency measure when Covid was out of control.

Plus it completely ignores the reality of the harms. Which Chris Whitty understood and communicated even if many didn’t listen to that part.

Not sure how I quoted you again Emergency that was just meant to be posted alone

One of the real gaps in all of this was, I think, in terms of the public discourse.

What rules are chosen to come into play are, being rules, going to be rather one sided. Wear masks inside public spaces. Wait seven days after you test positive to stop isolating. Stand six feet apart. Close all hair salons. Etc.

But that is quite different to having a robust discussion in the media, or among regulatory bodies, or in legislative bodies, about what would be best and what might be problematic.

Including, and maybe especially including, for reasons like invasion of civil liberties.

This absolutely has to happen in order to bring the population along and create something like a consensus, or at least a willingness to go along with what most think is best.

As someone who had some serious and specific concerns about civil liberties the thing that worried me more than anything else in the end was the dismissal by many people, including my political leaders, of the idea that this was something that could be relevant or should be talked about openly. So there we were shitting down two of the most basic civil liberties in our constitution - the right to free movement within the country and the right to gather with whomever we wish - and somehow that was not a concern? Very scary stuff.

The whole of the public discourse in the established media, including the government funded national broadcaster, was that those kinds of discussions were not on. Questioning vaccine mandates was an "anti-vaxx" statement. Wanting to look at masking effects was questioning the scientific consensus. Pointing out that civil liberties organizations were concerned was not caring about people's grannies.

This really caused a lot of social division and I suspect ultimately may have huge destructive effects socially even once we are past covid.

Ha - should be "shutting down" though shitting down maybe is just as accurate.

S’ok! @MarshaBradyo

Agree this is a good thread. Good posts.

Feels slightly like the dust is settling and maybe people are a bit less angsty. At least for now.

Think if we can all come together with all our different viewpoints for the common good - that’s the best way to move forward from this.

@MangyInseam

One of the real gaps in all of this was, I think, in terms of the public discourse.

What rules are chosen to come into play are, being rules, going to be rather one sided. Wear masks inside public spaces. Wait seven days after you test positive to stop isolating. Stand six feet apart. Close all hair salons. Etc.

But that is quite different to having a robust discussion in the media, or among regulatory bodies, or in legislative bodies, about what would be best and what might be problematic.

Including, and maybe especially including, for reasons like invasion of civil liberties.

This absolutely has to happen in order to bring the population along and create something like a consensus, or at least a willingness to go along with what most think is best.

As someone who had some serious and specific concerns about civil liberties the thing that worried me more than anything else in the end was the dismissal by many people, including my political leaders, of the idea that this was something that could be relevant or should be talked about openly. So there we were shitting down two of the most basic civil liberties in our constitution - the right to free movement within the country and the right to gather with whomever we wish - and somehow that was not a concern? Very scary stuff.

The whole of the public discourse in the established media, including the government funded national broadcaster, was that those kinds of discussions were not on. Questioning vaccine mandates was an "anti-vaxx" statement. Wanting to look at masking effects was questioning the scientific consensus. Pointing out that civil liberties organizations were concerned was not caring about people's grannies.

This really caused a lot of social division and I suspect ultimately may have huge destructive effects socially even once we are past covid.

Very good post

I don’t want this thread to go the same way as so much of the site where there are attempts to shut down conversation.

We need to be able talk about it without the usual insults, if pp find it’s too annoying a debate there are other threads to post on.

@noblegiraffe

indeed people who consider that it was definitely the right decision should be willing to own the reality that school closures did cause harm and that this harm was foreseeable.

And was acknowledged and attempts were made to mitigate, which is something that is often overlooked. It is wrong and insulting to say (not you) that 'scared adults' turned a 'blind eye' for their own protection. Schools bust a gut to feed hungry kids, going around delivering food when the govt had forgotten that FSM were even a thing. Efforts were also made for the vulnerable kids. Some who weren't in school were being phoned every day. I was phoning my tutor group weekly, and counselling anxious kids whose exams had been cancelled and their life thrown in the air through a pandemic was certainly something I never trained for. There was a lot of anxiety caused by returning to school too. People who bang on about what's 'best for the kids' often don't seem to have that much contact with them or awareness about the conditions in schools that means that 'schools open' isn't the panacea for all ills or bastion of educational excellence they might like to think it is.

Acknowledged, was it? Can you please link us to examples of people who were advocating for and supporting lockdown and school closures whilst acknowledging that this would inevitably harm children, particularly vulnerable ones, but that this was acceptable? Because some of us saying that didn't happen enough is the subdiscussion you've taken objection to.

The attempts to make some provision for vulnerable children, to mitigate the effects, are laudable but you cannot possibly think they actually prevented the problems. They couldn't possibly have done, given that they by definition could only have assisted those children whose problems were visible. This isn't a criticism of schools or teachers either, it's not like individual teachers were in any position to influence policy.

Acknowledged, was it? Can you please link us to examples of people who were advocating for and supporting lockdown and school closures whilst acknowledging that this would inevitably harm children, particularly vulnerable ones, but that this was acceptable? Because some of us saying that didn't happen enough is the subdiscussion you've taken objection to.

I don't know who was saying what in March 2020, lockdowns and school closures seemed rather inevitable given what was going on in the rest of the world. However, I know those conversations were happening at a school level and they must have been happening at a higher level because schools were never fully closed. Surely the fact that schools never fully closed unlike in other countries is evidence enough that there was an acknowledgement that school closures would be bad for those children.

They couldn't possibly have done, given that they by definition could only have assisted those children whose problems were visible

As I also said, attempts were made to talk to every child in my school on a weekly basis.

No, school closures were not good for kids, but the idea that there was some solution where schools remained open and those problems would be solved and other problems wouldn't be created just isn't there.

I've got a Y13 who caught covid at school, now has long covid. Exams probably fucked. I know terrible stories about kids taking home covid to a parent who then died. Opening schools in a pandemic isn't risk free for kids either. Both options have costs.

I think the Govt ballsed up by acting too slowly in March 2020 and Nov/Dec2020 so the situation in terms of deaths / lockdown was worse and longer than it needed to be. The scientists were correct then about the scale / seriousness of a new disease which we did not have medical intervention for.

From summer 2021 onwards thanks to the scientists the vaccinations were in play & the situation was much improved.

Beyond that yes the medics & scientists were cautious as although they knew vaccination would work, it was as yet unascertained quite how well it would work. The NHS has had a dire 18months and were worried about being swamped again. They were right Omicron spread fast, it was fortunate it was not more serious & the booster push worked.

So no-one got it wholly spot-on but I'd still listen to the scientists should another varient or another novel virus come along. I certainly wouldn't pooh pooh them.

@CakeAmbushAlert

I think the Govt ballsed up by acting too slowly in March 2020 and Nov/Dec2020 so the situation in terms of deaths / lockdown was worse and longer than it needed to be. The scientists were correct then about the scale / seriousness of a new disease which we did not have medical intervention for.

From summer 2021 onwards thanks to the scientists the vaccinations were in play & the situation was much improved.

Beyond that yes the medics & scientists were cautious as although they knew vaccination would work, it was as yet unascertained quite how well it would work. The NHS has had a dire 18months and were worried about being swamped again. They were right Omicron spread fast, it was fortunate it was not more serious & the booster push worked.

So no-one got it wholly spot-on but I'd still listen to the scientists should another varient or another novel virus come along. I certainly wouldn't pooh pooh them.

If you listen to interviews on this and look at SAGE minutes from Feb 2020 it wasn’t actually advised to lockdown earlier.

The numbers were out and iirc there was about a week to get a lockdown together.

It’s surprising as it became accepted that the scientists said lockdown earlier but SAGE minutes show a different situation.

I’d also like to know re the peak in SE if that was before lockdown and how if we were late why did the N suffer longer restrictions as they did lockdown earlier on their curve.

It did go on a long time though and things, eg schools, should have opened earlier.

Schools should have opened in a way that meant they didn't end up closing again.

*Modelling is not prediction.

If you’re looking at a model and thinking.”That prediction is wrong”, you’ve fundamentally misunderstood the science.*

Lots of policy has been based around modelling.

Modelling isn't science it's guesswork educated guess work but guesswork nonetheless.

Fergussen is a hack and should have disappeared into a hole but has no shame and refuses to

@MarshaBradyo The report by the Health and Social Care Committee and the Science and Technology Committee (and MPs from all parties) says the late lockdown in early 2020 "ranks as one of the most important public health failures" the UK has ever had

This is why we need the full inquiry. To learn lessons.
True in February 2020 SAGE wasn't saying to lockdown and it seems
there was an idea that they had to postpone acting based on incorrect concerns over behaviour fatigue

Covid-19: Was the decision to delay the UK’s lockdown over fears of “behavioural fatigue” based on evidence?
www.bmj.com/content/370/bmj.m3166

but the Govt did drag their heels in March2020

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/apr/15/uk-government-coronavirus-science-who-advice

Winter 2020 - The country was running out of capacity of intensive care beds in Jan2021 - over 4000 people on ventilators - there's no doubt they had to do something to keep the NHS open

I think they'd been so stung by the death toll / hospitalisations in March 20 & Jan21 that they dragged their heels over lifting restrictions & that could have happened faster. Especially now we know they were partying in Downing Street while the rest of us were homeschooling, homeworking & missing seing family & friends.

Back at the beginning public health people were really looking at the covid approach very differently.

The conventional wisdom is that measures could be brought in, but people would only be compliant for quite a short time - something like six weeks.

So there was a widespread feeling that to a large extent, we were simply going to have to live with the effects of the pandemic. And secondly, that it was really important not to jump the gun with measures because if they started to early it was just eating into that six week period.

If you listen to interviews on this and look at SAGE minutes from Feb 2020 it wasn’t actually advised to lockdown earlier.

Yes, while Boris was an absolute disgrace in early 2020, it wasn't the case that all his scientific advisors were advocating lockdown in late Feb/early March 2020 but were ignored. For example, I distinctly remember watching this interview with Graham Medley (head of Sage's modelling team) at the time. It was recorded on 12 March 2020 and was still putting forward the idea of herd immunity but also considers some of the nuances of the decisions the government had to make at that time.

m.youtube.com/watch?v=blkDulsgh3Q

@noblegiraffe

Acknowledged, was it? Can you please link us to examples of people who were advocating for and supporting lockdown and school closures whilst acknowledging that this would inevitably harm children, particularly vulnerable ones, but that this was acceptable? Because some of us saying that didn't happen enough is the subdiscussion you've taken objection to.

I don't know who was saying what in March 2020, lockdowns and school closures seemed rather inevitable given what was going on in the rest of the world. However, I know those conversations were happening at a school level and they must have been happening at a higher level because schools were never fully closed. Surely the fact that schools never fully closed unlike in other countries is evidence enough that there was an acknowledgement that school closures would be bad for those children.

They couldn't possibly have done, given that they by definition could only have assisted those children whose problems were visible

As I also said, attempts were made to talk to every child in my school on a weekly basis.

No, school closures were not good for kids, but the idea that there was some solution where schools remained open and those problems would be solved and other problems wouldn't be created just isn't there.

I've got a Y13 who caught covid at school, now has long covid. Exams probably fucked. I know terrible stories about kids taking home covid to a parent who then died. Opening schools in a pandemic isn't risk free for kids either. Both options have costs.

Right, so despite the fact that you waded into a discussion about how this acknowledgement wasn't happening enough and told us that it was, actually you have no examples, just a feeling in your waters? Glad that's clear.

Once again, you need to understand that the fact that some provision was made doesn't in any way shape or form mean that those making the decisions didn't understand that lockdown and school closures were throwing lots of vulnerable children under the bus. That is literally all that is being said here, and will not be changed by any attempts to muddy the waters or make things up. As for your school, the idea that this was not only being done everywhere but was remotely sufficient is just plain laughable.

So once again: it was clear in March 2020 that school closures would have an awful effect on children, no hindsight or previous experience was needed for that to be obvious, but there wasn't enough acknowledgement of this. That will need to keep being said for as long as there are people who don't want to hear it.

Do you recall the news reports in the early days that there might need to be a lockdown but it was “too early” to do it yet? I suppose that must have been the herd immunity strategy in action.

just a feeling in your waters?

And the fact that schools remained open to vulnerable children, in acknowledgement of the fact that they needed to be in school?

Why are you ignoring actions and asking instead for mere words?

I’m not saying it was enough to prevent problems and I’m not saying that there weren’t major problems in implementation. But when the alternative (keeping schools open) was also shit, for very, very many reasons, what exactly did you want to happen?

Will you acknowledge that keeping schools open would have also been extremely shit, caused problems for children, including those vulnerable in other ways and still wouldn’t not have fixed the problem of kids in abusive homes?

‘Would not have fixed’ that should be.

Lots of demands to acknowledge that closing schools was bad. Not much acknowledgement that keeping them open was also a bad option. Or that now they are open, massive issues remain.