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?

But its invisible. And that made it easier to ignore. Abused children don't have a platform to advocate for themselves.

Scared adults were happy to turn a blind eye to a certain extent.

And I was pointing out that on the ground plenty of work was being done rather than a blind eye being turned.

And “what was the alternative?” is a perfectly valid question.

@noblegiraffe

But its invisible. And that made it easier to ignore. Abused children don't have a platform to advocate for themselves.

Scared adults were happy to turn a blind eye to a certain extent.

And I was pointing out that on the ground plenty of work was being done rather than a blind eye being turned.

And this didn't and still doesn't refute the point that was made.

It continues to be the case that we knew the impact that school closures would have without requiring previous experience of this, because it was clear there'd be problems for vulnerable children denied the protection of routines and school, and that this wasn't acknowledged.

You telling us about the things that were done for a small group of children, those not in this group, cannot be relevant. Nor are your derailment attempts, demands, inventions or strawmen. You could've just done a better job at reading in the first place and saved yourself all this...

So we agree it was shit but you have no suggestion for what should have happened re schools instead.

Ok.

@noblegiraffe

So we agree it was shit but you have no suggestion for what should have happened re schools instead.

Ok.

Nope. What we're talking about here is whether it was acknowledged at the time that we knew how bad things would be.

I, on the side of reality, correctly state that it wasn't, even though we did. You, having failed to read properly but seeing something you didn't like and found threatening, waded in with some things you've made up and some irrelevances.

You appear to have realised your error now, which is why you're trying to get back to your autopilot nobody can say anything at all about the negatives of lockdown unless they set out a full alternative plan, despite the fact that we are nowhere near having all the information we'd need to assess which was the lesser of the two evils.

It's a pernicious, entitled thing you insist on doing, and you're not going to make this discussion about it. It's about what was known at the time and how much it was acknowledged, whatever reasons you might have for not wanting that spelled out.

Interesting analysis on More Or Less today (radio 4) exploring whether lockdowns made any difference and saved any lives.

Plenty of analysis says lockdowns were useless at preventing covid deaths and have caused many other deaths.

This aspect of ‘the science’ is losing credibility.

Is that the Johns Hopkins study? The one that weeded out all the scientific evidence/came from an economic perspective and has been widely criticised by the scientific community?

www.medpagetoday.com/special-reports/exclusives/97056

Thing is there will be ‘plenty of analysis’ that lockdowns prevented deaths, and ‘plenty of analysis’ that they didn’t.

And that will largely depend on whether the study you read comes from an economic perspective or a scientific perspective.

And if you are going to disagree with ‘the science’ I would suggest it’s because you are favouring more ‘the economics’.
And I don’t think either are ‘wrong’ as such, they interplay.

@LyricalBlowToTheJaw

re vulnerable children and schools

• schools were open through lockdowns for some children, including children of keyworkers and ones known to be vulnerable

• most deaths of vulnerable children would have happened anyway (looking at the previous figures)

• some other common causes of child deaths decreased during lockdown

• other courses of action could have included keeping schools open in as safe a way as possible, with some flexibility for vulnerable children and families, and lots of us would have liked that

• it is a great shame that we lost in person exams IMO

@Emergency73

And that will largely depend on whether the study you read comes from an economic perspective or a scientific perspective. And if you are going to disagree with ‘the science’ I would suggest it’s because you are favouring more ‘the economics’. And I don’t think either are ‘wrong’ as such, they interplay.

More or Less is a programme on Radio 4 which has been very useful in terms of analysis of data

There’s a few I’d like to catch up on as they cover much of what was used as messaging for compliance - eg high numbers and looking at those

Perhaps the best scientific analysis takes into account the economics (which I think was your opinion of C. Whitty).

And the best economic analysis ALSO addresses the science (rather than ‘weeding it out’).

@Emergency73

Perhaps the best scientific analysis takes into account the economics (which I think was your opinion of C. Whitty).

And the best economic analysis ALSO addresses the science (rather than ‘weeding it out’).

I haven’t listened to the one Fly mentioned but generally they take a headline and do statistical analysis re data

It’s been a really good way to look at the numbers without the emotive element - which was used mostly for compliance but also click bait

Yes agreed @MarshaBradyo - but they clearly said they were discussing one study, this isn't a robust review of all the available publications, including assessment of quality, which is the gold standard in terms of evidence synthesis.

As a PP has said, there are numerous issues with the methodology of the one discussed which have been outlined by various scientists.

We know that suppression measures were necessary, we know that they will have also contributed to other harms. Anyone stating a cut and dry "lockdowns caused more deaths than lives saved" isn't talking from a knowledgeable nor bias free perspective.

Plenty of analysis says lockdowns were useless at preventing covid deaths and have caused many other deaths.

Such as this statement here- it's entirely untrue but not unexpected from @Flyonawalk

We know that lockdowns prevented COVID deaths by reducing infection rates, viral load people were exposed to, and delaying infection until post-vaccination. We know that lockdowns prevented non-COVID deaths by reducing the burden on healthcare, allowing people get treatment for other health emergencies, which would not have been possible otherwise.

This does not mean that suppression measures didn't cause other harms.

@leafyygreens

Yes agreed *@MarshaBradyo* - but they clearly said they were discussing one study, this isn't a robust review of all the available publications, including assessment of quality, which is the gold standard in terms of evidence synthesis.

As a PP has said, there are numerous issues with the methodology of the one discussed which have been outlined by various scientists.

We know that suppression measures were necessary, we know that they will have also contributed to other harms. Anyone stating a cut and dry "lockdowns caused more deaths than lives saved" isn't talking from a knowledgeable nor bias free perspective.

I think it’s fine to analyse one study, or one headline etc, as that is the premise of the programme

They use data and insight to determine whether there is a basis to the claim - drawing from wider knowledge and data

Did they come to a conclusion? I’ll have to listen to it and the one on child related data

I am expecting more and more frantic justification from lockdown zealots as we count the costs, economic and social.

It will be interesting to see the report on Covid in Sweden. They kept schools open for 6-16 year olds.

@Flyonawalk

Interesting analysis on More Or Less today (radio 4) exploring whether lockdowns made any difference and saved any lives.

Plenty of analysis says lockdowns were useless at preventing covid deaths and have caused many other deaths.

This aspect of ‘the science’ is losing credibility.

Actually you're wrong. Lockdowns did precisely what they are intended to do from a science perspective, which was to lessen spread, reduce pressure on the NHS and give us time for the development of robust vaccines. That 's the science.

Whether all that was worth it at the cost to people's mental health, the economy, our freedoms, the education of our children and university students, well that is a VERY good question. There is plenty of evidence to suggest not.

But that is a policy decision, not a scientific one. However much our politicians claimed to be 'following the science', decisions of a wider nature like this which encompass all aspects of a functioning society need to be laid at the feet of the policy-makers and politicians, not the scientists.

@amicissimma

It will be interesting to see the report on Covid in Sweden. They kept schools open for 6-16 year olds.

I've just been reading a summary...Sweden's inquiry has concluded that they were right to keep schools open for the duration of the pandemic ,I strongly agree we should have prioritised schools. I hear some people arguing on this thread that services for vulnerable children were provided/maintained - this may be the case for kids that were already known/in the system but they continually ignore the fact that many children became vulnerable only as a result of the lockdowns. My own child included and we couldn't access the support that we needed (finally got a CAMHS assessment 11 months after the event for an issue that did not exist prior to lockdown). Provision by schools was utterly dependent on what a particular school decided to provide/was able to provide so some children had excellent provision and some children the exact opposite.

I've just been reading a summary...Sweden's inquiry has concluded that they were right to keep schools open for the duration of the pandemic ,I strongly agree we should have prioritised schools.

S1 I’m pleased to read this and agree with this and the rest of your post.

Children as a group were subject to harms from lockdowns - so as a society the question should be asked did we get the balance right. I think Sweden did, we didn’t and places like Chicago definitely did not. And it’s easy to slide into the latter if the most powerful voices are adult centric and fear based.

Children as a group were subject to harms from lockdowns - so as a society the question should be asked did we get the balance right. I think Sweden did, we didn’t and places like Chicago definitely did not. And it’s easy to slide into the latter if the most powerful voices are adult centric and fear based.

I very strongly agree with this.

I absolutely agree we should have prioritised education more (and I strongly think we should have done before the pandemic too, funding in secondary schools has substantially fallen in the past 10 years).

However, I don't think this should have involved pretending there wasn't a pandemic and carrying on as if nothing were different.

@amicissimma

It will be interesting to see the report on Covid in Sweden. They kept schools open for 6-16 year olds.

...and are very different in demographics to the UK.

And it’s easy to slide into the latter if the most powerful voices are adult centric and fear based.

Yes. And that's why it's so important that we're able to be clear about what actually happened, regardless of our view on the legitimacy of lockdown or even whether we have a view at all.