Have people's opinions changed?

[MassiveOverthinker]

Just wondering really, if the last few months have changed people's opinion on how we managed covid in this country.

Anyone wondering if maybe fewer restrictions would've been better and if more draconian ones (often called for) were unnecessary. Anyone wondering if we needed to close schools, swab and isolate our kids, test and trace etc etc.

Or do people generally feel we did what was necessary at the time and are only okayish now because of weaker variants and higher vaccination levels?

Anyone feel less angry at the rule breakers, those who don't want to be vaccinated etc?

If it all happened again, do you think your response to restrictions would be the same, or would you be a bit more inclined to think "sod that for a laugh".

(Asking for a friend).

@AppleandRhubarbTart I think you are fundamentally not understanding the philosophical principle I'm applying here.

My interests are irrelevant. It's about the amount of harm caused. While that is difficult to quantify in absolutes, we can use deaths as a measure, and lockdown deaths do not even begin to compare to Covid deaths. And that is with restrictions in place.

Also, I think it's a bit ridiculous to insist that being pro restrictions in general is selfish, when as I have clearly explained, many facets of restriction/lockdown life were personally irrelevant to me in both directions. I have already spent months to years of my life in near lockdown conditions (housebound or near bedbound) owing to disability, and accept that my perspective is radically different as a result.

However, I am still human and perfectly capable of forming an opinion and holding a moral stance on how society should handle a calamitous event.

"Little gang who want no restrictions"

This another tactic besides "selfish" which was used with abandon through 2020 and early 2021 - to try and make those who were concerned about the overall effect of restrictions feel isolated, that they were exhibiting some kind of moral failing compared to decent, unselfish people.

Sorry that it no longer works Innocenta.

I'm truly sorry that you suffer from ill health but I do not accept that means everyone else is selfish if they refuse to put you first in their own lives.

And you still haven't explained why Covid/pandemic deaths are worse than non Covid deaths.

So lockdowns didn't affect you basically. Actually that matters hugely. You didn't lose your job or livelihood, or have to homeschool children around working from home.

While that is difficult to quantify in absolutes, we can use deaths as a measure

Deaths aren't the only measure. Not by a long chalk.

It is and will remain difficult to have these conversations because covid killed quickly whereas the effects of lockdowns have multiple and complex outcomes which we won't fully appreciate for many years.

How can we even start to quantify the effects of disrupted education, lack of exercise, social isolation, lack of external safeguarding, increased poverty for children whose prospects weren't great to begin with? It may be not be fully apparent for years and years, but the cumulative effect of all of this is likely to be very significant.

And it's also true that - and I'm not saying their lives don't matter - huge numbers of Covid deaths would have happened anyway during this period, whatever was written on their death certificate. It seems to make some people very angry when they are reminded that no one can live forever. I remember a poster insisting that her 82 year old father with Alzheimer's could have 10-20 years more of healthy life, so she was all for restrictions to keep him "safe". Safe from what?

Again, please no accusations of "oh so old people don't matter then?". As I mentioned before, my dad died at 74 from Alzheimer's, though it was a cold which finished him off.

And it's also true that - and I'm not saying their lives don't matter - huge numbers of Covid deaths would have happened anyway during this period

True.

I often wonder how many covid deaths would have been dementia deaths in the next 2/3 years and if that would actually be a better outcome? It's not really possible to talk about this either however.

Not worse. More.

And more is worse, because we should aim for less, because what we are talking about is human suffering.

@TheKeatingFive Yes, I agree that deaths are a very blunt and limited measure. I don't think they capture everything, but the anti restriction view is fundamentally not honest about the number of deaths nor the impact of the deaths.

I don't deny for a moment all the other negative impacts, but I'd like to see the anti restriction side stop downplaying and evading the massive death toll and its impacts.

@Waxonwaxoff0 So lockdowns didn't affect you basically. Actually that matters hugely. You didn't lose your job or livelihood, or have to homeschool children around working from home.

Of course they affected me. I have mentioned some of the ways they did on a couple of recent Covid threads - in less common ways, but I was certainly affected. It's very narrow minded of you to assume that not sharing those terrible experiences = not affected. You have a problem with me being honest about the ways in which my pandemic experience was unusual? When I truthfully recount how my Covid experiences differ, you assume that means everything was fine.

I don't deny for a moment all the other negative impacts, but I'd like to see the anti restriction side stop downplaying and evading the massive death toll and its impacts.

I think the best way to balance the discussion would be to start quantifying and understanding the impacts of the measures taken as a starting point. At least then we can actually have a debate.

Because really, we were asked to pretend that the negatives consequences of lockdown didn't exist and those questioning that position were shouted down. We need to understand this better if we're ever in the same position again.

Surely it’s not a case of pandemic/covid deaths are worse - death is death. In terms of a scenario when deaths are caused, triggered, hastened by an infectious element those deaths are more concerning because they indicate further deaths will occur at a similar rate alongside corresponding rising rates of serious, but recoverable illness.

it’s not that any death is more important than another, it comes down to resource and the impact on availability for everything which affects the standard of care. That ultimately leaves maths not emotion as the decider I suppose.

But this is a (bizarre) tactic that I am familiar with from your side... the suggestion that anyone wants to be individually 'put first'-!

Nothing in any of my arguments suggests that, and numerous points I've made, in fact, specifically disprove it. It's not an argument, it's just a rhetorical flourish.

The problem with your argument here is that you don't understand how little value it has when it's based on assumptions. The pandemic hasn't even finished yet. You sound ridiculous when you claim to be able to assess whether deaths due to lockdown are higher than deaths due to covid would be had we not locked down. You simply don't know.

What you are doing here is making a value judgement that deaths and suffering due to covid should be accorded more importance than deaths and suffering due to restrictions. A selfish one. That's all it is. Your own interests, far from being irrelevant, are right at the centre of this. Your selfishness is normal and understandable but it is not better than other people's selfishness.

@TheKeatingFive But if those impacts can't be quantified in the short term, what do we do? For example I doubt we can really know what the harm to children deprived of schooling in early years truly consists of until several years down the line, comparing their attainment with other cohorts.

But if those impacts can't be quantified in the short term, what do we do?

We need to attempt it. Modelling and predictive work is done for all kinds of scenarios. While this is complex, it's disingenuous to do what we've done so far and not attempt it because it's hard.

@AppleandRhubarbTart The problem with your argument here is that you don't understand how little value it has when it's based on assumptions. The pandemic hasn't even finished yet. You sound ridiculous when you claim to be able to assess whether deaths due to lockdown are higher than deaths due to covid would be had we not locked down. You simply don't know.

What you are doing here is making a value judgement that deaths and suffering due to covid should be accorded more importance than deaths and suffering due to restrictions. A selfish one. That's all it is. Your own interests, far from being irrelevant, are right at the centre of this. Your selfishness is normal and understandable but it is not better than other people's selfishness.

You can evaluate per year or per six months. The pandemic doesn't have to be over to have a sense of its death toll; that's an utterly ridiculous quibble.

If your only argument is gabbling that I'm selfish over and over again because you can't engage with what I'm actually saying... Well. It's not much of one. Nothing in my argument values one death above another: I have been quite clear all along that the issue is the number of deaths as a blunt proxy for total suffering. If you have actually successfully evaded all coverage of the human impact of Covid deaths, then I think that reflects very poorly on you.

Quite. And this is why, although it's understandable that people who have been told their selfishness is better than other people's selfishness struggle when corrected, that discussion needs to keep happening.

While the UK isn't going to be locking down again in this pandemic, there'll be pandemics in the future. It's vital we understand as best as possible that restrictions aren't a free lunch, that there is a cost to be paid and that these are public health decisions that require a balance of risks and benefits. That's not really happened in the past two years. Maybe over the last few months, but certainly not initially.

So we've got to do better, as a society, than bleating about granny killers. If lockdowns and restrictions are justified, they're justified because of a cold headed decision involving weighing up all relevant factors. Because the harm done, including deaths, is less than the harm done by taking any other path. Not because the people who are in favour of them shout how very dare you the loudest.

@TheKeatingFive I agree! I would welcome any data for this, wholeheartedly.

I think the not sitting down thing was Mumsnet only. Ditto the no touching the gate latch rule.

No I want you to justify your use of the belittling phrase "little gang" when you're referring to the enormous part of the population who have become increasingly aware of the catastrophic effects of restrictions on themselves, their families, the economy and the economy.

@AppleandRhubarbTart Quite. And this is why, although it's understandable that people who have been told their selfishness is better than other people's selfishness struggle when corrected, that discussion needs to keep happening.

While the UK isn't going to be locking down again in this pandemic, there'll be pandemics in the future. It's vital we understand as best as possible that restrictions aren't a free lunch, that there is a cost to be paid and that these are public health decisions that require a balance of risks and benefits. That's not really happened in the past two years. Maybe over the last few months, but certainly not initially.

So we've got to do better, as a society, than bleating about granny killers. If lockdowns and restrictions are justified, they're justified because of a cold headed decision involving weighing up all relevant factors. Because the harm done, including deaths, is less than the harm done by taking any other path. Not because the people who are in favour of them shout how very dare you the loudest.

Again, you don't have any arguments: all you are doing is calling anyone you disagree with selfish. It isn't as quelling as you think, I'm afraid.

Dear lord the irony 😱

@HesterShaw1 No I want you to justify your use of the belittling phrase "little gang" when you're referring to the enormous part of the population who have become increasingly aware of the catastrophic effects of restrictions on themselves, their families, the economy and the economy.

I'm alluding to the cringeworthy coterie of anti scientific posters on this board. Very comfortable with my terminology, thanks.