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).

Your entire view values some deaths over others. You're doing it again here, with your idea that deaths caused by a particular approach to covid during a particular point in the pandemic are somehow of more importance than deaths caused by a particular approach later in the pandemic or after it finishes. By all means make calls at particular points, say this is what we know so far, that's fine. It is not a substitute for looking at the whole picture.

Your assumptions are not shared by other people and they don't have any intrinsic value simply because you hold them, your priorities are not universal and the groups you favour are not more important than the groups you don't. Your selfishness is the same as other people's.

It's the economy stupid. So important I said it twice

It is rather ironic that now restrictions are lifted, you're all still here on the Covid forum complaining about them! We know why I'm inside, on the internet... but you guys have no excuse. Shouldn't you be out taking advantage of having Your Freedom back?

Don't be so obtuse and ridiculous. Do you think the effects of restrictions vanish the moment they are lifted?

Never mind kids, it's all over now

@AppleandRhubarbTart Your entire view values some deaths over others. You're doing it again here, with your idea that deaths caused by a particular approach to covid during a particular point in the pandemic are somehow of more importance than deaths caused by a particular approach later in the pandemic or after it finishes. By all means make calls at particular points, say this is what we know so far, that's fine. It is not a substitute for looking at the whole picture.

Your assumptions are not shared by other people and they don't have any intrinsic value simply because you hold them, your priorities are not universal and the groups you favour are not more important than the groups you don't. Your selfishness is the same as other people's.

Again, you are fundamentally failing to grasp the philosophical principles underlying my argument. I don't favour any groups. Egalitarianism is key to my entire mindset. There's very little point in trying to take you through it again when I've already done so a couple of times.

Are you not allowed to go outside?

What you actually mean here is that you don't like my arguments and find them inconvenient. I'm not particularly bothered about whether those who have the most significant barriers in the way of being able to understand their own selfishness are able to overcome them on an individual level or not, what's more important is this discussion happening at a societal level. You will however be met with things you'd rather not be met with if you indulge yourself with selfish, granny killer type rhetoric so do be aware of that going forward.

Or were you just on a quest for a withering put down?

Your arguments are not egalitarian. They fundamentally involve prioritising some groups over others and a refusal to consider the position of others. This is a fact. You have written as much.

Not awfully sure what point you are making

I thought we were talking about whether the restrictions we lived under and they huge damage they did were justified.

What are you talking about?

@HesterShaw1 People who oppose the treaty already being smeared as anti vaxers twitter.com/BillyKelleherEU/status/1526180673786105857?s=20&t=VjvmTm8tpSPhLN9IvL9gPw

ive had the vaccines but oppose it. If after having the vaccines im still classed as an anti vaxer i guess my child free by choice status must mean im also a mother!!!!!! They cant see how ridiculous they sound

People who oppose the treaty already being smeared as anti vaxers twitter.com/BillyKelleherEU/status/1526180673786105857?s=20&t=VjvmTm8tpSPhLN9IvL9gPw

How depressingly predictable.

@HesterShaw1 I think my point was clear:

It is rather ironic that now restrictions are lifted, you're all still here on the Covid forum complaining about them! We know why I'm inside, on the internet... but you guys have no excuse. Shouldn't you be out taking advantage of having Your Freedom back?

@AppleandRhubarbTart Your arguments are not egalitarian. They fundamentally involve prioritising some groups over others and a refusal to consider the position of others. This is a fact. You have written as much.

You misunderstanding my argument doesn't actually affect what my argument is, I'm afraid! Just as you dubbing it 'not egalitarian' has no effect on its actual ethical aspects.

Suggest reading a bit of philosophy if you want to chat ethics.

@AppleandRhubarbTart What you actually mean here is that you don't like my arguments and find them inconvenient. I'm not particularly bothered about whether those who have the most significant barriers in the way of being able to understand their own selfishness are able to overcome them on an individual level or not, what's more important is this discussion happening at a societal level. You will however be met with things you'd rather not be met with if you indulge yourself with selfish, granny killer type rhetoric so do be aware of that going forward.

...No, I mean you haven't got any arguments. That's why you never make any real attempt to rebut or engage with anything I say.

You saying 'I'm afraid' doesn't make something true. Honestly, that's rather played out even when it's being said by someone who's got a good enough command of the subject to pull off being patronising. When it's said by someone who doesn't, as here, it's just cringeworthy.

Back to the subject: people can see what you have written and judge your arguments by that. They can read about which groups you prioritised and which deaths you think are more important. Your inability to understand or admit to your own selfishness doesn't make any difference to that, because your assessment of yourself isn't going to be very determinative for most people.

No it really wasn't clear. It was an amusing attempt to ridicule me. No one is arguing that that we are not allowed outside now. I am capable of having more than one thought at once - I can take advantage of my current "freedoms" (aka "life") while still being aghast at what was happening this time two years ago, and the fact that we will be paying for it in many ways for a very long time indeed.

Time and again throughout this pandemic on MN, we have had posters like yourself simply trying to shoot down the points made by people who have differing opinions with wannabe "gotcha" moments.

@AppleandRhubarbTart Nothing you say alters the fact that you haven't understood my argument. All you're doing is hurling cheap insults and wasting my time. If you're unwilling to inform yourself sufficiently to understand what I'm saying, then I can't help you.

My argument is actually perfectly clear to anyone who approaches it in good faith.

It really isn't that hard: the basic principle that reducing human suffering is desirable.

Therefore that a deadly novel pathogen rapidly mounting to pandemic level should be suppressed where possible.

Therefore that we should, also, seek to reduce excess death (above usual death rates) where possible. (Bearing in mind that excess death is not a factor that begins and ends with the death itself, but also brings mental health damage for survivors, financial impacts, lost intellects, etc.)

Net human suffering is lower when we can reduce excess death during a global pandemic. Therefore it is ethical to reduce the death rate as much as we can.

This argument is grounded in logic; the speaker (or typist) of the argument could be twenty, thirty, sixty or eighty years old. Man or woman. Thin or fat. It is entirely the reader's choice to impute and imagine personal motive. The principle is sound. Someone may validly disagree with it! But no one has actually argued with it, not yet.

@HesterShaw1 Time and again throughout this pandemic on MN, we have had posters like yourself simply trying to shoot down the points made by people who have differing opinions with wannabe "gotcha" moments.

I only signed up on MN late last year, so I haven't seen the earlier Covid threads. I think it's unlikely we would agree about them, frankly!

Re: your current freedoms / 'life'. I wasn't wholly joking. I do honestly find it a little bit weird that people for whom the Covid restrictions clearly are an upsetting topic still want to focus on them now that they're lifted. For me, the interest is chiefly ethical/philosophical, but the reason why I'm here is because I am in bed 99% of the time. I have a lot of time to fill because I basically always feel crap, and MN is a distraction. I was obviously using a teasing tone, yes, but I also feel like if my health was better and it was safe to go out, and I was well enough... I don't think I'd want to be here! I'm not saying you can't, it's obviously up to you, I'm just a bit surprised/curious.

You can't help because you lack sufficient insight into your own behaviour and selfishness. That's not all your fault, there's a wider cultural context that's encouraged you. It's fine though, this discussion is important regardless. And it'll keep being had every time you or anyone else trots out the selfish granny killer line.

The principle that the option causing the least suffering is the best one is right. You start from the correct premise. But it requires us to actually acknowledge all the suffering that results from each option available to us. That is, from the harms caused by lockdown and restrictions as well as the harms caused by not having them. If we refuse to do that, as you have done, any conclusions drawn will be worthless.

And you're not understanding that your statement Therefore that a deadly novel pathogen rapidly mounting to pandemic level should be suppressed where possible is making people ask at what cost?

Sure, it is desirable to suppress Covid if possible. But we have found through experience that measures to suppress Covid so that it stops circulating are not justified. Their harms overall outweigh their benefits.

Obviously everyone would like it if Covid went away. However short of totally isolating the entire world at the same time, then it won't. And we can't do that.

But we have found through experience that measures to suppress Covid so that it stops circulating are not justified. Their harms overall outweigh their benefit

Have we found that? I would argue that vaccines were developed alongside a slightly milder strain replaced the need for restrictions over deciding that covid suppression wasn’t worth it. Given the pressure that remains consistent on the health service I’m not sure that restrictions and suppression wouldn’t remain today.

If vaccines stopped working tomorrow or had never been developed I’m not entirely sure what the UK would look like today and in truth there is no definitive answer to that either.

How would we be paying for it?

So, there are various assumptions here that we could unpick

"if it all happened again" in the OP - the situation initially was of an unknown pathogen - if we were presented again with an unknown pathogen then yes, we would need a high level of caution; from our experience this time, you could argue that we should have acted sooner, restricting large scale activities like the Cheltenham Festival and entry into the country in the early weeks. With retrospect, it is common for people to say that this should have been the case. At the time of course, there was a lot of uncertainty about how bad this was going to get and that is always going to be the case in this scenario. The apparent small scale of the current situation with the potential for a large scale crisis rapidly developing because of pandemic growth.

We were really lucky with covid in the respect that children were relatively spared. It might well be that children would not be spared or would be more adversely affected with a future pandemic, for example polio and flu pandemics in the 20th century. So saying that we would never again shut schools or childcare provision right when cases are at their highest in a pandemic, that doesn't make much sense; it has happened before and may well happen again, for good reasons.

At the same time, in normal conditions in our society, of course we value education very highly, and would want children in school. I think we should be looking at children's experiences and putting in place catch up measures now, far more than we are doing.

And we can and should consider the measures taken and how further responses might be improved in a future crisis , without saying that there should never be any further such responses.

I'm also someone who is relieved that I'm not the only one who thought schools should never have closed. Lockdown 2021 was ridiculous with most children in school anyway; I was furious about that and am still angry.

In March 2020 I just remember feeling a rising panic that my son was missing out on his social education. He is now an anxious, clingy nearly eight year old. He went to his first post-pandemic birthday party a few weeks ago. He was very distressed that his dad couldn't stay with him, crying etc., the birthday boy's mum offered to drive him home but he thankfully settled a while later and had a good time in the end. He had signs of this sort of thing before lockdown, but at five I think it's more normal. we missed two years where we could have got him used to social situations and now we're starting from scratch really.

Meanwhile my two year old (born day after lockdown) isn't really talking yet. So that's another worry.

The thing is people talk about how it was a new virus, we didn't know much about it...but we did! We knew even in March 2020 that it was mainly affecting older people and people with underlying conditions. Why were fit people under 50 panicking? Why couldn't we have kept schools open and just kept the children away from anyone they knew was vulnerable?