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).

We were really lucky with covid in the respect that children were relatively spared.

Yes agree, I think things would've got a great deal more unpleasant in the last two years had the virus been more dangerous and a higher risk to younger people. There'd be a higher risk of serious social unrest, and much less would have kept functioning because fewer parents would have been willing to work outside the home. I doubt any lockdown could hold in that scenario actually.

Just to add: the only time I was worried about catching covid was when I'd just had a c section and wasn't keen on lots of coughing!

I agree with @herecomesthsun. Sometimes you've gotta do what needs to be done.
The reluctance to disrupt normal life, and then the mad rush to go back to normal has been the cause of some of our biggest covid waves.
Prior to vaccination every time they said we were going back to normal things just got worse again.
Whenever the numbers were low we usually did something to make them rise again.
There's still a lot of disruption in education and pressure on the health services now isn't there? We're all just sort of ignoring it.
I may be wrong but covid deaths in 2022 don't seem all that much lower than they were in 2020 or 2021. I suppose we've finally flattened the curve so instead of ups and downs there's just a fairly steady weekly death toll of 1000 or so.

www.washingtonpost.com/health/interactive/2021/covid-children-deaths/

I can understand the initial reaction in March 2020. But from mid April it was pretty clear the numbers were plummeting and it statistical terms with a few exceptions the people dying were generally on the way out anyway.

The damage to education, mental health, the cost of living crisis, benches being taped up, aisles in supermarkets roped off, funerals banned etc etc is completely unforgivable. The disgusting advertising campaign, "tell her you never bend the rules". Urgh, Hancock and Johnson should be in prison and the key thrown away.

No, cos I was right

😃

@Everanewbie statistical terms with a few exceptions the people dying were generally on the way out anyway.

That's not true, and a horrible thing to say.

Cases actually peaked before the first lockdown. That is empirical fact. The vast majority of deaths were those who were already profoundly ill. That is also fact. It hastened a lot of ill peoples demise, but the life years our disgraceful reaction stole from our collective population hugely outweighs the deaths (if any) that lockdowns and covid theatre have saved.

@Everanewbie That is only the case if you think the deaths of ill and elderly people are meaningless. Which is rank ableism.

Many people are 'profoundly ill' but not at imminent risk of death. Speaking as one of them...

Don't cases always "peak" before a lockdown because having a lockdown causes cases to drop?
Not that anyone could tell at the time because there was no testing to speak of for the first half of 2020 was there?

Not meaningless at all, but the death of a single 95 year old is more palatable to me than ruining 1000 children's lives for two years, stunting their development and messing with their mental health. That's not to speak of teh economic damage, which by the way is not some abstract concept for bankers, but as we're seeing at the moment, has a great affect on peoples day to day lives.

Its a brutal calculation, but its one we need to have in mind when talking about restrictions. That assumes that lockdowns do much at all anyway beyond delaying infections.

No. They peaked and started to fall prior to lockdown 1 and were arguably reaching a peak prior to 2 and 3. You can argue that LD helped the numbers fall faster and to a lower level, but with no control that can never be certain.

With no testing I wonder how you could be so certain @Everanewbie

Some of the earlier advertising really was kicking the can down the road in terms of people's mental health. It makes things more difficult later on, because of the heightened anxiety and the persistent desire to attribute deaths to behaviour rather than a virus doing what viruses do. I very much doubt all of it was necessary to persuade the population into lockdown: support for the idea of restrictions was quite high even by mid March.

@Everanewbie 178k deaths in the UK, plenty of them being people who could have had decades of life ahead. It's an intentional distortion to speak of a single 95 year old.

178k dead. I mean, if that (or a higher number!) is fine by you, then fair enough. I think it's a lot of lives lost and a lot of families grieving; children and young adults who have lost parents; brilliant minds gone far too soon...

Prior to omicron, hospital admissions by day of admission (as opposed to day of reporting) knowing that there is a lag in admission from infection by a week or two) plus later on the ONS surveys. Plus other surveys such as ZOE.

If the rate of increase in admissions slows, you can be certain that the rate of increase in infection was slowing at a point of around 2 weeks prior. If no lockdown was implemented at this point, infections had clearly slowed, and this trend would point to a natural peak. The point in which admissions peak, it is likely that infection peaked 2 weeks prior.

It's not fine by me. I am not fine with anyone dying. It is sad, as you said each one represents the grief of a lot of people.

But grief does not mean greater restrictions would have saved them. I am sad about these deaths but I don't want the nation to wear a hair shirt and self-flagellate itself either because that doesn't help.

What I am saying is that even if these deaths were preventable (which I don't think they were) and that less restrictions would have led to greater death (which I don't think it would have), I don't think that the decent into authoritarianism and the damage done to individuals and business was worth it.

As a nation the "cure" of lockdown wasn't proven, still isn't proven and the only certainty was the damage. We were prescribed a drug with terrible side effects that outweighed the disease itself. We used a bazooka to swat a fly. And we'll pay for it for years.

Do you mean deaths as a direct result of covid are the same, or deaths with covid on the certificate as one of three causes is the same?

Sorry I mean covid on the certificate but not the cause of death.

So those who come in with something else, get covid, then die of the original thing.

Just wondering which set of figures you refer to?

Its a brutal calculation, but its one we need to have in mind when talking about restrictions.

Exactly. The question in this situation was which of the shit sandwiches are we going to eat. One doesn't have to agree with your conclusion about which of the bad options was preferable, and personally I think it's a premature one, to understand that.

@moomintrolls Deaths where Covid 19 is mentioned as a cause on the death certificate.

@herecomesthsun Certain quarters should have thought of all that before using up all the public goodwill and support on one virus.

Yes agree, I think things would've got a great deal more unpleasant in the last two years had the virus been more dangerous and a higher risk to younger people. There'd be a higher risk of serious social unrest, and much less would have kept functioning because fewer parents would have been willing to work outside the home. I doubt any lockdown could hold in that scenario actually

@AppleandRhubarbTart Those without children would have been heavily leant on to go and "do your bit for the effort" creating a great deal of resentment and even more social unrest.

@mmmmmmghturep I would disagree with your remarks, though I wouldn't put it at all in that way. Goodwill isn't a commodity like sunflower oil,and people have been extremely adaptable and thoughtful in the main, in their approach.

When this kicked off, it was hard to see how the population at large would grasp the concept of exponential growth and the need for caution to prevent enormously high case numbers, spread to vulnerable people etc. Wearing masks seemed very un-British; also I worried in mid March 2020 about wearing a high - protection work type mask into the supermarket as people would find it so weird.

The general British public have been there and done that now. Very few people would wear a mask out of choice all other things being equal, but there is now a much greater understanding of why measures might be needed, what exponential growth means etc.

A lot of people are still being careful, I still see some people, mainly older people, wearing masks where we live. I suspect a fair number of people are still being careful about some activities that carry increased risks.

If there were another pandemic, I think people would use what they have learnt from the past 2 years to protect themselves and their loved ones, and to evaluate risks in a balanced way. I would be optimistic about people's good sense.

Agreed.

Re goodwill, the problem is that actually it can be a commodity in some circumstances. Employers goodwill is one example. Lots of people were in a position to do much more two years ago than they are now. There are people who have a limited amount of sick pay, that they've used for covid and would thus be disinclined to submit to testing and isolation again. There are people who've taken as much unpaid leave as they can to look after their sick and/or isolating kids so would also be disinclined. There are people who could afford to take sick leave on SSP previously, but who can't now because doing that used up their savings. There are businesses where there was slack before that isn't there now because they're struggling to survive. Basically, there are lots of situations where people and employers could and would do more two years ago than they are now. There is a limit to the number of hits people will choose to weather.

Hopefully all this has a chance to resolve itself before the next pandemic hits, but at the moment goodwill is very much a commodity and a finite resource.