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).

🙄🥱

Given that you've claimed there is a long history of lockdowns for managing pandemics, it's really not.

I am scared that future governments will use lockdowns and restrictions on our freedoms to manage hospital capacity. This should never happen.

I think we need to remove the concept of lockdown permanently - because it doesnt work and creates far more harm than good (particularly when ensuring that supply chains etc work)

Locking down the country and arbitrary restrictions should not be part of the arsenal at dealing with disease control/

Quarantining/self isolation/contact tracing/vaccinations/testing are tools which should be used in it and should not be forgotten.

I don’t disagree but that does overlook the predicament of 2020 when we had no vaccines, treatments or knowledge.

I wouldn’t rule out a lockdown ever again but that’s largely because I wouldn’t completely rule out a completely novel virus again. It’s highly, highly unlikely that we’ll live to see the worldwide outbreak of another brand new virus or bacteria but statistically it’s always a possibility.

Lockdown wasn’t done lightly anywhere, it was done because other options were limited mostly due to lack of information that was only ever going to be available with time. Every option was a gamble.

I am scared that future governments will use lockdowns and restrictions on our freedoms to manage hospital capacity. This should never happen

Assuming you mean capacity in "normal" times rather than during a pandemic, I'll admit this had occurred to me too - in fact I said as much in the second (or was it third? ) lockdown

And why stop at new viruses? Just think how many beds could be freed up by locking down during 'flu, norovirus and other outbeaks.
Admittedly nobody's called for that yet, but then I didn't really think anyone would seriously suggest a ban on household mixing and large events because of 53 who've caught Monkeypox

Or maybe I did ...

I really think a total overhaul of the NHS needs to be undertaken.

Make it fit for purpose. It’s supposed to look after us, not the other way round.

It’s scary too how many people see the rule of 6, mask mandates etc. as “light touch”.

Quite.
But what does that take and what do we do in the meantime?

I don't think my opinions have changed, although my own risk preferences have.

As someone ordinarily resident in the UK - England, to be precise - I remain of the view that the handling of the pandemic by the government was characterised almost exclusively by incompetence, poor judgment, hypocrisy and corruption. For example:

• The initial lockdown was too late and undermined by failure to close, restrict or even require the most basic health checks at the international border.
• The stockpile of PPE had not been properly maintained, meaning health care workers had to re-use single-use items, use out-of-date equipment, make do with home-made equipment, go without etc.
• Elderly covid-positive patients were released from hospitals back to aged care facilities for palliative care - this was one of the most shocking failings, resulting in a huge number of deaths.
• Certain lockdown rules were excessive, eg, preventing people from meeting outdoors to go for a walk with someone form another household, the absence of exemptions for people in long distance relationships, etc. The fact that even Ferguson had to resign due to seeing his girlfriend, and then Cummings got caught up with the whole Barnard Castle debacle, speaks volumes about the rules being ill-conceived.
• Over-zealous enforcement of said rules by the cops (often in ways that were, frankly, racist, ableist, etc).
• Not adequately planning for a second wave from September 2020 onwards - in February/March the situation was new and there were still some important unknowns. But throughout 2020 and 2021, the government continued to act like it was taken by surprise at entirely predictable events (like an autumn/winter resurgence, new variants, etc).
• Handing out contracts to under-qualified mates.
• I could go on.

One thing the government got right was getting first in the queue to buy a range of vaccines. The vaccines are amazing and have been a game-changer in the pandemic. I was quite emotional when I rolled up my sleeve for my first AZ jab.

In terms of my personal risk preferences, I continue with some efforts to lower my exposure to Covid (and other airborne illnesses). For instance, I wear an N95 in a number of settings (public transport, supermarkets), and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future. But I have resumed lots of things I enjoy - the gym, eating out, travel - because they make me happier and healthier. I see some people trying to assiduously avoid ever getting Covid, and I think that this would not be conducive to my physical and mental health.

@Everanewbie The resentment towards the NHS would be off the charts.

Hi SpeedReader

I just wondered why you think LD1 was imposed too late? I know a media narrative has grown up around this, but surely an earlier LD would have kicked infection even further down the road than we did already? When would you have imposed a LD? The problem is, LD is such a huge, previously unprecedented action, surely it would have been even more unjustifiable with such low numbers of known cases and deaths?

With examples such as Sweden that never imposed a full LD, showing no apocalyptic outcomes, I just don't see where LD earlier conclusions come from.

Its called doubling down.

I do hate myself for it, but I am growing to resent the NHS, despite my husband's employment within it. The surgery's treat you like 10th century lepers and all we hear from the NHS leaders is calls for further restrictions and further funding. We throw money at it like nobodies business. You get the feeling that the attitude is that we should have eternal gratitude to the NHS, and that they'll bestow treatment on you if they deem you worthy. Its there for us, funded by us. Grateful, yes, but not worshipful, and not beyond criticism.

Yes. You've articulated it well and I refuse to take part in the eternal worship and god blessings.

I had an NHS worker asking for a discount the other day. Because she's an NHS worker, and I'm a small business owner who was shut during lockdown, and who will be paying for lockdown for the foreseeable future via my hugely increased taxes (yes I know they get taxed too)

So no, she didn't get a discount. Which to be fair she was fine about -.just thought she'd ask.

There's no vaccine for batshittery yet

@SpeedReader pretty good post.

This article shows modelled outcomes for Sweden, Denmark and UK if they'd have followed each other's approaches in the first wave. www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-95699-9.pdf

Yep, and people saying to bring back in social distancing (also considered "light touch") thinking it is not much more than keeping 2m away from someone in shops.
It was so much more than that. It wrecked businesses and had a huge affect on things like funerals.

Fucking weirdos

That was interesting read, thanks. There was a time people were saying Sweden is the one to follow if I remember correctly, but looks like if we did, we had way more people dead.
I think some of the things were right, and some were wrong. But then, we can all talk about it now because we are still alive.
I'm just grateful about that.

Thanks for the question, @Everanewbie.

I was meant to run an international event in March 2020. I remember spending one weekend reviewing the publicly-available evidence, in particular the experience in Italy. Remember that? Footage of hospitals overflowing with extremely sick people? We formed the view that the UK was a couple of weeks behind Italy in terms of the impact of the virus. As such, on the Monday, we cancelled. I recall this was a good week ahead of the lockdown announced by Johnson, meaning that lockdown should have started at least a week earlier, if we were able to figure out there was a problem! But the government had been briefed for months - there were meetings in January and February (which Johnson failed to attend) to discuss what was happening. So in fact lockdown - or at least some restrictions (eg, banning flights from Wuhan) - could have started well before that.

One thing I'd also encourage everyone to think about is how people die from Covid. And by this I mean the actual logistics. Because by and large, people don't stay at home and slip away in their own beds. They get taken to hospital, and once they are in hospital, if their condition deteriorates, they get escalated through a regular Covid ward (where they might receive supplemental oxygen) to the ICU. Once in the ICU, they don't stay for a couple of days (which is the average length of time in intensive care - ICUs get lots of short stays, for instance for post-surgery care) but they stay for weeks and weeks. Hence the NHS having to expand ICU services, and health care workers from all over the system being brought in to care for Covid patients.

In my view, the reason we needed lockdown is because the NHS was at risk of being totally overwhelmed, to the point where doctors would be doing emergency triage medicine in a way that the public would find totally unacceptable. This means that, due to lack of resources and staff, doctors apply some strict rules and protocols to decide who gets treated (whether that's no-one over 60 goes to intensive care, first come first served, lottery etc). If you are interested in how this can turn out, Radiolab did an amazing podcast focusing on a New Orleans hospital alleged to have practised euthanasia on some patients following Hurricane Katrina. It's very confronting.

We are now in a much better position because of the vaccines, new therapeutics and how much we've learnt about treatment. Initially, ventilators were the answer - so much so that even Dyson was going to knock up equipment. But we cannot get too complacent, as we're only a new, deadlier, variant away from being thrown back into chaos. This doesn't mean the answer should be another long, wholescale lockdown - I agree with lots of people here that lockdowns should be a response of last resort. But it means we have to have proper emergency and contingency plans. This is the responsibility of government, including through its own pandemic planning and how it funds and supports the NHS and social care. Debates about whether you and I should wear a mask to the shops are, frankly, a distraction from this far more important point!

I think it was right to take it seriously at the time.

But it means we have to have proper emergency and contingency plans. This is the responsibility of government, including through its own pandemic planning and how it funds and supports the NHS and social care. Debates about whether you and I should wear a mask to the shops are, frankly, a distraction from this far more important point!

Agreed.

Ironically, British pandemic planning apparently used to be seen as pretty good. Until the last few years.

Ironically, British pandemic planning apparently used to be seen as pretty good. Until the last few years

I wonder if that's because it really was good, or if there was just no reason to suppose it wasn't because there was no pandemic around to "test" it?