Sick of narrative that lockdowns were pointless

[Bagzzz]

I think lots of people are forgetting quite how scary the early days were, overwhelmed hospitals and exhausted (and now a lot burnt out) medical staff.

Many mistakes were made and some things that might have have been avoided but we know with the benefit of hindsight.
Scientists if not politicians were doing their best.

Maybe could distinguish later lockdowns but they weren’t done lightly either, knowing it would affect mental health and business.

I fully agree. My business is on it's knees because so many other small businesses closed during the lockdowns and never re-opened. Two of my self employed clients committed suicide due to lack of support which meant they initially lost their business and income and then lost their savings and ultimately their homes. Lots of others also had to live on savings to survive and had to sell their homes to avoid bankruptcy.

Along with lockdowns there should have been proper support for those worst affected and it shouldn't have been political as to who got the support and who didn't. 3 million excluded was a travesty. Our village "high street" used to have shops, a pub, hairdresser, and a takeaway at the start of 2020. Now it's got nothing - they all closed and are now empty and heading to be derelict. It's an absolute disgrace that the Govt did so much damage to small businesses.

Yep, same in our area. The local newspaper reported numbers of deaths and hospitalisations in our local Trust's hospitals. The numbers were tiny. I think the worst week was the headline showing 3 deaths in a week!

I hate Boris and Rishi with a passion after the damage they caused, but to give them the benefit of the doubt re the "parties", etc., the fact is that they were, by and large, working together at the time, having meetings, etc., so having a few drinks or nibbles at the end of the day when they were mingling with each other at work, doesn't really seem to be such a big issue in reality. Of course, the optics and media of it are absolutely awful, but like lots of other people, they "had to" work together with probably minimal social distancing (like in lots of essential workplaces), so they probably didn't consider any particular greater risk. Just like those railway station workers who had parties - likewise hard to criticise really when they'd been working together all day anyway as they were essential workers, but, again, the "image" was awful. I really can't believe Boris etc genuinely didn't believe there was a serious health problem requiring restrictions etc - they almost certainly did, but unfortunately it gave the impression that they didn't believe it.

@1dayatatime Without LD's the issues you raise would have been just as worse.
Places like the US, Brazil and Russia tried the No or limited LD approach and they u-turned, why do you think that was?

No we see Omicron, which is supposed to be relatively mild, going through China, people are staying in, avoiding crowds and the economy will suffer regardless.

On your other post "what did Boris know that we didn't?" i think these people are so far removed from reality that they believe the things that affect people like you and me, don't affect them.
Look at climate change? these sorts of people and big business leaders know full well what they are causing , yet do nothing about it, they think their money will save them.

Genuinely - i do not now whether the "price" was worth it because i am not arrogant enough to believe i have access to a parallel universe where i can see both scenarios played out.

I think that without the war in Ukraine, things would have been totally different, inflation would have been half what it is and therefore more money in the economy for the problems we ve got etc.

@user1497207191

Yes they were mixing during the day, so a few drinks might not seem to matter but they went home and mixed with an awful other lot of other people, shops, tube via their partners or their adult children's work.

They weren't in a bubble.

I doubt they were empty. One thing is for sure - they didn't have capacity to treat COVID patients without a lockdown. We have been woefully unprepared for a pandemic for years.

Presumably you realise that outcomes across the board would also have been poor if numbers of COVID patients had been exponentially higher?

I genuinely can't fathom what you think would have happened to these NHS waiting times in that scenario.

Or is there a caveat that COVID patients would have been at the back of the queue in this scenario and anyone who died of it wasn't fit enough to survive? Because that's reprehensible and we could - but won't! - say the same thing about any illness.

Believe it or not, the research on children's mental health during the pandemic is mixed- some children benefited mentally from the break. The actual loss of learning time was not as great as is being suggested-around one and a half terms - and children would also have been affected by losing more teachers to COVID and long COVID.

No one can tell us what life would have been like if we hadn't quarantined but I don't think the states in the US that rarely bothered have been a great example of what can happen.

But that's the same anyway if they've "mixed" at work and not partied. Same people they were mixing with, just different context.

Yes but at work, sober, i would be slightly more aware of social distancing, touching, using hand gel etc than i am at the staff Xmas party.
Weren't they also inviting in people from other areas too?

The amounts of alcohol being consumed seems to have been large.

As far as i can tell, 99% of scientists and public health experts supported LD's but as i said earlier, we knew then and we can see with China now what happens without them.

But i will grant you, some of the rules were draconian and heartless, particularly on people dying and funerals.

My mum was end of life pre CV, we visited everyday, hugs, stories even some laughs, basic human contact was denied to so many and for no real reason and thats why i will never forgive Johnson Sunak etc.

What's probably most distressing about this thread, is the number of people who just thought fuck it, I'll do what suits me. At the time noone knew anything about this virus, we may or may not trust the government, they don't make it easy for sure, but imagine a situation where things really are as bad as we are being told, or worse! Imagine we really do need to comply....we've got a country full of folk it seems who will just do what suits them, the food shortages at the time we're down I'm sure to these same ignorant idiots doing exactly what they wanted with no thought for anyone else. What a depressing country this is.

I hope we never go back to the ridiculous and insanely damaging lockdowns. Our economy is wrecked, there's a severe mental health crisis as a direct result and so many young people lost out on years of decent education.

What was scariest, I think, is how quickly people adopted the language of "bubbles", tiers, social distancing. They were serious infringements on our very basic human rights - to see family, to education, to live a normal life.

I've never cared about "partygate" - only the hypocrisy that the same people were condemning us plebs to isolation and misery.

I know very very few people who stuck to the rules after the first lockdown and I have zero guilt or regrets.

Most people complied and didn't just "do what suits them", but also a lot of people had the brains to make their own decisions/choices when the rules were blatantly absurd. Police/security moving people on who were sitting on park benches was stupid and unnecessary!

If we're going to revisit the selfishness argument again, and I'm of the view that it's become essentially meaningless, do remember that people who were doing what they wanted and acting in their own perceived interests certainly includes some of those adhering to and supporting restrictions. Some of the worst culprits being people sitting pretty and safe in nice houses with gardens while people with less money bought them stuff. As I say, I don't think this is a particularly helpful way to approach the issue but if complaints are to be made about selfishness, they don't apply only to the people one happens to disagree with.

Also, the population withdrawing trust in a government who so manifestly don't deserve it is not a bad thing.

So a rampant virus is spreading, and you don't know all the facts,.you've not studied the data and get some how you know better.? What sources of intelligence analysis ? did you have

I guess then, the question is, would people start to listen if the body count goes into over drive.

Making people die without family was unforgivable. I'm a staff member so I did my best I wasn't a member of family so couldn't offer the comfort that they deserved.

We wouldn't be able to have a lockdown and restrictions in those circumstances for structural reasons. If enough people were sufficiently worried about their own safety, they just wouldn't leave the house for work. That never happened with covid because the working age population as a whole didn't feel sufficiently personally threatened.

There'd be significant societal unrest because the basic building blocks wouldn't be there. People going round to their mates houses would be the least of anyone's worries.

The first was entirely necessary. It was a novel virus. No one knew how it would behave, what it's R was, how many people it would kill or how rapidly it could mutate. We didn't know the best way to treat it and there was the very real fear of not only healthcare systems entirely collapsing but many other areas that we are dependant on.

I can understand people debating subsequent lockdowns, but until we had vaccines available we were still at the risk of overwhelming healthcare. As we can see this winter, when healthcare becomes overwhelmed it affects a huge range of people.

Thank god I formed a large bubble which included my wider family and I used common sense instead of listening to the shit rules lead by the government that made no sense!

@Reindeersnooker

You have raised a number of points so taking them individually:

"No one can tell us what life would have been like if we hadn't quarantined but I don't think the states in the US that rarely bothered have been a great example of what can happen."

This is an important point that this is all subjective opinion- no one can unequivocally state what would have happened had there been no / shorter / fewer or even longer or stricter lockdowns because there was lockdowns.

Regarding your point about US States that had less restrictive measures this is factually incorrect:

nypost.com/2022/04/11/ny-handled-covid-19-lockdown-poorly-florida-among-best-study/amp/

www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/dec/02/ron-desantis/florida-doing-better-covid-19-locked-down-states/

"Presumably you realise that outcomes across the board would also have been poor if numbers of COVID patients had been exponentially higher?

I genuinely can't fathom what you think would have happened to these NHS waiting times in that scenario."

Clearly if the number of Covid patients was exponentially higher then the corresponding death rates would also have been higher but there is no way of knowing if the number of Covid patients would have been exponentially higher because there were lockdowns or equally exponentially lower if the lockdowns were stricter / longer. It's all subjective opinion.

As for the NHS equally there is no way of knowing what would have happened if Covid cases were lower or higher and whether they would or would not have weathered the storm.

"Or is there a caveat that COVID patients would have been at the back of the queue in this scenario and anyone who died of it wasn't fit enough to survive? Because that's reprehensible and we could - but won't! - say the same thing about any illness. "

But that is effectively what has and is happening now. Just taking cancer as an example screenings and treatments were delayed / post/ put to the back of the queue during the restrictions. We are now seeing the fallout from this and other illnesses through higher excess deaths.

"Believe it or not, the research on children's mental health during the pandemic is mixed- some children benefited mentally from the break. "

Whilst a small minority of children's mental health may have benefited from the restrictions, it is my opinion from what I witnessed that the vast majority of children's mental health was adversely impacted by the restrictions. I would be grateful for any links you have that support your view.

"The actual loss of learning time was not as great as is being suggested-around one and a half terms - and children would also have been affected by losing more teachers to COVID and long COVID. "

Again it is my opinion from what I have witnessed that the loss of learning particularly in younger children and in GCSE/ A level years was very significant. As for how many teachers would have died / long Covid without the restrictions is again a subjective opinion as is how many teachers could have been saved is schools were for example closed for longer.

What I get from your post is a great deal of "that's just your opinion" and "it's subjective, we can't know". But my opinion is in line with experts who are trained and qualified to have an opinion whereas yours continually begins with "in my experience". I'm sorry but I don't find anecdotal data convincing and I'm glad we have analysts and professionals who can get a better read on the likely outcomes.

You are looking at the negative outcomes that we ended up with. They are not negligible and no one thought they would be. However, a decision was taken that the negative outcomes without lockdown (such as were seen in Italy) would be worse. We didn't experience that so subjectively it seems less awful. It's a very understandable position but very much based on emotion rather than expertise.

About waiting times, I simply don't agree. There are different reasons why the times are long and some of them have nothing to do with COVID lockdowns. The NHS was already squeezed People chose not to come forward despite NHS messaging that they were open for business for signs of cancer. We don't have lockdown now but cancer signs are probably still being missed due to the GP crisis. Higher COVID rates would have meant fewer doctors available to treat anything else. Chemotherapy became a much more risky treatment with Covid present in the community so difficult decisions had to make about whether it was in the patient's best interests to have a compromised immune system at such a time. That risk would have increased further without restrictions putting a break on the spread of COVID in communities. Without restrictions then, we would be dealing with higher rates of long COVID now, putting further strain on limited resources. Waiting for a vaccine for vulnerable individuals made sense in many instances. There was no easy way out of this. It is still the case that someone struggling to breathe will be treated with more urgency than someone waiting for a scan. That's not the fault of lockdowns. People can't be left to suffocate.

I don't find your links very convincing, sorry. The idea that the Trump did COVID well is very odd.

But I thoroughly accept that you're entitled to an opinion!

What people are missing is that if covid had happened a few years earlier, we couldn’t have had lockdowns like we did. It was only because of the internet being so dominant that so many could work from home, order shopping deliveries online, be taught online, etc. It was basically a social experiment “because we could” due to the internet. 10 years ago far fewer people were online, broadband speeds were lower, online shopping was in it’s infancy, people simply couldn’t “Skype” business meetings and school lessons.

@user1497207191

Covid has caused approximately 6 million deaths worldwide.

The related 1957 and 1968 flu pandemics each caused approximately 1.1 million deaths worldwide , although you need to take into account the world population was half what it is now.

There were no lockdowns for the 1957 or 1968 pandemics.

Interestingly the flu jab we have today came out of the research to reduce deaths from the 1968 pandemic but unfortunately by the time it was ready the virus had burnt itself out or mutated into a more benign form.

@1dayatatime

When you say “they knew something the public didn’t” that - to me - implies cover up/conspiracy territory. Even if things weren’t particularly transparent in the UK, looking globally - at comparable countries - we seemed fairly in line. I don’t believe in ‘cover up’ because you have access to media sources globally. Even if something didn’t ring true in the UK, you can compare lockdown/the reasons behind - in a similar country.
I think - having a conservative government - they were leaning more towards saving the economy v’s people’s lives. That’s why they ignored restrictions. They saw restrictions as ‘for the plebs’.

But the strongest argument for lockdown was that it was the consensus of global scientific opinion. The basic tenet of science is consensus opinion - whether it’s sending a rocket to the moon, or fighting cancer. If you go with the minority opinion on over the majority opinion it’s less likely to be safe in a whole range of scientific scenarios. A minority opinion needs to be thoroughly tested, researched, peer reviewed before it becomes the majority opinion.