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.

nuances

It went through a war time version of this process and we weren't babes in the wood.

Again, this is quite different to the initial claim, which the poster seems now to have rowed back on anyway. If you're saying that it didn't go through the specific process that was claimed, you're agreeing with me.

Human nature being what it is, a lot of people wanted to be key workers partly so they'd be allowed out. That's not to diminish the importance or the sacrifice but it is the case. We were torn between wanting to stay safe and looking wistfully out the window. Human nature, particularly in herd form, is contradictory and immature. The only thing we know about future lockdowns is that it would be so again.

Well, we know a bit more than that. For example, we can be certain that unless there's substantial coercive apparatus, restrictions aren't going to be observed unless people choose to observe them. What we don't know is whether that coercive apparatus will exist in the future and how it might look, but that's not the same point.

And the point about key workers so they could be allowed out is, if it's correct (I haven't seen any research on that so I'll assume for the sake of argument) specific to experiences of this last pandemic, where for most of the working age population the risk wasn't that high. There's just no way it could be extrapolated to a pandemic where people in that age cohort feel a much greater personal risk to themselves.

I'm not sure what you're getting at. Don't agree with your certainties, don't see the point of cataloguing the endless unknowns. Let's have a mince pie.

So the only options were the lockdowns we had, or the lockdowns we had with complicated nuance that pissed everyone off? Right.

You don't agree that people either need to be coerced into restrictions, like China, or if the state isn't able to coerce the whole population like in the UK they need to be persuaded instead? I'm always up for a mince pie, obviously, but can't see how there's any uncertainty on that point.

Yes I really think so. A nuance that sounds simple becomes complicated in half an hour when all the different contexts are taken into account and the papers have found a way to say "If that's allowed, why not this and this, and what about them?" All of which has to be justified or adapted for which takes too much time in a crisis and makes the policy makers look (even more) ridiculous. I think the behavioural scientists were right on that point and that there isn't a way to do a half measure without it turning into an Asterix and Obelix style bash up. Imo.

The difficulty with rules and communication in England is that the governance was appalling. We frequently had guidance that was stricter than the legislation, so of course people got confused. There was no behavioural scientist as far as I'm aware that told the government to pursue that particular strategy, nor to change the rules so very often and frequently with no notice.

I think some of our measures were heavy handed, particularly around funerals.

Some also made little sense. I can remember the ludicrous one way systems to pub loos, where you had to walk back round the entire pub to get to the loo a few metres away. How did that make sense?

A lot of the narrative was around protecting the elderly. Yet, my parents in their 80s, wanted life to continue and to see their grandchildren. They were willing to take that risk (and it would have been easy to take mitigating measures and test before we saw them). It was also awful for their friends who were widowed during the lockdowns and couldn't have their friends and family around to support them.

I can't quite believe how compliant we were with some of the more ridiculous rules. Although, ironically, I currently have covid.

A lot of the narrative was around protecting the elderly. Yet, my parents in their 80s, wanted life to continue and to see their grandchildren. They were willing to take that risk (and it would have been easy to take mitigating measures and test before we saw them).

This goes back to the point I made upthread about it being wrong to assume the elderly were one monolithic bloc. Some of them supported restrictions, some didn't.

I think a cost/benefit analysis(finance, mental health, illness) will show that lockdowns did far more damage than good.

This goes back to the point I made upthread about it being wrong to assume the elderly were one monolithic bloc. Some of them supported restrictions, some didn't.

Absolutely. It saddens me when vitriol is directed at the elderly for that reason. Just because the government sold the lockdowns as protecting the elderly and vulnerable does not mean that's what they all wanted. Plenty of people in the vulnerable category have said the same on MN.

My parents and most of their friends (in their 80s ) are far more relaxed about covid than people my age. They don't have the luxury of years stretching ahead and want to spend the remaining time with their family and friends. They didn't ask nor want everyone locked in their houses while we ran up a huge public debt.

Looking back, once the over 60s were vaccinated, I'd rather have let people decide their own mitigations and trust them to be sensible. I think the second set of lockdowns were ill-judged.

Well, for those that don't now or never did support LD's we can now see in China what is happening with a much more milder strain of Covid on an unvaccinated population, with little or no restriction.

We are more than a cost benefit analysis.

That's a bit obtuse. Obviously I was saying that behavioral science pointed to a need for simple rules. Please don't argue with your shadow!

It's not even slightly obtuse. You're highlighting the wrong problem. It would've been perfectly possible to have simple messaging, certainly simpler than we actually had, saying that eg people could take as much time exercising outdoors as needed. Or that single people could have bubbles. It was a choice that Michael Gove went on the telly pontificating about how long people needed to cycle, and presumably we all agree no behavioural scientist told him to do that. The problem was the governance. There's no way for people not to be confused when rules are changing every few days on average, as they were in England at some points.

I agree with the ridiculous rules, especially the "tiers". We had a situation near us where we had 2 villages, literally a mile apart, but in different counties and we ended up with restrictions in 1 village being very different to the restrictions in the other, to the extent that a pub could open in one but not the other. So everyone from the other village just went to the one where the pub was allowed to open. Completely and utterly bonkers!

Likewise the over-officious enforcement of the "rule of six" that prevented university students living in flats/halls of 6+ being stopped from walking around in a group of 7 or more flat mates, or being able to have a meal/drink as a large "flat" group, despite being in a legally defined "household" where they were eating/drinking/socialising together - it was OK to socialise indoors, but not outdoors, even though they could prove (from key fobs) they were part of the same household!

Or rigorously enforced (usually by screeching staff) one way systems in otherwise empty buildings, such as shops, libraries, council buildings, etc., where staff forced people to work to the back of the building and then to the front again, to get to the till/desk, for no obvious reason at all, except them being jobsworths.

People going over the local authority border where rules were more relaxed is exactly what happened where I am too! I don't know anyone who's supportive of the tiers system in retrospect, it was so obviously stupid.

Well they did have a simple rule (one hour a day) - you just didn't like it.

Nope. There was never a rule in England that exercise was limited to one hour a day, and we're obviously talking about England because of the Gove factor. People just thought there was, not because of the rule itself but because of all the nonsense surrounding it. Like Gove's comments...

@Reindeersnooker in which part of the UK was this a rule?

Wasn't it just, I nipped over the border to tier 2 for my birthday. The substantial meal was a cocktail sausage which was given out free on arrival. The place was heaving.

That cocktail sausage is hilarious in a horrifying kind of way. Reminds me of one of the iterations of the rules that contained the legal definition of a table.

I felt so bad for all the hospitality venues in our Tier 3 area in autumn 2020 though, as everyone merrily skipped over the border into Tier 2 land to eat, drink and be merry.

I wouldn't feel too sorry for them, the staff from my local skipped over the border with me.

The whole tier system was ridiculous.

Definitely need to see that legislation.

spoiler - it doesn't exist, my neighbour tried that one with me.

Haha.

But it was ridiculous, there are people who lost their jobs and businesses that went bust because of not being able to open due to the tiers, and all the while people just took their custom elsewhere. As they were always going to do. I say they, I obviously did it loads too.