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.

Steve Hanke

“An op-ed on the Chicago Tribune also called the paper "as scientific as a Joe Rogan rant."[183] An article on Foreign Policy criticized Hanke's "appalling pseudo-science" and described him as an economist fighting a "war against public health".[34]”

Also worth looking at his views on Russia/Ukraine. And the amount of statements his had to withdraw or correct on his Twitter feed…

Not in any way but thanks for the gaslighting.
The raw data cannot be bias, the models on which lockdowns were based were completely wrong and there is now an even bigger mental health crisis for a start.

I refer you to: "The comprehensive 220-page book, began with a systematic review of 19,646 potentially relevant studies. For their meta-analysis, the authors’ screening resulted in the choice of 22 studies that are based on actual, measured mortality data, not on results derived from modelling exercises.

As recent events have shown, nothing the government did was based on any kind of robust, evidence based science and the 'oh it was all new we were right to panic' is nonsensence. There were plans in place, everyone with half a brain knew the thing came from a lab by early 2020 and we had a reasonably clear picture of what would happen with the Diamond Princess cruise ship.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1099517/japan-coronavirus-patients-diamond-princess/

In the Mumsnet terminology, anyone clinging to what we were tolf about everything from lockdowns to vacinnes 'needs to give their head a wobble' and that is what pretty much everyone in the country thinks, except for a vociferous number of posters on here who shout down anything which isn't exactly describing the last few years as a rosy dreamland where we had the best outcome possible thanks to our amazing use of science (which was in some cases over1000% out at the cost of our chilrens mental health and millions of peoples livlihoods (still, if you sat at home getting paid on 'furlough' it was probably pretty nice and now WFH!)

@TruthAtLast

But there will be a myriad of other studies saying something different. You can’t say one is the gold standard without applying the same critical reckoning to the many, many thousands of papers that exist that will say something different. Otherwise it would be cherry picking. That’s why peer review is so important. If sufficient other studies back it up and worldwide opinion changes then fair enough. But you’ve chosen a study, probably reported by right wing press (Mail and Telegraph) written by an economist. If you look at the Wikipedia page about Steve Hanke there is a whole section about his controversial views on Covid, and the Russian Ukraine War.

And it’s not just ‘the government’. It was a global response.

@MyLostSock

" So science is ... woo? But your facts are real facts?"

++++

The issue here is that there is no universally agreed upon "science" and different scientists have different opinions.

The problem with Covid was that firstly it was a new virus, although as a coronavirus we did know how common cold coronaviruses were transmitted etc.

Secondly any scientist that dared to deviate away from the political views of Governments was shouted down as either anti vaxx or Covid deniers or granny killers and there was no toleration of different scientific views or scientific challenge.

The public bought into the belief that there is only one scientific view in the same way as medieval folk bought into the religious belief of creationism and that anyone promoting evolution was criticised/ threatened as a heretic. In short science got politicised.

Where we find ourselves today is the position of "it was a while ago" "easy to say with hindsight" or it was something unique we had never dealt with before, so let's move on.

All of which of course ignores the points that we need to learn from mistakes to prevent them happening again, there were numerous people pointing out the problems with the approach at the time (who were shouted down " and it wasn't that unique as we had serious flu pandemics in 1968 and in the 1950s.

@1dayatatime I’d say it was the other way round : the scientific knowledge was feeding the government responses across the world. Different governments then interpreted that to fit the way they handled it. E.g UK locking down later than advised in an attempt to preserve the economy. As opposed to Finland - with a left wing government - who handled lockdown more successfully. As opposed to populist India and Brazil who tried not to lockdown at all and had huge numbers of deaths. Or Sweden who didn’t lockdown but had a population with more trust in the government, science and a very high vaccination rate.

@PortUmber

But that still assumes that there was only "one true scientific knowledge" on Covid and any differing scientific views were either false / anti vax/ covid deniers etc.

As for different countries applying different measures and getting different results, the examples you cite are misleading in terms of data presentation.

Yes India and Brazil had high absolute numbers of Covid deaths but this is only because they have large populations (India has a higher population than China). On a Covid deaths per million of population their rates are pretty much middle of the pack despite as you say minimal lockdown measures. So did lack of lockdowns make any difference?

Did the UK lockdown too late? Either way it's covid death rates per capita are average to slightly higher compared to other European countries - so did the timing of the UK lockdowns make any difference?

I have no idea on how Finland handled its lockdown and whether this was successful or not but it's Covid death rates were similar to say Cyprus.

Lastly as for Sweden there are many other factors at play including lower population density but again it's Covid death rate was average to slightly better compared to other European countries. So did Sweden's relative lighter touch lockdowns make any difference on death rates?

No I don’t believe there is one true scientific knowledge. I believe there is and should be a whole range of different opinions. From which a generally held majority view is the best course of action. If you want the globe to be safe from a potentially deadly mutating virus. You’d go with the majority view, not the minority view.

Of course that view shouldn’t be static. Now with the benefit of hindsight, we should do things better. I don’t think Steve Hanke should be the ‘new’ majority view because a quick read on Wikipedia will show how biased and controversial he is.

I very much agree that there are so many factors at play in different countries that the comparison is difficult.

@1dayatatime

@PortUmber

"If you want the globe to be safe from a potentially deadly mutating virus. You’d go with the majority view, not the minority view"

++++

I would totally agree that the majority view is better than the minority view. However because any view that dissented from the majority view was shouted down at an early stage as either anti vaxx or Covid deniers rather than be openly discussed and challenged so that the majority view was potentially changed, we will never know if we were "following the science" or following the socially and politically approved science .

@1dayatatime

Yes I think that’s true. Maybe in an emergency situation, pandemic, time pressure - things have to be more decisive. The alternative views, if they don’t have sufficient backing could do more harm than good. In terms of what most likely or less likely.

Precisely- in an emergency situation as Cicero put it "more is lost through indecision than wrong decision ".

But as more information comes in or more experience you firstly review and then potentially adjust or completely change your original solution.

However that last bit didn't happen in Covid because the initial decision or Covid measures became political and to even question or even worse amend those original decision would have been tantamount to admitting mistakes which in a political environment would be electoral suicide.

So again I don't think we were necessarily following the science but rather following the socially and politically acceptable science.