The WhatsApp message leak

[Mycatsgoldtooth]

So, we’ve had the FBI saying it was a lab leak, the leaked messages showing many of the restrictions were for show, stats on the reality of masks being mostly useless unless N95s. Where are all the people that were so upset about anyone saying anything against the government now.

It’s almost as if no one care where the virus came from and how the government reacted. If I’d spent years being terrified and washing my shopping I’d be really pissed off.

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/03/01/untruth-untruth-peddled-justify-great-lockdown-disaster/

I’m glad to see that post was immediately removed.

There is no getting round the fact that lockdown means confining some people to the home with their abusers, when they would not otherwise be confined, and thus exposing them to more abuse. That was an inherent part of the policy, and we knew before March 2020 that it would be. This isn't affected by anyone's moral judgement of who's at more fault in that situation. People making policy have to do so in the understanding that some people in society are completely fucking disgusting.

The question therefore is whether the harms done by lockdown, of which an increase the exposure of victims to abuse is undeniably one, outweigh the harms done by not locking down. That's just how these things work.

@MinkyGreen as someone who worked through lock down with children at risk of being taken into care I probably have more in-depth of an understanding of lock downs and their effects on children in vulnerable situations. The government laughed at their restrictions while breaking them themselves while people were put through hell. You think I’m disgusting for bringing that up. I think people are disgusting for wanting to gloss over it.

and yes you can say “oh well sacrifices had to be made” but Sweden did not close the schools and no ill effects on mortality. Please remember that the wider family of that little boy were told they would be arrested if they visited him when they contacted the police to express their concerns. But defend that and have my comment deleted if that’s where your moral compass is at. Happy to sacrifice a few little lives for the wider good.

From the NSPCC website

Emerging evidence suggests that the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic has left babies increasingly vulnerable to non-accidental head injuries (NAHI).

Non-accidental head injury, also referred to as abusive head trauma (AHT), is a serious form of physical abuse causing injury to the brain. The condition may arise from shaking, impact injuries, or a combination of both. It most commonly occurs in children under the age of two, and can result in long-term disabilities or death (NSPCC and Cardiff University, Department of Child Health, 2009)

Fwiw, I've found that comments explaining that lockdown increased exposure to DV and abuse as a broader and unpleasant truth are less likely to be deleted than ones referencing specific individuals who were killed or suffered because of abuse during lockdown.

There's some useful stuff in this report from Womens Aid in August 2020, for example. Includes abuse of children too.

www.womensaid.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/A-Perfect-Storm-August-2020-1.pdf

And this from January 2021.

www.womensaid.org.uk/how-covid-19-is-impacting-domestic-abuse-reported-to-the-police/

@BashirWithTheGoodBeard the lock down was referenced in the inquests. I think people get triggered by the cognitive dissonance of supporting a policy that led to so much suffering for the most vulnerable in society.

@BashirWithTheGoodBeard

I agree with you.

But to highlight that high profile case in a rant about anti restrictions, is weaponising a case to promote a view. That’s wrong.

The fault is first and foremost with the parents in that case. Lockdown is not an excuse/reason to kill a child. The cause was the parents - it’s whether lockdown exacerbated the situation.

We will never know that consequences had the majority of the globe not locked down before we had a method to control the virus. Could things have been worse? Would more people have died? Could school have been shut for longer periods as no staff were well enough to keep them open? Would the whole infrastructure supporting communities been healthy and well enough to function? Could new more deadly mutations have arisen before the vaccine? Would hospitals collapse?

But to highlight that high profile case in a rant about anti restrictions, is weaponising a case to promote a view. That’s wrong.
The fault is first and foremost with the parents in that case. Lockdown is not an excuse/reason to kill a child. The cause was the parents - it’s whether lockdown exacerbated the situation.

You're giving too much prominence to your own moral judgement about who was responsible here. It simply doesn't matter what you think about where the blame ultimately lies. That's not just about you either, it also doesn't matter what I or anyone else thinks on that one. None of that takes away from the reality that lockdown increased victims exposure to DV and abuse, and we always knew it would. This is not affected by who we think is to blame for it and people who suffered abuse that they wouldn't have suffered had we not locked down don't become less abused because people have an explanation as to where the blame lies.

I can't remember what was said in the post that's now been deleted and I'm not actually that familiar with the specific case being mentioned, but I don't agree with your view that mentioning cases where lockdown did or may have been a factor is weaponising them. If it's relevant, and as I say I don't know if it is here but it certainly was in some cases, that isn't weaponisation.

@Mycatsgoldtooth

I also find it really offensive that you are insinuating that my view is that it’s fine that little lives were lost for the greater good. NO!

It was a really horrific Sophie’s Choice type situation. It was a case of which situation is likely to be less shit for the world as a whole.

With lockdown, I don’t know. No one wanted to lockdown, destroy the economy and destroy education. It was an emergency measure - and no - I don’t think it was implemented well at all.

If the lockdown was indeed referenced in the inquest for a particular case, that makes any outrage at the idea that it should be mentioned even less legitimate.

@Mycatsgoldtooth The same thing happened with Grenfell. Certain quarters saying we mustnt politicise it. I follow some of the G residents on Twitter and they themselves said It absolutely IS political.

@MinkyGreen ask his uncle about that. The one who was stopped from going round there by the police because it would have been breaking lockdown rules.

@MinkyGreen as we can see from Sweden and the fact that most people would experience covid as a mild illness society would not have collapsed if school had stayed open, social workers had visited and families were not threatened with arrest for checking on vulnerable relatives….

The view that a thing shouldn't be politicised is often in itself political. Grenfell would be a good example of that.

@Mycatsgoldtooth

Yes. Sweden was the ideal.

But they are very different in many ways to other countries around the globe. They had a highly compliant population in terms of other measures - masks etc. They had one of the highest vaccination rates in Europe. It’s whether one country globally could ‘get away’ with that while others locked down. Or whether Covid would have been completely out of control had all countries done the same as Sweden.

Yep.

Lockdowns mainly protected the privileged members of society. They stayed at home with their laptops and nice gardens while others felt the impact keeping the country running, delivering goods, providing medical services and so on.
We didn't need lockdowns. We needed to protect the elderly and vulnerable.

YY @DayKay Lockdown was for the laptop class.

If things were really that bad, you can bet that the government would have been the first to put themselves in secure lockdown.
They knew the danger wasn't as great as they were telling anyone.
They happily partied and ignored their own rules.

DayKay "Lockdowns mainly protected the privileged members of society"

I just made that point to someone yesterday while he tried to go on about how we were ALL at risk. When I asked where he got food, he actually he had enough stockpiled in the shed. The fact that he has a shed and garden and home is not something he's grateful for, and his worshipping wife earns the money. He's an eternal student.

sorry, there's about 5 rants in there - but it does demonstrate that some people wilfully refuse to see their privileges.

The discussion of privilege also isn't complete without extending it to the people who made lockdown policy, and most prominently supported it too, in fact.

Whether or not lockdown was the best course of action, it's clear that the people who implemented it weren't going to be the ones lumbered with the downsides. As I said upthread, none of them were going to be stuck in a high rise flat with three kids and no garden access. None of them were going to be single mothers trying to do their job and look after a toddler simultaneously. Their kids would've had good quality devices and reliable internet access for homeschooling, if they weren't entitled to keyworker places.

The parties is just the worst example of that, but it's also true of people like Keir Starmer who didn't actually break the rules he was calling for.

I think a lot of people who say things like “it’s a Sophie’s choice” are just happy to sacrifice the poor the vulnerable the people in residential care, in secure units the shop workers and the delivery drivers as they don’t see them as worthy as them with their gardens, pensions and furlough. Hardly any of my clients cared about covid, compared to the actual issues the lived with daily, covid was a big nothing to them.

I don’t like the assertion that everything would have been ok in that little boys life had we not locked down. Or in the other high profile cases.

It was dysfunctional parenting, and failings in social care - exacerbated by lockdown. Lockdown meant that perpetrators could hide, but they would not have otherwise been ‘great parents’.

To put lockdown as the primary cause of his death or suggest it is the primary cause is wrong, and doesn’t address the two most likely key factors : dysfunctional parenting/need for better social care. And in order to improve for the future you need to address these issues first and foremost - and not think it would have been all been fine had we not locked down.

Minky "I don’t like the assertion that everything would have been ok in that little boys life had we not locked down. Or in the other high profile cases."

Good thing no one made it then.

The "all in this together" trope really got on my tits. Because it was more bollocks Those of us further down the socio economic scale knew it would be back to the default setting of treating us like shit when it was over.

It wasn’t the primary cause but it was a massive factor. If he’s been at school, had family or social work visits then the signs would have been spotted. The inquest itself said lock down was a contributing factor. The police threatened to arrest his concerned family. He had people who would have helped him if they had legally been allowed to. We criminalised checking in on vulnerable children.