Myths re lockdown was wrong

[Betsyhilton]

Just seen someone on another thread basically trying to claim that lockdown didnt reduce deaths. The contested John Hopkins survey seems to be encouraging people who basically behaved selfishly, ignored medical advice and did what they liked to now claim retrospectively that they just knew lockdown was wrong.

AIBU to think these are just basically selfish irresponsible people who ignored official advice at the time because it caused them inconvenience and are now jumping on any theory to try to justify their self centred behavior?

Sweden cannot be compared to the uk

You obviously don't know how a death certificate is filled in do you?

I'm just astonished to think that people like the OP are still so dogmatic about lockdown being 100% the right thing three years later and that everyone who disagrees was "selfish", when literally all the evidence shows how much more nuanced it was than that. It's really odd.

Actually there were a number of interesting articles at the time which said that Sweden can very effectively be compared to one particular part of the UK - Scotland. Similar population, similar ways in which population is concentrated in a few key areas, with large areas which are similarly very lightly populated. OK, Scotland is considerably poorer as a nation, however Sweden's urban areas are rather different to what they were 15-20 years ago.

And if Sweden emerged with similar death rates from Covid, but with far less of the awful results of lockdowns and restrictions, I can't see how they can be criticised. It's almost as though the criticisers feel it was a competition to see which country had the fewest official "Covid deaths".

The list below in @Lunde also shows a more moderate approach that has lower damage to livelihoods / mh but very importantly children’s development, via open schools and so on

@WestwardHo1

I’m astonished/think it’s odd that there is still a minority people who think we shouldn’t have had any kind of restrictive measures.

And I’m yet to hear any argument supporting no measures that doesn’t involve:

1. misinformation 2)a focus on economic prosperity over people’s lives.

A focus on economic prosperity over people’s lives would be considered by many to be ‘selfish’. Although I’d say it’s more an argument that focuses on individualism rather than collectivism.

We are all selfish/no such thing as a selfless act. It’s whether an individualistic, populist approach works best in a global pandemic - or a collectivist global approach.

I don’t think Brazil or India are shining examples of excellent pandemic strategy planning that should be applied on a global level. Do you? Both countries led by populist, individualistic, economic wealth over lives type leaders.

If we can’t work together globally to tackle the next - potentially more deadly -pandemic. If we still champion individualism over collectivism - then that could potentially be the downfall of humanity.

So when people say ‘selfish’ - it’s not like they don’t have a point…

The starting point culturally was very different which I expect also hugely affected decisions taken.

I lived and worked in the UK for 20 years so I know the culture of ploughing on. You don't phone in sick if you've just got a cold. Sweden was very different in that respect and you would be expected to stay home and keep your germs to yourself. Helped by the fact SSP is 80% of salary.

They generally have a point, just a more widely applicable one than they think they do.

2)a focus on economic prosperity over people’s lives.

Economic prosperity IS people's lives though.

i.e. doing it your way?

I'm not arguing that pandemics aren't a major threat to humanity. I said that all along.

What I have an issue with was the way this one was dealt with. It wasn't "the big one". They got that wrong. And that will be to everyone's detriment when the big one actually happens.

I’m astonished/think it’s odd that there is still a minority people who think we shouldn’t have had any kind of restrictive measures.

People were already restricting themselves before the blanket stay at home order.

We were credited with zero common sense and intelligence.

Honestly the way it was handled in the UK was as though it was taken from a manual entitled "How to antagonise and alienate your whole population" or "How NOT to handle a pandemic".

I don’t think Brazil or India are shining examples of excellent pandemic strategy planning that should be applied on a global level. Do you?

Not sure where I said that they were? 🤔

@WhalePolo Judging from the stats here https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/ US, Brazil, Italy, UK, Poland and others are much of a muchness - I don't believe the figures for India have any crediblity.
In some parts of the world, those in charge didn't give a damn about the poor, but the lower average age of the poor meant fewer deaths.
There are a lot of variables that feed into the final position - number of land borders, general level of health, average age, whether citizens consider themselves part of a the wider nation - the government weren't honest with the country and people will do their own thing next time.
The police telling children off for playing in their own gardens and criminalising hikers and sunbathers has done nothing to improve their standing in society.
We should never again enforce the elderly and vulnerable to die alone or sacrifice genetically vulnerable healthcare workers or teachers at the altar of political correctness.

No @WestwardHo1

The fundamental thing about life is HAVING a life. Health. Health and safety is at the very base of the pyramid. The essential building block before then having a quality of life.

It used to a lot of ability to accept damage to livelihood, mh and children’s development

I hope there’s a long break to the next one, otherwise we went big on the wrong one

The issue is that society, particularly wealthy nations have moved towards a more individualistic lifestyle. We consume, we demand, we find it very difficult to adjust when are expectations/usual freedom of choice is impacted.
I still firmly believe that the nations that fared better pandemic wise adopted a collectivist model.
However this wasn’t replicated across the globe.
This - perhaps - wasn’t the big one (although it’s difficult to know what would have happened without restrictions, vaccines, hybrid immunity, an unrestricted virus mutating). But we should definitely be learning from this in terms of how to globally plan for something deadlier.
So to dismiss lockdowns as pointless based on an individualistic, freedom of choice argument could very well be our downfall.
However - I think science, and most countries globally prioritise saving lives over saving the economy for the fit within that country.

I wouldn't be surprised if this issue is where the debate ends up shifting to, as we're likely to have more regular pandemics in the future and lockdown is obviously something we can't do on a regular basis.

It proves that that doctor was not writing Covid on death certificates in cases where it was relevant unless threatened with legal action.

Punitive sick leave policies in the UK add to this. A lot of workplaces use Bradford Factor scoring and start you on what is effectively a disciplinary process once you score above a certain amount.

I think the curtain twitchers obsessed with who did have more than one walk a day/ had a visitor outside their bubble or whatever are still absolutely gutted that the general public can now go about their business as they see fit.

I followed the rules by the way, stupid as I thought they were. The only thing I did was go to my dads when we thought he was close to death (it was actually a diabetic hypo but didn’t know that at the time) I’m buggered if some random was going to stop me holding his hand at a time like that.