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?

No I agree the message never was that it was the worst thing ever. But that's how a lot of people have taken it. Like the poster I was replying to originally who said covid causes long term issues not seen in flu. So I asked what these were. Because I haven't heard of any yet that can't also be caused by flu (and possibly other viruses). I fully admit that in a population with no immunity meaning a higher percentage of people get the virus at one time may then end up with a higher percentage of people getting these long term health issues etc.

I just get annoyed with so many people saying "but covid is different to other viruses because it causes all these issues!!!" When other viruses DO cause the same things. Just admittedly not on as large a scale because we've had years to gather immunity to other viruses plus other viruses may not be as contagious.

It will be interesting to see how covid does pan out in the coming years/decades. Whether as a population we slowly gain enough immunity for it to become more like one of the other Coronaviruses already in permanent circulation and it is just another cold (which as ever affect some worse than others). Or whether it is always more of a "flu like" issue where certain people have yearly boosters and we have winter death rates the same as we do with flu.

I don’t think proportionally ‘fear’ was the method of compliance in the UK. I think maybe it was attempted to an extent - but comparatively around the globe? Fear was being shot for not complying. I don’t think we were using any more or less scare tactics than other European countries.

It was a behavioural method. It’s why Spi B and SAGE had behavioural experts advising

The fear part was the daily case and death count. You saw the reactions on here. It’s probably why it worked so well social media did a lot of the work

But other European countries were doing the same? I don’t our government we were doing anything excessively different. Apart from partying, stating things like ‘let the bodies pile high’ and not having a sufficiently well resourced health/education system to cope due to years of underfunding.

I don’t know their set up but I do know in the U.K. we used behavioural experts to maximise compliance

The problem is that we have become used to people using the term 'flu' when they mean a heavy cold. For me, 'real flu' meant a fortnight in bed, racked with pain and no energy to even get out of bed. Had I not lived with others who cared for me, I think I would have died of self-neglect. My strength never fully recovered and I was in my mid twenties and very fit at the time.
As with the use of the word 'vaccine' which we understood to be a preventative to both catching a disease and passing it on, the suppose clever use of misleading language has done a great deal of long-term damage to the population.

The other thing that seems to crop up is the idea of ‘libertarian’

It seems entirely normal and logical to me to question whether the damage incurred against a risk is the right way to go.

Agree with this about vaccines as well. People saying that vaccines never stopped you getting an illness. Which may be true for some. But for the vast majority of people and illnesses if they've had the vaccine they never get the illness.
I've had a measles vaccine. I've never had measles. Most of the population have never had measles for this reason. And the reason measles is so low in society (on the increase now I know) is due to vaccines.
So when the first covid "vaccine" was announced obviously the majority of the population assumed it would do what most other vaccines do. But it turns out it is nothing like a measles vaccine etc. It doesn't stop you getting it, passing it on or even feeling like utter death.

We eradicated small pox due to vaccines. Because it stopped people getting it and passing it on. So people felt mislead when the covid vaccine did nothing like that.

At best the covid vaccine minimises symptoms and stops you dying. But not always.

Yes, because it was felt that the government intervened too much on people’s lives. That’s in line with a libertarian view. It’s not ‘wrong’ or ‘right’. Some feel that the loss of liberty was too much and too damaging.
Some feel that a more collective approach was appropriate and that we should give up certain freedoms for the good of the whole - to save lives and buy time for a method of control (vaccine). Which means state enforcement of rules or - as you put it ‘fear’.

No that’s the point I’m making.

The overall damage should be assessed against risk.

Your framing is one of someone at higher risk.

@EasternStandard

But before we had the vaccine, even if we weren’t at risk of Covid : we were at risk of not getting adequate health care treatment as hospitals were inundated. So that’s all services - maternity, A and E, paediatrics etc etc, ambulance services.

@Dwappy

Measles is a stable virus, and unlikely to mutate - which is why one shot.
Flu, Covid are highly likely to mutate - hence the need for boosters.

But I can’t help but think that disingenuous to say ‘it doesn’t work like other vaccines’ or believe it should only need one shot. We had knowledge of flu vaccines prior to Covid, and travel vaccines requiring boosters. And knowledge that certain childhood vaccines need boosters.

But the general public do not have the knowledge of stable viruses and mutations etc. Vulnerable people may know more about flu viruses and the need for yearly boosters. But when the covid vaccine was announced it was publicised as our saviour. We have this vaccine so if everyone gets it we can go about our lives! At no point did they say, well we have this vaccine and the whole population will need 3-6 monthly boosters for the rest of their lives and still some people will die. It really wasn't marketed to the public that way. And the general public only hear the word vaccine and think of things like measles.

I happily had my covid vaccine. Then the second one. Then the booster. But I won't be having them every 3 or 6 months which is what some people think is needed to apparently aquire a tiny bit of immunity to the current variant.

@Dwappy

I agree - I think the messaging and communication should have been much clearer/better. I can’t ever remembering hearing or assuming it wouldn’t need a booster.
My hope would be that we’ve developed sufficient hybrid immunity (through previous vaccination and catching Covid naturally) to pose less of a risk. But I’d take whatever was offered my way!

What did not happen is comparing deaths from covid with other types of viruses, or accidents.

Most people have very poor perception of risk. They are more afraid of their kids being kidnapped than killed in a car accident, for example. Things that seem scarier are rated as much bigger risks.

For children, covid is not the most risky respiratory virus. This was known pretty early on. Yet people were much more scared of their kids catching covid, and made demands they never have for other illnesses that affect kids.

Another example is care home deaths. Not only were numbers needed, but a comparison with other seasonal viruses, and also what would have helped a lot of people would be understanding the average length of time an older person is in a care home before death.

If the government is going to publish these kinds of numbers, they need to be contextualized for the public.

Just as a minor point, the link between covid and diabetes is far from proven.

It has long been the case that we know having a serious dose of a virus could be a trigger for Type I diabetes, but this is not specific to Covid - for example a serious nationwide outbreak of, say, scarlet fever might well also be followed by a spike in new Type I diabetes cases.

Vaccines work in different ways @Dwappy but it's not uncommon to need boosters - we have more than one MMR, more than one for flu etc. Totally get why some people are a bit put out to learn this as it wasn't made clear but that's (another) failing by government not by science.

There was a lot of speculation in the media that the vaccine would prevent transmission. That was always unlikely, but many people believed it.

It's simply untrue that other viruses don't cause issues like covid, long term. We are actually learning more and more about this now, it's simply that many people are unaware. Look at MS, which now appears to be connected to having mono, and there is more and more thinking that there may be links like this with what seem to be minor infections.

And on the other hand, it seems more and more clear that lack of exposure to germs is also harmful for us.

As for the state creating fear on purpose, does no one remember the ad campaigns? (I will also say, yes, it is interesting this was a glabal phenomena, that does not mean it was good.)

Totally get why some people are a bit put out to learn this as it wasn't made clear but that's (another) failing by government not by science.

No one is saying science failed on this. It's policy that was the problem, and the way the media handled it. Though there were plenty of people in the scientific and medical community who enabled that.

I understand some vaccines need boosters. But none have offered as many as covid which i believe is twice a year at least. For the vast majority of vaccines you have one or two per illness as a child then it's done. Maybe a top up in teen years or if you need to go abroad. But other than when I went to Africa and for my job (hep b as medical related) I have not needed any vaccines for many years. (I do pay for the flu vaccine though once a year after my near death experience with flu 20 years ago). I've never had flu since that one time. Most people don't get it regularly even without vaccines. (With severe symptoms anyway). I've never had or known anyone have measles or polio or diptheria etc.
So most peoples experiences of vaccines will be getting the odd one or two then done. Or having a yearly flu one and rarely getting flu. So the fact the covid vaccine was initially reported as our "way out" of the pandemic definitely implied it would either stop people getting it or at least minimise how often they got it.
But that hasn't been the case at all. You see people on here saying they've had 6+ vaccines and have had covid 5 times and felt horrendous every time.
I am not anti vaccines in the slightest. I will take pretty much anything offered. And if I was sure the covid one would actually stop me getting it or getting it really badly I'd happily pay for a once a year booster like I do with flu. But reading reports on here and speaking to people in real life I'm not convinced it's worth it. (Not that a qualify for boosters anyway at the moment). If you can have 6 vaccines and still have it severely 5 times and some unvaxxed people have it mildly once I think I'll just take my chances for now. Maybe one day I'll change my mind if better ones/ new evidence comes out. I'm more than happy to be proved wrong. I had my first covid vaccine in January 2021 as I qualified early due to my job. Because I really believed it would help us all get out of this awful pandemic. Anyway. As I said I'm willing to change my mind on this but right now I'm just not convinced.

No one is saying science failed on this.

I thought that was what @Dwappy was implying. Apologies if I misread.

Government and the media both like simple explanations and yes or no answers. Science doesn't really work like that, especially not when it is dealing with a novel virus about which we were, and are, still learning.

And there definitely was a scare campaign, didn't Matt Hancock admit that his plan was to 'scare the pants off the public'? Tosser. No wonder people weren't able to accurately assess the risk - as @Rudderneck says we aren't terribly good at that at the best of times and the policy approach made it all the harder.

imho we had very little compliance, after the first LD obviously if hospitality is shut, we can't go, if the police are at a beauty spot, the same but you only have to look at the crowds who hit the beach etc to realise most people didn't give a 4X.

Saw it in the 1st LD, i could cycle or walk and not see a soul driving about, everything was like a ghost town, subsequent LDs just didn't have that compliance.

Tere was also zero compliance in Govt and as soon as people could, they jumped on planes ferries etc.

I think there was a huge disconnect between what the public did, what Govt did and the message.

MN is not a barometer of what the country did.

@Rudderneck They needed these scare type tactics because people weren't complying, they also didn't work.

But in terms of the elderly or vulnerable, people did avoid exposing them, it was the Govt that killed them by releasing patients into CH's and allowing staff to travel between homes.

When do you mean? January 2021 lockdown?

Data doesn’t reflect that though

13 January 2021

The COVID-19 Social Study, which collected responses from more than 70,000 participants, found that the number of people reporting "majority compliance" - that is, following most or almost all of the rules - rose to 96% for the week ending 10 January, which was the highest figure since April.

Look at the chart it was consistently high

https://news.sky.com/story/amp/covid-19-compliance-with-restrictions-at-highest-point-since-first-lockdown-new-data-reveals-12186138

Your link supports that for a large minority, rule bending was common place PLUS who is really going to say "i break the rules" ?

I was working for a large multi national company with employees all around the country, i travelled to many sites and knew a large number of colleagues, people did the minimum, hence CV cases rising, if people obeyed the rules, cases would fall.

1st LD, cases fell off a cliff.

found that the number of people reporting "majority compliance" - that is, following most or almost all of the rules - rose to 96% for the week ending 10 January, which was the highest figure since April..

It was high. It didn’t dip as you suggested.

I doubt people expect perfection but 96% for most or almost all is high.