Should our lockdown have been harsher/stricter?

[Scotrail12]

Looking at New Zealand, Slovakia, etc a strict lockdown appears to have been exactly the right solution. Go early, go hard. They are out of lockdown and more or less back to normal.

Most UK offices won't be up and running until 2021 and I am now listening to a discussion where this may also have to include schools. The long term effect on mental health on those workers who cannot get back to work and the effect on lost education for thousands of children cannot be disregarded.

You've not acknowledged any of the issues I've mentioned. Not being allowed to exercise or have fresh air would have created other health issues. The virus isn't the only important health issue even though people seem to think it is.

 

[43066]

I did read the articles.
What you said doesn't contradict.

It exposes your previous statement:

“Sweden has all but admitted it got it wrong.“

As factually incorrect!

 

[Jamesrob637]

What difference would that have achieved? Virus transmission in the outside air coupled with social distancing is very difficult.

It would have slowed things down a little and cemented our reputation a bit. Look at the countries refusing to allow Brits in without quarantine or even at all.

 

[Djgr]

It would have slowed things down a little and cemented our reputation a bit. Look at the countries refusing to allow Brits in without quarantine or even at all.

Except that it wouldn't, given that the main difference between England and Spain at that time was an allowance for 1 hour local exercise, where the opportunity for virus transmission was about the same as hen's teeth

 

[Smidster]

It would have slowed things down a little and cemented our reputation a bit. Look at the countries refusing to allow Brits in without quarantine or even at all.

It would have been of very little use.

Our death numbers peaked on April 8th - Those people will have been infected at lease 2-3 weeks earlier so before we entered our lock down.

 

[Scrotnig]

Except that it wouldn't, given that the main difference between England and Spain at that time was an allowance for 1 hour local exercise, where the opportunity for virus transmission was about the same as hen's teeth

It was not an hour. There was no time limit in England.

 

[Djgr]

It was not an hour. There was no time limit in England.

There was at the start of the lockdown that is being referred to here. Admittedly this time limit was only guidance but before Cummings it was assumed that we should follow guidance.

 

[Scrotnig]

There was at the start of the lockdown that is being referred to here. Admittedly this time limit was only guidance but before Cummings it was assumed that we should follow guidance.

Guidance is irrelevant. You cannot enforce guidance, only the law. And the law had no time limit in England.

 

[Djgr]

Guidance is irrelevant. You cannot enforce guidance, only the law. And the law had no time limit in England.

It's not irrelevant because the vast majority of the population's behaviour fell in line with the guidance. Maybe yours didn't but mine did and pretty much everyone I know

 

[Esker-pades]

It exposes your previous statement:

“Sweden has all but admitted it got it wrong.“

As factually incorrect!

It doesn't...

 

[Bletchleyite]

Except that it wouldn't, given that the main difference between England and Spain at that time was an allowance for 1 hour local exercise, where the opportunity for virus transmission was about the same as hen's teeth

It was never restricted to 1 hour. People derived that themselves, partly from an expression of Gove's opinion on a chat show. But I agree, it was not likely to have caused any significant transmission if any at all.

 

[Bletchleyite]

There was at the start of the lockdown that is being referred to here. Admittedly this time limit was only guidance but before Cummings it was assumed that we should follow guidance.

No, there wasn't. It was never even given as guidance. It was Gove's opinion, and only when he was pressed several times to give it.

 

[takno]

It doesn't...

In the context of a thread about lockdown it absolutely does

 

[scarby]

In the context of a thread about lockdown it absolutely does

From the perspective of sitting here in Stockholm, where almost everything has gone back to basic normality, it looks as if Britain has literally gone mad. I dread to think of some of the long-term social and economic consequences. At the moment I am wondering if I will ever want to visit the UK again.

 

[adc82140]

It is indeed mad. I've booked a cottage holiday in Scotland for the end of July. It's looking increasingly unlikely we'll be going. Yet I probably will be able to book a week away somewhere in Europe.

 

[43066]

From the perspective of sitting here in Stockholm, where almost everything has gone back to basic normality, it looks as if Britain has literally gone mad. I dread to think of some of the long-term social and economic consequences. At the moment I am wondering if I will ever want to visit the UK again.

As someone sitting in London, I absolutely agree with you! I admire the Swedish government for having had the courage to take a different approach - an approach that looks increasingly like it will be proved right. The UK government has been weak and reactive throughout - simply flip flopping around and trying to pander to public opinion. It’s now politically difficult for them to bring lock down to an end, because the population has been terrified into submission!

As you are probably aware non essential businesses are opening again in the UK from next Monday and restaurants/pubs etc. are expected to open from July at the earliest - so hopefully the next four weeks will see a large shift back towards normality.

 

[Jamesrob637]

As someone sitting in London, I absolutely agree with you! I admire the Swedish government for having had the courage to take a different approach - an approach that looks increasingly like it will be proved right. The UK government has been weak and reactive throughout - simply flip flopping around and trying to pander to public opinion. It’s now politically difficult for them to bring lock down to an end, because the population has been terrified into submission!

As you are probably aware non essential businesses are opening again in the UK from next Monday and restaurants/pubs etc. are expected to open from July at the earliest - so hopefully the next four weeks will see a large shift back towards normality.

Was the Swedish approach correct? Thought they're having doubts now.
Figures there are higher per capita than the other Nordic countries but lower than many Latin countries including South America where it seems they're currently in the peak.

 

[Puffing Devil]

Was the Swedish approach correct? Thought they're having doubts now.
Figures there are higher per capita than the other Nordic countries but lower than many Latin countries including South America where it seems they're currently in the peak.

Norway - 44 deaths per million (dpm)
Sweden - 463 dpm

If I were in Sweden and had lost a loved one, I would be asking questions about the strategy.

UK dpm = 614 and Belgium tops the chart at 842 dpm

 

[takno]

Norway - 44 deaths per million (dpm)
Sweden - 463 dpm

If I were in Sweden and had lost a loved one, I would be asking questions about the strategy.

UK dpm = 614 and Belgium tops the chart at 842 dpm

You would have every right to ask questions about the strategy - I've noticed that people who have lost loved-ones often do. I've equally noticed that the questions they ask and the conclusions they draw are rarely balanced or good for society as a whole.

The Swedish government is very clear that they made the same mistakes as us in shielding care homes, which accounts for half the deaths. Outside of that they drew a better balance than most of Europe, and in the long run are likely to suffer less hardship, misery and probably death than the many countries who followed the dangerous path of locking down.

 

[Yew]

Norway - 44 deaths per million (dpm)
Sweden - 463 dpm

If I were in Sweden and had lost a loved one, I would be asking questions about the strategy.

UK dpm = 614 and Belgium tops the chart at 842 dpm

But if locking down is so effective, surely Sweden would be much higher than the UK and Belgium. I don't think anyone is calling into question that it's effective if caught early particuarly if it's combined with closing borders, but if the horse has already bolted, there's not much use shutting the stable door.

 

[Puffing Devil]

But if locking down is so effective, surely Sweden would be much higher than the UK and Belgium. I don't think anyone is calling into question that it's effective if caught early particuarly if it's combined with closing borders, but if the horse has already bolted, there's not much use shutting the stable door.

My belief it's a combination of the two - an early and effective lockdown: Just like the COVID poster child, New Zealand.

The UK screwed itself over as we dithered and delayed, then went into lockdown in a casual manner. We should have locked down more strictly and a lot sooner. We could have been out by now.

I need to do some reading around Belgium, as I have no idea why their figures are so bad.

 

[Markdvdman]

Wales is persisting with a strict lockdown. The 5 mile rule is likely to be in place for most of the summer. They are ridiculously cautious, treating us like children! My old man lives about 35 miles away and my girlfriend 42 miles away. Not seen either for 12 weeks and could well be 20 weeks by the time I did. The Welsh Government are a joke and not reacting, just be ridiclously over cautious. IF they did it early March fair enough but they are destroying mental well being, and businesses! Wales will be a shell soon if it carries on like this!

 

[The Ham]

It definitely should not have been a harsher lockdown, in my opinion.

What we had wasn't great for the mental health of many people but it could have been far, far worse.

Whilst we disagree on lockdown on many factors, this is an area where we do agree.

Personally I think that the lockdown restrictions were about right, what could have been harsher was the penalties for breaching the rules.

What we needed was for everyone to accept that 3 weeks of following the rules could have resulted in the lockdown being for a shorter timeframe.

A shorter lockdown would have been better for the economy and job retention.

The other thing that was probably needed was better control of discharging patients to care/nursing homes after they'd spent time in hospital. This would have likely reduced care home deaths. As it was patients were being discharged from hospital to care homes with no testing or knowledge as to if they had been in contact or the level of risk of contact.

 

[Richard Scott]

Wales is persisting with a strict lockdown. The 5 mile rule is likely to be in place for most of the summer. They are ridiculously cautious, treating us like children! My old man lives about 35 miles away and my girlfriend 42 miles away. Not seen either for 12 weeks and could well be 20 weeks by the time I did. The Welsh Government are a joke and not reacting, just be ridiclously over cautious. IF they did it early March fair enough but they are destroying mental well being, and businesses! Wales will be a shell soon if it carries on like this!

Living in Wales I agree, it's ridiculous. I'm convinced they're now just playing a political game and doing whatever they can to be different to England. At some point we all need to get back to some kind of normality before half the population are too frightened to go out and the other half have gone mad! If we don't get economy moving then we don't have an NHS or anything else as we won't be able to afford it.

 

[scarby]

Norway - 44 deaths per million (dpm)
Sweden - 463 dpm

If I were in Sweden and had lost a loved one, I would be asking questions about the strategy.

I am there and I did lose a loved one - my father-in-law passed away after contracting the virus. However, before that he was in an extremely bad way to say the least - without going into the details I could clearly see at Christmas that it would be his last; it was one very brief period in the last five months of his life that he wasn't in hospital. He wouldn't have survived much longer, virus or not, and his quality of life was becoming minimal, coupled with a lot of painful suffering.

It hasn't changed my support for the strategy at all, because it's one that accepts that the virus exists, that we can't just hide from it indefinitely and it weighs up what realistically can be done about it while considering the vital importance of the well-being of the wide population in the long term - it recognises that it is completely wrong to focus just on one disease at the expense of maintaining a healthily functional society.

 

[nlogax]

Yes, with the benefit of hindsight - but also the realisation of some of these things at the time;

• We should have started our lockdown much sooner - late February / early March
• We should have had a much more active quarantine program for arrivals from abroad, starting at the tail end of the ski season and not at the beginning of June
• As lockdowns go ours went as far as it probably needed to go. Any stricter and it would have verged on mass cruelty

Our emergence is proving to be just..comedic. Those running the UK possess a strong habit of faffing and fumbling through various crises affecting the public and this one carries on that grand tradition. Almost feels like a national sport. The inevitable inquiry into how the UK dealt with Covid will make Leveson and Chilcot look like brief saunters in the park.

 

[Mag_seven]

We should have started our lockdown much sooner - late February / early March

Whilst it looks like that is what we should have done I don't think the country would have taken too kindly to it - lockdowns are very alien thing to democracies and I don't think we have ever experienced one before. It was probably better to wait to see how other European countries reacted rather than looking at non democratic regimes such as China.

 

[MikeWM]

I'm not at all convinced an earlier or stricter lockdown has any useful long-term effect. There are many other factors in play, but eg. look at what has happened in India.

Of course dramatically cutting transmission vectors by a 'lockdown' will have a positive short-term effect on total cases of a virus. But does it actually cause more people to be infected, or does it just defer the infections, while dramatically increasing the societial and economic side-effects by dragging things out for longer?

It is far too soon to tell the true effects - which is why little is to be gained at this point by comparing Norway with Sweden, or the UK with New Zealand. In maybe 3 years or so the overall picture should be somewhat clearer.

I'm also deeply concerned at the implications of the idea that what has gone wrong is that we should have been quicker to lockdown. We could have done the same for SARS, MERS, swine flu, bad seasons of winter flu...... probably 7 or 8 times in the last 20 years alone. Would any of those have helped? If there is even a chance that a lockdown is a more-than-once-in-a-lifetime event, the effects on the economy will be even more devastating than we are facing now. Who in their right mind would ever consider starting a new small business, for example?

 

[NorthOxonian]

Whilst it looks like that is what we should have done I don't think the country would have taken too kindly to it - lockdowns are very alien thing to democracies and I don't think we have ever experienced one before. It was probably better to wait to see how other European countries reacted rather than looking at non democratic regimes such as China.

Fully agree. It's easy to say we should have locked down immediately with hindsight, but would people have accepted it in late February when the virus just wasn't seen as a threat?

 

[Domh245]

Fully agree. It's easy to say we should have locked down immediately with hindsight, but would people have accepted it in late February when the virus just wasn't seen as a threat?

Fully agreed, and I doubt that the public would have bought in to a lock down when it'd have been most effective. SAGE concluded that there was "likely to be sustained transmission in the UK in the coming weeks" on March 2nd which is close approaching the point where it's too late to lock down to eradicate the virus. At that point there were 36 confirmed cases and no confirmed deaths.