Remaining Effects of Covid

[Jimini]

Interesting piece in tomorrow's FT about China's data integrity:

One of China’s most populous provinces has deleted mortality data offered an indication of the heavy death toll from Beijing’s relaxation of Covid-19 controls at the end of last year.



The statistics reported by Zhejiang province last week showed that the number of cremations in the wealthy coastal region during the first quarter of the year jumped 73 percent from a year earlier, to 171,000.



The figure was well below the 99,000 and 91,000 deaths reported in the same period in 2022 and 2021 respectively. By Monday, with the statistics attracting attention on Chinese social media, Zhejiang had pulled the information offline.

 

[VauxhallandI]

Interesting piece in tomorrow's FT about China's data integrity:


View attachment 139326

So you can lockdown as early and as hard as you like but it makes little difference? Are you listening Starmer?

 

[DustyBin]

So you can lockdown as early and as hard as you like but it makes little difference? Are you listening Starmer?

Come on now, lockdowns do make a difference… You just can’t lift them!

 

[duncanp]

Come on now, lockdowns do make a difference… You just can’t lift them!

Yes of course lockdowns make a difference.........


.....to people's mental health, the education of school pupils and university students, to the state of the economy, and to the state of the public finances.


Whether they make any difference to the COVID figures is debateable.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Come on now, lockdowns do make a difference… You just can’t lift them!

You can lift them when you have another mitigation in place, such as an effective vaccine like the Pfizer or Moderna ones.

Unfortunately China used a domestically developed traditional vaccine which didn't work very well, largely for political reasons when the rest of the world had realised only those two were really effective* and properly safe. They might as well not have bothered.

What this does demonstrate, though, is that the Chinese Government can't be trusted as far as they can be physically thrown, but we all knew that anyway, didn't we?

* To the extent any of them are, but those two did demonstrably reduce deaths, bringing COVID down to just a bad flu rather than something far nastier.

 

[davews]

* To the extent any of them are, but those two did demonstrably reduce deaths, bringing COVID down to just a bad flu rather than something far nastier.

Some us will say the vaccines demonstrably did just the opposite and any alleged reduction in deaths was due to flawed statistics and the virus itself mutating as viruses do to something far less nasty. But guess we don't want to get into vaccine arguments here...

 

[DustyBin]

You can lift them when you have another mitigation in place, such as an effective vaccine like the Pfizer or Moderna ones.

Unfortunately China used a domestically developed traditional vaccine which didn't work very well, largely for political reasons when the rest of the world had realised only those two were really effective* and properly safe. They might as well not have bothered.

What this does demonstrate, though, is that the Chinese Government can't be trusted as far as they can be physically thrown, but we all knew that anyway, didn't we?

* To the extent any of them are, but those two did demonstrably reduce deaths, bringing COVID down to just a bad flu rather than something far nastier.

Adequate mitigations could have been put in place immediately as the virus was highly discriminatory. In fact, we had a long-standing and robust plan to deal with the situation in which we found ourselves, but the government panicked and went with the Chinese approach instead.

*Full disclosure: I supported the first lockdown initially as I didn't know any better, but then it wasn't my job to know!

Some us will say the vaccines demonstrably did just the opposite and any alleged reduction in deaths was due to flawed statistics and the virus itself mutating as viruses do to something far less nasty. But guess we don't want to get into vaccine arguments here...

The jury is still out in my opinion. I think vulnerable groups benefited, but to me the population wide roll out seemed politically motivated as much as anything. I'm certainly more than happy with my decision to politely decline the vaccine, despite all the coercion.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The jury is still out in my opinion. I think vulnerable groups benefited, but to me the population wide roll out seemed politically motivated as much as anything. I'm certainly more than happy with my decision to politely decline the vaccine, despite all the coercion.

Whereas I'm very happy I had it, and like flu I would pay to have it annually were it offered (I find it odd that it's not). Being ill is rubbish, vaccines reduce the chance of getting ill, what's not to like?

Of course that's your choice and this is mine - the idea of it being mandatory rapidly broke down when it was found it didn't affect transmission to any significant extent (unlike some other "sterilising" vaccines like smallpox which led to eradication of the disease other than in laboratories).

 

[MikeWM]

Of course that's your choice and this is mine - the idea of it being mandatory rapidly broke down when it was found it didn't affect transmission to any significant extent (unlike some other "sterilising" vaccines like smallpox which led to eradication of the disease other than in laboratories).

That's what appears to be the 'Piers Morgan' approach and is highly problematic. The idea of any medical intervention being mandatory in any circumstances for competent adults is totally wrong, even if it is the most super-effective and safe thing ever.

 

[DustyBin]

Whereas I'm very happy I had it, and like flu I would pay to have it annually were it offered (I find it odd that it's not). Being ill is rubbish, vaccines reduce the chance of getting ill, what's not to like?

Very true and I haven't been ill since the end of 2021 when I was a bit rough with my one and only Covid infection (presumably the Delta variant). Natural immunity reduces the chance of getting ill, what's not to like?

Seriously though, the above is why I'm happy with my decision, whilst also accepting the fact that it doesn't prove anything.

Of course that's your choice and this is mine - the idea of it being mandatory rapidly broke down when it was found it didn't affect transmission to any significant extent (unlike some other "sterilising" vaccines like smallpox which led to eradication of the disease other than in laboratories).

I completely agree.

 

[Bikeman78]

Adequate mitigations could have been put in place immediately as the virus was highly discriminatory. In fact, we had a long-standing and robust plan to deal with the situation in which we found ourselves, but the government panicked and went with the Chinese approach instead.

I did have the vaccine but took basically no precautions at all in the 13 months before I had it. That included travelling on some rather full trains but I never caught Covid. The risk to people of working age was massively overstated.

Yesterday I went to an optician. They still had a sheet of paper on the door going on about "Have you recently travelled to any of the 14 following countries If so, do not enter this building." It must have been there since January or February 2020. I get that signs on notice boards can get forgotten but this was the only entrance to a small building. Made me chuckle.

 

[DustyBin]

I did have the vaccine but took basically no precautions at all in the 13 months before I had it. That included travelling on some rather full trains but I never caught Covid. The risk to people of working age was massively overstated.

Actually that's a good point as I similarly took few if any precautions, which will have helped maintain my immune system generally.

 

[Richard Scott]

Actually that's a good point as I similarly took few if any precautions, which will have helped maintain my immune system generally.

I've never taken any precautions, except those I was forced to by law, and have never knowingly had it.

 

[nw1]

Yes of course lockdowns make a difference.........


.....to people's mental health, the education of school pupils and university students, to the state of the economy, and to the state of the public finances.


Whether they make any difference to the COVID figures is debateable.

This is the point. The debate we need to be having (in order to deal with future pandemics in an appropriate way) is whether the bad effects of lockdowns outweigh the positives.

 

[Blindtraveler]

I think the wider school of thought on this topic a way from this forum or indeed other discussion boards is that no, the positive benefits of lockdown do not in any way out way the negative. People won't do it again because it was abused by those in power and has been proven on so many levels to have been counterproductive and so asking us to repeat it any time will simply get ignored by the public and I should think many businesses as well, particularly smaller ones who are still waiting for the null existent compensation payments that they were promised

 

[nw1]

I think the wider school of thought on this topic a way from this forum or indeed other discussion boards is that no, the positive benefits of lockdown do not in any way out way the negative. People won't do it again because it was abused by those in power and has been proven on so many levels to have been counterproductive and so asking us to repeat it any time will simply get ignored by the public and I should think many businesses as well, particularly smaller ones who are still waiting for the null existent compensation payments that they were promised

I do wonder why such extensive and long-lasting lockdowns were implemented for Covid when they were not for recent pandemics, including the considerably more severe Spanish flu 100 years ago.

I can see that in the first few weeks everyone was panicking, but why the near-worldwide resumption of lockdowns in autumn/winter 2020/21 for almost 6 months, which seemed to be much more controversial than that of the first few weeks and which perhaps caused the lasting economic damage, more so than the initial lockdowns?

 

[VauxhallandI]

I do wonder why such extensive and long-lasting lockdowns were implemented for Covid when they were not for recent pandemics, including the considerably more severe Spanish flu 100 years ago.

I can see that in the first few weeks everyone was panicking, but why the near-worldwide resumption of lockdowns in autumn/winter 2020/21 for almost 6 months, which seemed to be much more controversial than that of the first few weeks and which perhaps caused the lasting economic damage, more so than the initial lockdowns?

The ability to work from home is the key reason in my mind

 

[adc82140]

The first lockdown was on balance probably necessary for a handful of weeks as no one knew what the disease was, or what it was capable of. Once it was established that it wasn't randomly picking off healthy people (and I'd say by May 2020 we knew that) it should have been replaced with strong public health advice, but certainly at this point nothing in law.

Somehow we had mission creep from preventing deaths to preventing people feeling grotty for a few days. Really a good proportion of those in power took leave of their senses.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The first lockdown was on balance probably necessary for a handful of weeks as no one knew what the disease was, or what it was capable of. Once it was established that it wasn't randomly picking off healthy people (and I'd say by May 2020 we knew that) it should have been replaced with strong public health advice, but certainly at this point nothing in law.

Somehow we had mission creep from preventing deaths to preventing people feeling grotty for a few days. Really a good proportion of those in power took leave of their senses.

The reason wasn't ever to do with people feeling grotty, nor even really preventing deaths, it was to do with preventing hospitals becoming full of people being treated for COVID.

 

[VauxhallandI]

The reason wasn't ever to do with people feeling grotty, nor even really preventing deaths, it was to do with preventing hospitals becoming full of people being treated for COVID.

What treatment are you referring to?

 

[Bletchleyite]

What treatment are you referring to?

Anything from just being under observation to being intubated and ventilated, as necessary depending on severity.

This was a relatively small proportion of people, but the problem is that if everyone gets it at once that's still a big number, more than we have ICU beds. The idea of social distancing was to reduce the speed at which it moved through the population (while accepting that it would, eventually, get everyone) so not everyone gets it at once, not to prevent anyone getting it at all which was never going to happen.

It might have been sold as "don't kill your Nan", but that was just a (fairly unsavoury) way of using emotion to encourage compliance.

 

[duncanp]

The reason wasn't ever to do with people feeling grotty, nor even really preventing deaths, it was to do with preventing hospitals becoming full of people being treated for COVID.

The question which hasn't really been answered though is how many COVID infections did the lockdown prevent?

People had to leave their houses to obtain food or essential services, to get exercise, or for any other reasons permitted under the law.

Therefore there was the oppotunity for infections to take place.

Again we have to look at Sweden, where there was never a lockdown, and where the final outcome was not demonstrably worse than the UK or elsewhere in Europe.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The question which hasn't really been answered though is how many COVID infections did the lockdown prevent?

If you consider the people infected between 2020 and now, I suspect very few if any at all, there can't be many people who haven't had it now, though I do find it odd that I've only knowingly had it once and some seem to get it every other month. However reducing the number of infections at any one time helped the NHS to cope.

Again we have to look at Sweden, where there was never a lockdown, and where the final outcome was not demonstrably worse than the UK or elsewhere in Europe.

Sweden has a far more collectivist approach than we do, so people voluntarily reduced contact because it was to them the right thing to do. That's why that worked there, but I'm not sure it would have worked the same way here as a lot of British people are much more individualistic in their views.

 

[adc82140]

I'm fairly certain with the correct, measured messaging the Swedish approach would have worked here too. I don't buy in to the theory that somehow the Swedes are socially more responsible than anyone else in Europe.

 

[VauxhallandI]

How did the Swedish medical system survive?

 

[Pete_uk]

Maybe their health system was better funded/run than ours??

 

[VauxhallandI]

Maybe their health system was better funded/run than ours??

Just sat there with rafts of ventilators awaiting a rainy day. I doubt it very much.

 

[DustyBin]

The reason wasn't ever to do with people feeling grotty, nor even really preventing deaths, it was to do with preventing hospitals becoming full of people being treated for COVID.

Was the risk of that actually real though? We had unused nightingales, actual hospitals practically empty, and Hancock wanting to offer beds to other European countries (as per his leaked messages). The need to “protect the NHS” appears to be largely fallacious.

I'm fairly certain with the correct, measured messaging the Swedish approach would have worked here too. I don't buy in to the theory that somehow the Swedes are socially more responsible than anyone else in Europe.

This is what really irks me. The Swedes simply followed a well established, long standing pandemic response plan. The so-called “Swedish approach” should have been our approach; the difference is we panicked and they didn’t. To suggest it wouldn’t have worked here (or presumably anywhere else) is nothing more than a smokescreen, just like saying we’d prepared for the “wrong type of virus”.

 

[JamesT]

Was the risk of that actually real though? We had unused nightingales, actual hospitals practically empty, and Hancock wanting to offer beds to other European countries (as per his leaked messages). The need to “protect the NHS” appears to be largely fallacious.

Everyone was looking at Italy. They were around two weeks ahead in terms of infections, so it seemed likely that what happened there was likely to happen in the UK.
Parts of the Italian health service were overwhelmed https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...itals-short-beds-coronavirus-death-toll-jumps

Hospitals in the locked-down Italian region of Lombardy are beginning to run out of beds as the country recorded its highest day-on-day rise in deaths from coronavirus.

As the NHS normally runs with much less spare capacity than other countries, it was entirely plausible that COVID hitting the UK like Lombardy would have had a similarly catastrophic effect.
Our hospitals may have been ‘empty’, but that would only have been due to pretty much everything bar covid treatment being cancelled. Hence the actual disaster of old people being released back to social care without testing.

This is what really irks me. The Swedes simply followed a well established, long standing pandemic response plan. The so-called “Swedish approach” should have been our approach; the difference is we panicked and they didn’t. To suggest it wouldn’t have worked here (or presumably anywhere else) is nothing more than a smokescreen, just like saying we’d prepared for the “wrong type of virus”.

Even Sweden introduced restrictions.

 

[Dent]

The reason wasn't ever to do with people feeling grotty, nor even really preventing deaths, it was to do with preventing hospitals becoming full of people being treated for COVID.

If the objective was really to flatten the peaks in hospital occupancy then why were restrictions still in place even during the troughs in infection numbers? Reducing infections during the troughs, leading to fewer people gaining immunity before the next peak, resulting in the peak in hospital occupancy being higher, is clearly incompatible with that objective.

The initial stated aim of "three weeks to flatted the curve" did make some sense, but then that was forgotten and the supposedly three weeks of restrictions dragged on for nearly two years with no coherent objective.