Remaining Effects of Covid

[yorksrob]

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.

If you recall, if infections were increasing, restrictions were imposed at the drop of a hat, whereas if they were decreasing, we had to wait a month before restrictions were removed, "just to be sure".

 

[duncanp]

If you recall, if infections were increasing, restrictions were imposed at the drop of a hat, whereas if they were decreasing, we had to wait a month before restrictions were removed, "just to be sure".

Five weeks actually, according to the roadmap out of the lockdown imposed at the start of 2021.

Not only that, but Twitty and Vallance managed to scare Boris Johnson into postponing the final lifting of restrictions from June 2021 to July 2021.

 

[yorksrob]

Five weeks actually, according to the roadmap out of the lockdown imposed at the start of 2021.

My mistake

 

[DustyBin]

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

As I’ve stated previously, our initial decision to impose a lockdown was understandable (although wrong) but it went on for too long. We then had two more, and other restrictions that lasted two years.

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.

In regard to Lombardy, it was a perfect storm of high population density, inadequate healthcare provision, and being caught completely cold that led to the area having the worst outcome in Italy. As terrible as the scenes there were, we had time to prepare but instead we abandoned our plan and chaos ensued (which led to the social care disaster you’ve mentioned).

Even Sweden introduced restrictions.

They weren’t really comparable though.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 21 Jul 2023 ==

Not only that, but Twitty and Vallance managed to scare Boris Johnson into postponing the final lifting of restrictions from June 2021 to July 2021.

They weren’t the only ones to oppose the restoration of our basic freedom and liberty:



(Image is of a Guardian article with the heading “Starmer condemns ‘reckless’ decision to lift Covid restrictions in England).

 

[Dent]

If you recall, if infections were increasing, restrictions were imposed at the drop of a hat, whereas if they were decreasing, we had to wait a month before restrictions were removed, "just to be sure".

Or, in the case of 2021, imposed when infections had already obviously peaked, and kept for over six months, including when infections were at one of the lowest levels they have ever been. Now can anyone seriously say that was to flatten the peak which was already passed?

 

[duncanp]

They weren’t the only ones to oppose the restoration of our basic freedom and liberty:

View attachment 139422

(Image is of a Guardian article with the heading “Starmer condemns ‘reckless’ decision to lift Covid restrictions in England).

This is what worries me about Kier Starmer becoming Prime Minister, as seems increasingly likely.

If we have a bad winter flu season, no doubt the likes of Twitty and Vallance would put pressure on the government to impose COVID style restrictions in order to, you've guessed it, "..protect the NHS...".

And despite the fearmongering headline above, there wasn't "..a summer of chaos.." in 2021.

Fortunately, as the economic consequences of all the COVID restrictions are becoming ever clearer, I don't think that any government, of whatever political persuasion, can impose restrictions such as we saw in March 2020 or January 2021.

 

[Bletchleyite]

This is what worries me about Kier Starmer becoming Prime Minister, as seems increasingly likely.

If we have a bad winter flu season, no doubt the likes of Twitty and Vallance would put pressure on the government to impose COVID style restrictions in order to, you've guessed it, "..protect the NHS...".

I think the idea of lockdowns for anything other than another novel virus is utterly discredited now to the point that it'd be impossible because people would simply ignore it in such volumes that enforcement would be impossible.

I agree with the principle of it (if not the implementation) for a novel virus for the reasons stated, I don't agree with it for an endemic virus. An endemic virus like flu, unless it's a totally new and highly dangerous variant that has no cross immunity with existing versions (thus a novel virus), can't cause the same issues as a virus that everyone could theoretically catch at the same time.

 

[Blindtraveler]

I would agree with both the above points, Labour and starma in particular would likely respond to pressure for lockdowns or restrictions and the public would almost certainly not bother to follow them

 

[DustyBin]

I think the idea of lockdowns for anything other than another novel virus is utterly discredited now to the point that it'd be impossible because people would simply ignore it in such volumes that enforcement would be impossible.

I would agree with both the above points, Labour and starma in particular would likely respond to pressure for lockdowns or restrictions and the public would almost certainly not bother to follow them

I'd like to say I agree but I'm honestly 50/50. In the face of an even more effective propaganda campaign (because lessons absolutely will have been learnt), would enough people really ignore it? It only needs a critical mass of people to comply and others will follow.

 

[Blindtraveler]

It would all depend on the context. If a new strain of covid or something even more deadly appeared then yes it might be followed oh at least until we knew more about it, but throughout the lifting of restrictions labors answer was always that it was all being done too fast and too soon and in all reality if we'd had a labor government in place, we would most likely have been in lockdown until early 2022 at the very earliest with the economy crashed and absolutely wrecked lives and prospects of so many people. I fear that having had this much control over us in the past, certain fractions will want to exercise it at will on a regular basis which cannot be tolerated

 

[Bletchleyite]

It would all depend on the context. If a new strain of covid or something even more deadly appeared then yes it might be followed oh at least until we knew more about it, but throughout the lifting of restrictions labors answer was always that it was all being done too fast and too soon and in all reality if we'd had a labor government in place, we would most likely have been in lockdown until early 2022 at the very earliest with the economy crashed and absolutely wrecked lives and prospects of so many people.

Not saying I'd agree with that, but did doing exactly that destroy the Australian economy? I haven't seen anything to suggest it did.

 

[156421]

How did the Swedish medical system survive?

All this mention of other countries brings back happy memories of BBC R4 Toady programme every day deciding which country is better than us, and suggesting that we should have the same restrictions as them. I distinctly recall Sweden and South Korea being worshipped on consecutive days, despite having completely different restriction regimes.

 

[DustyBin]

Not saying I'd agree with that, but did doing exactly that destroy the Australian economy? I haven't seen anything to suggest it did.

How comparable is the Australian economy to ours? (I don't know the answer incidentally). Tourism will obviously have been decimated, but if the Australian economy is more dependant on say manufacturing for example, you'd expect it to be more resilient.

Lockdowns and other restrictions were demonstrably highly damaging to the UK economy, whichever way you look at it.

 

[ainsworth74]

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

Still, better funding means it had more capacity to deal with surge events like a respiratory pandemic. Though I suspect the bigger impact was a better funded health system and better overall population level health rather than just better funding. We know that our population is, in general, less healthy. It's slightly infuriating that there is less discussion of improving our public health overall. If we had a healthier population we would intrinsically build in better pandemic resistance as well as improving the quality of life of our fellow citizens and saving money from the NHS and social care.

 

[duncanp]

All this mention of other countries brings back happy memories of BBC R4 Toady programme every day deciding which country is better than us, and suggesting that we should have the same restrictions as them. I distinctly recall Sweden and South Korea being worshipped on consecutive days, despite having completely different restriction regimes.

Bit of a Freudian slip there?

Or perhaps not, as the case may be.

 

[156421]

Bit of a Freudian slip there?

Or perhaps not, as the case may be.

Well spotted but I always call it Toady as they were toadies to the "let's all stay at home until nobody dies of anything" narrative, whilst at the same time heaping the criticism on a government which was doing largely what the unelected BBC Toady presenters were asking for

 

[Mojo]

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?

In my experience it was the choice between risking being moderately ill for a few days by catching it, or guarantee to feeling ill for a few days with the vaccine.

 

[Bletchleyite]

In my experience it was the choice between risking being moderately ill for a few days by catching it, or guarantee to feeling ill for a few days with the vaccine.

Depends which vaccine and on the individual. The AZ vaccine did bring quite unpleasant side effects in most people (sadly the AZ vaccine was the villain of the piece and rather discredited the idea of the vaccines at all), but Pfizer and Moderna usually didn't. I didn't get anything noticeable that I recall - if anything at all perhaps a slightly elevated temperature for a day or two. Whereas when I got COVID it was extremely unpleasant - like a very bad flu and with a severe effect on my breathing (I'm asthmatic) - I was close to going to A&E or calling 999 at points, probably would have done had it not only lasted a day or so. And that was *with* the vaccine - I hate to think what it'd have been like* without.

I do take the flu vaccine, and would definitely take an annual COVID vaccine too. I would probably pay about £20-30 for this.

* Any anti-vaxx posts claiming that the vaccine had no effect and was some sort of conspiracy will be ignored; there is peer-reviewed evidence that the vaccines did work to reduce severity so this is demonstrably false. I recognise that people have the choice not to take it like with any other vaccine or medical treatment, but suggesting it doesn't work is factually and provably incorrect. Not of course saying you're saying that because you're not, but just for anyone else.

 

[WelshBluebird]

The AZ vaccine did bring quite unpleasant side effects in most people

Some people yes. But "most people" seems to be a bit of a claim.

In my experience it was the choice between risking being moderately ill for a few days by catching it, or guarantee to feeling ill for a few days with the vaccine.

I mean my other half has developed asthma as a direct result of getting COVID so I'd hardly say your assessment is a fair one.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Some people yes. But "most people" seems to be a bit of a claim.

"Many people" would be fair. Indeed just about everyone I know of who had that one had some level of flu-like symptoms after it, so I guess it's down to quantifying "quite unpleasant". Certainly the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines were much better, bringing bad side effects in only a very few people.

I mean my other half has developed asthma as a direct result of getting COVID so I'd hardly say your assessment is a fair one.

My asthma was also as a result of a viral infection about 10 years ago. It's quite common.

 

[nw1]

This is what worries me about Kier Starmer becoming Prime Minister, as seems increasingly likely.

If we have a bad winter flu season, no doubt the likes of Twitty and Vallance would put pressure on the government to impose COVID style restrictions in order to, you've guessed it, "..protect the NHS...".

And despite the fearmongering headline above, there wasn't "..a summer of chaos.." in 2021.

Fortunately, as the economic consequences of all the COVID restrictions are becoming ever clearer, I don't think that any government, of whatever political persuasion, can impose restrictions such as we saw in March 2020 or January 2021.

It was certainly a bad political mistake of Starmer to want to prolong restrictions in 2021 when there was little appetite to do so and people were just fed up of the whole thing. I think this did play a part in Boris' continuing lead in the polls in 2021, despite everything.

However now, with the economic consequences of prolonging the lockdowns apparent (and I mean the later lockdowns, I'm rather more sympathetic towards the original one up to a point, though I still think it was silly dragging it on into July when the rest of the Europe lifted in May), it would be political suicide for any leader to impose harsh restrictions just for a bad flu season. It would be a surefire way to lose the next election. I think Starmer probably realises that.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 21 Jul 2023 ==

Depends which vaccine and on the individual. The AZ vaccine did bring quite unpleasant side effects in most people (sadly the AZ vaccine was the villain of the piece and rather discredited the idea of the vaccines at all), but Pfizer and Moderna usually didn't.

Looks like I was lucky, I did take the AZ and got almost nil side effects. Felt a little tired I think but that was about it.

As for Covid itself, for me it was like a moderately-bad cold. Felt "ill enough not to be at work" for about 2 days, the rest of the time the main issue was the self-isolation. But I tend to get viral illnesses mildly in any case; in my adult life I've only been really ill (enough to spend multiple days in bed) with a virus once, which was the notorious "Millennium Bug" of late 1999.

 

[156421]

Also let's not forget about other parts of the UK. The Welsh and Scottish governments enforced much greater strictures on people's lives and people seem to forget about that.

 

[Chrysalis]

Re. Sweden, COVID and lockdowns... Sweden has a population of roughly 10 M, and a bigger area. I'm unsure whether Swedes are more socially responsible than Brits and that this is why Sweden didn't need any (stricter) restrictions, but IMO the fact that the country is far less people-dense probably helped a lot.

Saying that, our health care system did suffer massively, in spite of being better funded than the NHS. Nurses and doctors were enormously overworked, and this lasted for a very long time. It was all over Swedish news.

 

[Darandio]

Re. Sweden, COVID and lockdowns... Sweden has a population of roughly 10 M, and a bigger area. I'm unsure whether Swedes are more socially responsible than Brits and that this is why Sweden didn't need any (stricter) restrictions, but IMO the fact that the country is far less people-dense probably helped a lot.

It's a while ago now but i'm sure this was pretty much debunked on here previously. Debunked in that although the country is larger, the vast majority of the Swedish population are packed into densely populated areas.

 

[Chrysalis]

It's a while ago now but i'm sure this was pretty much debunked on here previously. Debunked in that although the country is larger, the vast majority of the Swedish population are packed into densely populated areas.

I apologise but I'm not convinced by this either. It is true that most of us don't live in the middle of nowhere, but even the biggest of our cities aren't as dense as e.g. London in terms of people. Of course, as I haven't looked into this at all I may well be wrong.

Anecdotally, when visiting my family in a suburb of Stockholm I was taken aback by the contrast between where I currently live (suburb to a bigger city on the UK south coast) and where my family live in terms of this. Sometimes when just walking around where I live in the UK I feel like there are people, houses, cars absolutely everywhere.

 

[DustyBin]

It's a while ago now but i'm sure this was pretty much debunked on here previously. Debunked in that although the country is larger, the vast majority of the Swedish population are packed into densely populated areas.

Yes, Sweden's population density is actually comparable to the UK's if you discount the unpopulated areas. Most people there live in large towns and cities, similar to here.

 

[156421]

Re. Sweden, COVID and lockdowns... Sweden has a population of roughly 10 M, and a bigger area. I'm unsure whether Swedes are more socially responsible than Brits and that this is why Sweden didn't need any (stricter) restrictions, but IMO the fact that the country is far less people-dense probably helped a lot.

Saying that, our health care system did suffer massively, in spite of being better funded than the NHS. Nurses and doctors were enormously overworked, and this lasted for a very long time. It was all over Swedish news.

So perhaps those living in remote parts of the UK shouldn't have even imprisoned in their own homes indiscriminately.

 

[DustyBin]

So perhaps those living in remote parts of the UK shouldn't have even imprisoned in their own homes indiscriminately.

Careful, that sounds dangerously close to a tier system!

 

[156421]

Careful, that sounds dangerously close to a tier system!

Ah yes the same tier system which mysteriously kept the Westminster bubble in tier 2 when other areas of the country with lower infection rates were tier 3

 

[Richard Scott]

I'd like to say I agree but I'm honestly 50/50. In the face of an even more effective propaganda campaign (because lessons absolutely will have been learnt), would enough people really ignore it? It only needs a critical mass of people to comply and others will follow.

I wouldn't!