Lockdown effects now killing/harming more people than Covid

[RT4038]

Presumably then most if not all preserved examples (maybe except RT1 etc.) have heaters?

Edited to apologise to the mods for veering wildly off topic!

Also apologising to the mods! None of the RT2 type [e.g.8, 113] , the Cravens [e.g. 1431] or Saunders [e.g. 1396] bodied, or the early RT3 bodied m[e.g.190] (basically the roofbox classes) preserved will have had heaters fitted, nor any RTL or RTW types. Basically any red vehicle withdrawn before about 1969 (and I expect there were exceptions due to accident damage, errors in fitting etc). Although the preservation movement was comparatively in its infancy up to then, some vehicles would have gone to second operators before preservation later etc. Some vehicles (such as RTW178 at Stevensons) were fitted with heaters not of LT pattern by their second operators. But I guess it is likely that the majority of preserved vehicles, having been bought out of service in the 70s, will have heaters fitted.

 

[DustyBin]

Also apologising to the mods! None of the RT2 type [e.g.8, 113] , the Cravens [e.g. 1431] or Saunders [e.g. 1396] bodied, or the early RT3 bodied m[e.g.190] (basically the roofbox classes) preserved will have had heaters fitted, nor any RTL or RTW types. Basically any red vehicle withdrawn before about 1969 (and I expect there were exceptions due to accident damage, errors in fitting etc). Although the preservation movement was comparatively in its infancy up to then, some vehicles would have gone to second operators before preservation later etc. Some vehicles (such as RTW178 at Stevensons) were fitted with heaters not of LT pattern by their second operators. But I guess it is likely that the majority of preserved vehicles, having been bought out of service in the 70s, will have heaters fitted.

Interesting, thanks!

 

[Markdvdman]

Interesting that Dan Wooton on GBNews stated how the lockdown sceptics are not apologising for what the financial and mental impact of the lockdowns did to us! Also, proof is in the excess deaths worse than the covid era! He also stated we would be in a Depression not recession is Starmer was in power! I agree I do not like what the Tories are doing but I shall never vote for Starmer he is second only to China for what he wanted to do!

 

[Eyersey468]

Interesting that Dan Wooton on GBNews stated how the lockdown sceptics are not apologising for what the financial and mental impact of the lockdowns did to us! Also, proof is in the excess deaths worse than the covid era! He also stated we would be in a Depression not recession is Starmer was in power! I agree I do not like what the Tories are doing but I shall never vote for Starmer he is second only to China for what he wanted to do!

Why do the sceptics need to apologise for it? It's those that were screaming for them that should be apologising

 

[DustyBin]

Why do the sceptics need to apologise for it? It's those that were screaming for them that should be apologising

I presume they actually mean fanatics....

 

[Eyersey468]

I presume they actually mean fanatics....

I presume so

 

[bramling]

Interesting that Dan Wooton on GBNews stated how the lockdown sceptics are not apologising for what the financial and mental impact of the lockdowns did to us! Also, proof is in the excess deaths worse than the covid era! He also stated we would be in a Depression not recession is Starmer was in power! I agree I do not like what the Tories are doing but I shall never vote for Starmer he is second only to China for what he wanted to do!

This is the big problem we now face, which runs deeper than anything else. I cannot vote Conservative after the utter disaster they’ve been since 2019. However I’m also very aware that the consequence of that is Labour getting in, and I’m very mindful of the way they were constantly begging for *more* of the damaging measures. The consequence of this is that our political system collapses, as who the hell do we vote for?

Of course, I suspect a good proportion of the population still have some level of admiration towards the restrictions for their own vested-interest reasons, chiefly all the extra time of work it gave them. It’s all fine as long as someone else pays, and many probably haven’t realised that the freezing of tax allowances *will* affect them personally.

Never also forget that whilst the government was busy putting billions on our collective credit card supposedly because we faced a lethal threat to our safety, many of them - including the PM and chancellor - were meanwhile repeatedly breaching the self-same restrictions, so clearly didn’t personally think there was that much of a safety risk…

 

[yorksrob]

I'm more optimistic about the population. I think they're done with it and won't be putting up with restrictions again.

 

[bramling]

I'm more optimistic about the population. I think they're done with it and won't be putting up with restrictions again.

I’m not so optimistic. I agree that most people won’t abide by it all, but there was a significant subset who were quite happy to advocate restrictions as long as they personally weren’t affected. Dangle a bit of furlough money and all bets are off. I hope I’m wrong.

 

[geoffk]

The economic problems were set in stone long before the war came along. The £350+ billion Covid cost was always going come into play at some point down the line.

And while Covid was going on we had Brexit. Which has caused the more lasting damage to the economy?

 

[philosopher]

I'm more optimistic about the population. I think they're done with it and won't be putting up with restrictions again.

I think restrictions being imposed for Covid are unlikely, however I do have a slight worry that a new variant will suddenly appear from nowhere, cause politicians to panic and reimpose restrictions, similar to what happened with Omicron last winter. If we can get through the following winter without this occurring, then I think it would be safe to say Covid restrictions are a thing of the past.

What concerns me more is that restrictions similar to the ‘Plan B‘ measures of last winter return in winter during a worse than average flu season in future years. Whether such restrictions are imposed I think would depend on how pro restriction the government of the day is.

 

[Markdvdman]

There is now way restrictions will be brought back in. The UK is finacially ruined because of them! I despise Drakeford for his pathetic restrictions worse than anyone but China!

 

[greyman42]

I cannot vote Conservative after the utter disaster they’ve been since 2019. However I’m also very aware that the consequence of that is Labour getting in, and I’m very mindful of the way they were constantly begging for *more* of the damaging measures.

A decent summing up, and on the strength of that i will vote Conservative as the most important issue is our freedom which many back bench conservative MPs fought for while Labour collectively called for more restrictions of freedom and more financially damaging lockdowns.

 

[bramling]

A decent summing up, and on the strength of that i will vote Conservative as the most important issue is our freedom which many back bench conservative MPs fought for while Labour collectively called for more restrictions of freedom and more financially damaging lockdowns.

The difficulty for me is I simply cannot vote Conservative after everything which has happened over the last three years. Johnson was the pits, but Sunak was no.2 through most of this - and if unhappy with things then he could and should have resigned, instead he used it all as an opportunity to build up a self-serving brand image. Like Johnson, it’s another case of a young boy who wanted to be prime minister. Also like Johnson, he seems to have little vision for what he actually wants to do now he’s got it, not that we’d know as he’s had precious little scrutiny and indeed few people had even heard of him before 2020.

So the upshot of all this is Labour *are* now going to get in. Sunak may think they can turn things round, but I think things have gone way too far for that now. This of course introduces a whole new set of problems, not least Labour’s enthusiasm for lockdown measures. Also being frank they don’t deserve to do well out of all this, as part of our problem has been caused by their *dire* standard of opposition, which in this case goes back several years, at least as far as Corbyn’s election, and perhaps further too.

Basically we’re screwed either way, that’s about the sum total of it.

 

[yorkie]

I think restrictions being imposed for Covid are unlikely, however I do have a slight worry that a new variant will suddenly appear from nowhere, cause politicians to panic and reimpose restrictions, similar to what happened with Omicron last winter. If we can get through the following winter without this occurring, then I think it would be safe to say Covid restrictions are a thing of the past.

What concerns me more is that restrictions similar to the ‘Plan B‘ measures of last winter return in winter during a worse than average flu season in future years. Whether such restrictions are imposed I think would depend on how pro restriction the government of the day is.

This clearly won't happen. Where is the money to pay for it? Where is the public support for it?

I think you need to relax and not worry about any possibility of restrictions.

Furthermore, there is no evidence that any of the variants are able to evade the excellent immunity that we have against severe illness; the virus is evolving and adapting for humans in line with expectations, and consistent with how previous human coronaviruses adapted for humans (such as OC43).

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

A decent summing up, and on the strength of that i will vote Conservative as the most important issue is our freedom which many back bench conservative MPs fought for while Labour collectively called for more restrictions of freedom and more financially damaging lockdowns.

Very well said.

 

[yorksrob]

I’m not so optimistic. I agree that most people won’t abide by it all, but there was a significant subset who were quite happy to advocate restrictions as long as they personally weren’t affected. Dangle a bit of furlough money and all bets are off. I hope I’m wrong.

Fortunately, the economics are very visibly not on their sides !

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 19 Nov 2022 ==

I think restrictions being imposed for Covid are unlikely, however I do have a slight worry that a new variant will suddenly appear from nowhere, cause politicians to panic and reimpose restrictions, similar to what happened with Omicron last winter. If we can get through the following winter without this occurring, then I think it would be safe to say Covid restrictions are a thing of the past.

What concerns me more is that restrictions similar to the ‘Plan B‘ measures of last winter return in winter during a worse than average flu season in future years. Whether such restrictions are imposed I think would depend on how pro restriction the government of the day is.

I think that there is a risk, but not for covid. It's done its course and people aren't scared of it.

The danger comes with the next pandemic. Will we be back using the communist response.

 

[Richard Scott]

I think that there is a risk, but not for covid. It's done its course and people aren't scared of it.

The danger comes with the next pandemic. Will we be back using the communist response.

But then could be a case of once bitten, twice shy and majority won't do as politicians ask? Think plenty realise they were taken for a ride and less likely to go along with it another time?

 

[yorksrob]

But then could be a case of once bitten, twice shy and majority won't do as politicians ask? Think plenty realise they were taken for a ride and less likely to go along with it another time?

Definitely an element of this as well.

We've seen things like lockdown and face coverings go from "last resort" and "once in a lifetime" to being trotted out whenever the NHS was under strain. People won't put up with it again.

 

[Eyersey468]

Definitely an element of this as well.

We've seen things like lockdown and face coverings go from "last resort" and "once in a lifetime" to being trotted out whenever the NHS was under strain. People won't put up with it again.

I for one am done with face coverings and if they bring them back this winter I will get one of the exemption lanyards.

 

[Markdvdman]

North Wales Health Board have brought masks back in. It is pathetic and if I had to use one of their premises I would not wear one. Done and dusted and they never worked anyway!

 

[317 forever]

This clearly won't happen. Where is the money to pay for it? Where is the public support for it?

I think you need to relax and not worry about any possibility of restrictions.

Furthermore, there is no evidence that any of the variants are able to evade the excellent immunity that we have against severe illness; the virus is evolving and adapting for humans in line with expectations, and consistent with how previous human coronaviruses adapted for humans (such as OC43).

Quite apart from any suffering during or resulting from previous lockdowns, the knowledge that the then Health Secretary Matt Hancock and current Prime Minister Rishi Sunak broke lockdown rules will deter many people from taking any notice of new lockdown measures from this government.

 

[Eyersey468]

Quite apart from any suffering during or resulting from previous lockdowns, the knowledge that the then Health Secretary Matt Hancock and current Prime Minister Rishi Sunak broke lockdown rules will deter many people from taking any notice of new lockdown measures from this government.

And they weren't the only ones. This Government has zero moral authority to try and impose anything like that again and I think they know it.

 

[duncanp]

And they weren't the only ones. This Government has zero moral authority to try and impose anything like that again and I think they know it.

This government might not have any moral authority to impose a future lockown, but that doesn't apply to one lead by Sir Keir Starmer who, as we know, was in favour of harsher restrictions for a longer period of time.

But what will prevent lockdowns in future is the sheer cost of them, which is becoming more apparent daily, as well as all the other negative effects (eg. trashing the economy, adverse impact on mental health, long NHS waiting lists...... etc. etc. etc.)

 

[Eyersey468]

This government might not have any moral authority to impose a future lockown, but that doesn't apply to one lead by Sir Keir Starmer who, as we know, was in favour of harsher restrictions for a longer period of time.

But what will prevent lockdowns in future is the sheer cost of them, which is becoming more apparent daily, as well as all the other negative effects (eg. trashing the economy, adverse impact on mental health, long NHS waiting lists...... etc. etc. etc.)

No I know that doesn't apply to Starmer. The consequences of them were so predictable though.

 

[duncanp]

No I know that doesn't apply to Starmer. The consequences of them were so predictable though.

And of course they are trying to 'fix' the COVID inquiry so that some of the negative effects are swept under the carpet

The signatories of the letter, who include former Cabinet ministers Lord Frost and Esther McVey as well as the chairman of the 1922 committee Sir Graham Brady, say they are concerned by "the composition" of core participants for Module Two.

They explain that it "appears to be heavily weighted towards organisations and individuals which can fairly be presumed either to favour lockdowns as a pandemic policy or else to have understandable personal reasons to advocate for earlier and/or harder lockdowns

The cross-party group of MPs and peers also note that there is no representation from any British industries that resisted or were affected by lockdowns, such as the hospitality, tourism and retail sectors.

Access Restricted

Covid inquiry risks ‘whitewash’ with its focus on lockdown advocates, MPs warn​

A group of 21 MPs and peers said in a letter to the inquiry chairman it is 'critical' that a 'diverse range of views' is considered

The Covid inquiry risks becoming a “whitewash”, MPs are saying, as they warn it has become dominated by lockdown advocates.

Baroness Hallett, the inquiry chairman, is accused of excluding groups likely to “challenge” the Government’s decisions during the pandemic that plunged the country into prolonged nationwide shutdowns.

A group of 21 MPs and peers said it was “critical” that the inquiry considered a “diverse range of views and perspectives”, warning that otherwise there was a “serious risk” it could become “inadvertently blinded to areas of important investigation”.

In a letter to Baroness Hallett, seen by The Telegraph, the parliamentarians argue that Module Two is the most critical part of the inquiry, as it will examine high-level decision-making in government during the pandemic.

But they fear the inquiry's current make-up will lead to some of the “fundamental questions” raised by lockdowns - such as the significant infringements of personal liberties and the safeguarding of children - being sidelined.

The signatories of the letter, who include former Cabinet ministers Lord Frost and Esther McVey as well as the chairman of the 1922 committee Sir Graham Brady, say they are concerned by "the composition" of core participants for Module Two.

They explain that it "appears to be heavily weighted towards organisations and individuals which can fairly be presumed either to favour lockdowns as a pandemic policy or else to have understandable personal reasons to advocate for earlier and/or harder lockdowns".

The letter cites the 14 Government departments and arms-length bodies that have been granted core participant status, along with four separate groups of Bereaved Families for Justice and Imperial College London, whose Covid-19 modelling informed ministers’ decisions to send the country into lockdown.

While anyone can submit evidence to the inquiry, "core participant" groups enjoy special status, including the right to representation and the ability to make legal submissions, suggest questions for witnesses and receive disclosure of documentation.

The MPs and peers point out that while it is appropriate for groups representing those bereaved due to Covid to be represented, it is “surprising” that there appears to be no representation for families bereaved due to the impact of lockdowns including cancelled or delayed medical appointments, suspension of child welfare safeguards and other unexplained deaths.

The cross-party group of MPs and peers also note that there is no representation from any British industries that resisted or were affected by lockdowns, such as the hospitality, tourism and retail sectors.

The Telegraph understands that an application was made for core participant status in Module Two by a consortium of hospitality groups - but this was rejected by the inquiry.

“While we understand that in-depth investigation of the impacts of the pandemic will follow in later modules, we worry that the current narrow range of voices will be ill-equipped to ask the right questions and ensure a balanced and therefore robust process,” the letter says. “As it stands we fear the Inquiry risks leaving itself exposed to claims of a whitewash.”

Molly Kingsley, co-founder of UsForThem, a parent campaign group that has challenged lockdown measures, said: “If you only have people who are predominantly of the same mindset, how are we going to ensure the right questions are asked and the right challenges are made?

“This is our one and likely only chance to scrutinise the decisions but also to learn for future pandemics. If all we have is a room full of lockdown enthusiasts, we will end up with exactly the same groupthink that has been such a feature of the Government’s response to Covid.”

Baroness Hallett was contacted for comment

 

[yorkie]

I don't trust the inquiry to properly address the negative affects of lockdowns and other restrictions.

 

[Stephen42]

And of course they are trying to 'fix' the COVID inquiry so that some of the negative effects are swept under the carpet

Access Restricted

The article is fairly selective as plenty of organisations that would be critical of lockdown impacts are core participants. These include childrens group, disability groups, women's groups including one for domestic abuse and care/older persons groups. The groups are either advocates or charities, several of them referred to harmful policy impacts in their applications. These mostly look to be included on the significant interest condition.

The government departments and arm lengths bodies along with Imperial plus a few other organisations are included on the other conditions, of having been involved in the decisions being examined by the inquiry or potentially subject to criticism. Core participant is a term in legislation that gives additional rights to those participants, which is more important for those directly involved than on significant interest. Those rights will take more time the more core participants there are, so making everyone who applies a core participant will delay the inquiry and any lessons learnt.

Looking at the list of determinations, the significant interest condition groups (including those for better workplace conditions as well as against lockdowns) who's applications focused on what they wanted the inquiry to conclude weren't made core participants, similar groups focusing on the impact of government decisions on the people they represented were. This includes the only hospitality application made which from the determination sounds misjudged, not helped by one of the members seemingly splintering and making a separate application for the subparts of Module 2. There wasn't an application for a group impacted by delayed healthcare, the vaccine bereaved application was denied as there's likely to be a separate module for vaccines which would be more relevant.

I'm not expecting much from the inquiry either, but all the media about core participants seems more political spin rather than actual bad decisions.

 

[Eyersey468]

I don't trust the inquiry to properly address the negative affects of lockdowns and other restrictions.

Nor do I to be honest

 

[Richard Scott]

I don't trust the inquiry to properly address the negative affects of lockdowns and other restrictions.

Nor me, more evidence of those in authority treating us like we're stupid. Means people will trust things like these reports even less in future and wonder my money was squandered on producing it.
Saw an MP on news yesterday saying about the £400billion spent and that people need to realise chickens are coming home to roost; about time someone was honest.