Lockdown effects now killing/harming more people than Covid

[DustyBin]

The problem with the whole parties thing is that the (quite reasonable) anger about it tends to drown out the even more serious point - namely the question of why the politicians spent hundreds of billions on a response to something which they clearly didn't perceive as enough of a threat that they needed to pass on their own pleasure engagements.

It also shows a serious accountability deficit with our political system. There isn't any other industry where it's possible to pee several hundred billion of other people's money up the wall with no accountability whatsoever. But then there didn't seem to be much accountability for the person who led the country in to a sham war a few years ago, either.

I totally agree. I get why people are angry about politicians partying during lockdown(s), but they’re missing the much bigger issue, i.e. the fact that lockdowns were imposed in the first place. Although we’ll probably never be able to say with 100% certainty, the evidence points overwhelmingly to lockdowns having achieved absolutely nothing, exactly as predicted by many of us in 2020.

 

[Eyersey468]

I totally agree. I get why people are angry about politicians partying during lockdown(s), but they’re missing the much bigger issue, i.e. the fact that lockdowns were imposed in the first place. Although we’ll probably never be able to say with 100% certainty, the evidence points overwhelmingly to lockdowns having achieved absolutely nothing, exactly as predicted by many of us in 2020.

I agree

 

[stj]

I can never understand how shops had to close when the most popular shops where the most people visit (Supermarkets) stayed open.

 

[102 fan]

I can never understand how shops had to close when the most popular shops where the most people visit (Supermarkets) stayed open.

The only logic was that there was no logic!

 

[greyman42]

Everytime there was talk of relaxing restrictions people started to shout "it's too early", or "second wave", or "we need to wait until there is a vaccine".

By "people" do you mean Labour/SNP?

 

[davetheguard]

By "people" do you mean Labour/SNP?

Authoritarian people seemed to think it was a good idea to not relax restrictions.

It's perfectly possible to be an authoritarian and vote Tory, just as some libertarians vote Labour.

 

[Bikeman78]

I can never understand how shops had to close when the most popular shops where the most people visit (Supermarkets) stayed open.

In Wales they took it a step further and covered up supermarket aisles deemed to be non essential with thousands of metres of plastic sheeting.

 

[Razorblades]

In Wales they took it a step further and covered up supermarket aisles deemed to be non essential with thousands of metres of plastic sheeting.

Which is sadly and depressingly why Welsh Labour has lost any respect I once had for it, for ever.

 

[nw1]

Authoritarian people seemed to think it was a good idea to not relax restrictions.

It's perfectly possible to be an authoritarian and vote Tory, just as some libertarians vote Labour.

Quite. It's simple-minded and inaccurate to state that left=pro lockdown, right=anti-lockdown.

Remember how Ms Patel encouraged people to snitch on their neighbours if they violated the rule of six.

And wasn't Hunt something of a lockdown fanatic at some point, and allegedly said that unvaccinated people shouldn't be able to leave home?

Gove also, perhaps. And Dorries?

 

[DustyBin]

Quite. It's simple-minded and inaccurate to state that left=pro lockdown, right=anti-lockdown.

Remember how Ms Patel encouraged people to snitch on their neighbours if they violated the rule of six.

And wasn't Hunt something of a lockdown fanatic at some point, and allegedly said that unvaccinated people shouldn't be able to leave home?

Gove also, perhaps. And Dorries?

I agree with you here. Some right-wing politicians were without doubt pro-lockdown, but I think the majority of the vocal twitter mob were left-wing. These are just my observations, I'm sure there are exceptions!

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 29 Nov 2022 ==

Edit:

I looked this up just out of interest; it’s the “Zero covid strategy” Early Day Motion signed by 47 (as it turns out) left-wing MPs:

https://edm.parliament.uk/early-day-motion/58062/zero-covid-strategy

In the interest of balance however, at around the time this was published I clearly recall Jeremy Hunt praising Chinese authorities for effectively imprisoning his own sister in a flat in Beijing!

 

[greyman42]

In the interest of balance however, at around the time this was published I clearly recall Jeremy Hunt praising Chinese authorities for effectively imprisoning his own sister in a flat in Beijing!

Yes, while i have criticised Starmer regarding his pro lockdown views, i also think the likes of Hunt should be called to explain his views regarding lockdowns.

 

[nw1]

I agree with you here. Some right-wing politicians were without doubt pro-lockdown, but I think the majority of the vocal twitter mob were left-wing. These are just my observations, I'm sure there are exceptions!

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 29 Nov 2022 ==

Edit:

I looked this up just out of interest; it’s the “Zero covid strategy” Early Day Motion signed by 47 (as it turns out) left-wing MPs:

https://edm.parliament.uk/early-day-motion/58062/zero-covid-strategy

In the interest of balance however, at around the time this was published I clearly recall Jeremy Hunt praising Chinese authorities for effectively imprisoning his own sister in a flat in Beijing!

That is most unfortunate and I just wish those 47 MPs had more empathy with those who were suffering financial and mental problems during Covid. It's sad also that these MPs include people I am generally in agreement with over a number of other key issues. While I am undoubtedly on the left of the political spectrum, I think there was a lot of one-dimensional thinking from certain MPs, on both sides of the spectrum, at the time, and the concept of "zero Covid" is, quite frankly, unscientific flat-earthery, and as much a nonsense as "zero flu".

(However as Covid issues will not dominate the next election, I will still vote for a Labour government next time....)

 

[greyman42]

(However as Covid issues will not dominate the next election, I will still vote for a Labour government next time....)

Regardless of whether or not it is an issue at the next election, I will not be voting for a party that is pro lockdown/heavy restrictions.
Labour needs to make it clear that their calls for longer lockdowns and more restrictions were not the right approach to covid.

 

[MikeWM]

Regardless of whether or not it is an issue at the next election, I will not be voting for a party that is pro lockdown/heavy restrictions.
Labour needs to make it clear that their calls for longer lockdowns and more restrictions were not the right approach to covid.

Same here. It says something quite disturbing about their individual characters and their political outlook, and I don't want anyone like that anywhere near power. Even if there isn't another pandemic anytime soon, what other 'good' causes will they want to apply similar methods to?

And I say that as someone who, until covid came along, was rather supportive of most of the group who signed that EDM. (Somewhat interesting to note that Corbyn *didn't* sign it, even though most of his supporters did).

 

[Simon11]

This should really be in a new thread, but I am unable to create one.

BBC News: Matt Hancock: I was warned 820,000 in UK could die from Covid

Former Health Secretary Matt Hancock says he was warned 820,000 people in the UK could die from Covid two months before the country went into lockdown.

In his new diaries on the pandemic, the MP says in January 2020 he was told by England's chief medical officer the toll was "a reasonable case scenario" if restrictions were not introduced.

Figures show more than 200,000 people with Covid have died in the UK to date.

Truly gob smacking data produced at the start of the pandemic which is wildly wrong. I have yet to see much challenging of this data in the media yet as we may not have needed a lockdown if Matt Hancock was provided with the actual death toll figures (and the age of the deaths too!)

 

[yorkie]

The harms of lockdowns and social distancing need to be measured in many ways and one of them is the risks of decreasing levels of immunity against pathogens.

Father of girl, 4, fighting for life with Strep A infection is 'praying for a miracle'

Dean Burns urges other parents with any concerns about their children's health to get them checked.

www.bbc.co.uk

"What has changed is that younger people have been through three years, almost, of relative isolation from each other.
"They haven't caught the normal infections at the normal rates and at the normal times that normal children of that sort of age bracket would have done.

RSV and flu: US children's hospitals stretched by respiratory viruses

More than three quarters of paediatric hospital beds were full in November, health officials say.

www.bbc.co.uk

Experts believe cases of RSV and flu have surged this year because protective measures like mask-wearing and social distancing during the coronavirus pandemic protected some children from exposure, leaving them more vulnerable to infection this year as people relax those behaviours.

This idea that we if we avoid being exposed to commonly circulating pathogens that they will go away is absurd and misguided. Commonly circulating endemic viruses are never going to go away, but what keeps them under control is that we are regularly exposed to them.

If people want to avoid getting ill, rather than hoping viruses will go away, I would suggest people eat healthily, get plenty of exercise and live normal, active lives.

 

[duncanp]

In Wales they took it a step further and covered up supermarket aisles deemed to be non essential with thousands of metres of plastic sheeting.

Including the aisles where clothes were sold.

So this bloke went to a supermarket in Newport wearing only his underpants (and a face covering of course, because you have to keep people safe from COVID, no matter what) just to argue the point about clothes being essential.

 

[Bikeman78]

This should really be in a new thread, but I am unable to create one.

BBC News: Matt Hancock: I was warned 820,000 in UK could die from Covid

Over what time period was this predicted number I wonder? One year, 10 years, 100 years? It's meaningless without context. Bear in mind that over 1,000,000 British people have died of all causes since Covid started.

 

[Stephen42]

Over what time period was this predicted number I wonder? One year, 10 years, 100 years? It's meaningless without context. Bear in mind that over 1,000,000 British people have died of all causes since Covid started.

It's not a prediction, the number was the reasonable worst case scenario. Scenarios are often used when there are many unknowns making predictions difficult or for planning purposes. The reasonable worst case is the worst of what could realistically happen, meaning usually it will be much lower than that. In January 2020 few deaths would have been reported, nearly all in China so the scenario is unlikely to be covid specific due to lack of data. There may have been an element of suppression which prevented data reaching countries sooner to better inform the response.

Using the 750k reasonable-worst case scenario from the pre-covid Influenza Pandemic strategy and adjusting for the increased population gives a number in the 820s. That planning scenario has the vast majority of those over 12-15 weeks.

 

[102 fan]

It's not a prediction, the number was the reasonable worst case scenario. Scenarios are often used when there are many unknowns making predictions difficult or for planning purposes. The reasonable worst case is the worst of what could realistically happen, meaning usually it will be much lower than that. In January 2020 few deaths would have been reported, nearly all in China so the scenario is unlikely to be covid specific due to lack of data. There may have been an element of suppression which prevented data reaching countries sooner to better inform the response.

Using the 750k reasonable-worst case scenario from the pre-covid Influenza Pandemic strategy and adjusting for the increased population gives a number in the 820s. That planning scenario has the vast majority of those over 12-15 weeks.

An excellent example of logic meaning you can be wrong with authority.

 

[DustyBin]

An excellent example of logic meaning you can be wrong with authority.

Whichever way you look at it, the modelling proved yet again to be wildly inaccurate. It’s completely unacceptable. In most industries, if you’re paid to provide accurate models or forecasts and you get it consistently so wrong as to completely misinform policy and decision making, you find yourself out of a job.

 

[Eyersey468]

Whichever way you look at it, the modelling proved yet again to be wildly inaccurate. It’s completely unacceptable. In most industries, if you’re paid to provide accurate models or forecasts and you get it consistently so wrong as to completely misinform policy and decision making, you find yourself out of a job.

As I understand it when they are modelling they are meant to model a range of scenarios, the problem is too often the modellers and the media make out the worst case scenario is the most likely one, which I agree is completely unacceptable.

 

[Snow1964]

Using the 750k reasonable-worst case scenario from the pre-covid Influenza Pandemic strategy and adjusting for the increased population gives a number in the 820s. That planning scenario has the vast majority of those over 12-15 weeks.

Yes, that’s what I understand too, the data was a decade old emergency scenario adjusted for population.

But need to put in perspective of about 700,000 die in UK each year, and that anything over a short pause would unravel over time with other consequences.

Thats where we ended up, millions waiting for other health treatments, millions lost parts of their schooling, hundreds of thousands scared to go out or other mental health issues, and epic debts.

 

[duncanp]

As I understand it when they are modelling they are meant to model a range of scenarios, the problem is too often the modellers and the media make out the worst case scenario is the most likely one, which I agree is completely unacceptable.

Yes, Imperial College, SAGE, Fake SAGE, Chris Twitty, Patrick Vallance, the BBC, Locktivist Sky News, The Covid Bedwetter Daily Mail ..etc,

We are all looking at YOU.

The problem was that most of the relevant government ministers were either too stupid to realise they were being taken for a ride, or knew exactly what the modellers were doing and supported their efforts to have a harder and longer lockdown.

 

[TPO]

My biggest fear with the inquiry is that the conclusion is "..if only we had locked down sooner and for longer, and the restrictions were more severe.."

Because if Sir Keir Starmer becomes Prime Minister after the next election he could introduce a new Public Health Act which gives the government sweeping powers to enact lockdowns and impose restrictions without proper parliamentary debate and scrutiny.

If that happens, we could see compulsory face nappies every flu season just to "..protect the NHS and keep everyone safe..".

There are plenty of people in the UK who would like to see COVID style restrictions imposed in response to flu and other respiratory infections, and the CDC is banging a similar drum in the United States.

Indeed; I share your fear.

Both parties (Tory and Labour) seem to have overlooked the fact that 2/3 of the jobs in the UK are provided by SMEs. The impact on SMEs of the COVID mania will become evident in 2023 when the grants have run out and the pauses in rents ended yet tax has gone up and so have costs such as energy. Where SME owners are in their late 50's, they might just decide to sell up before the capital gains tax changes effect their pension (i.e. the sale of their business); or alternatively just work less (and employ fewer people).

Only when the money runs out and the lights go out in the winter will the govt, their propaganda merchants the BBC, and the "general public" realise that focusing the economy on propping up the failing NHS (needs structural reform to something along European lines as does the whole Welfare/benefits system) and other poorly-managed parts of the public sector leads only one way- and it's not to an improved public sector unfortunately.

It seems ironical that those who benefited most from public money support during COVID are those who are now striking for pay rises (and generally supported long lockdowns) whilst the SMEs with less or minimal support are paying for it- the COVID spend AND the increased pay/pensions. I would have more sympathy with the striking if those persons doing so were not huge suporters of COVID lockdown, fact is without the COVID over-reaction we would be able to pay for decent pay-rises across the board (public and private sector) and our economy would be better able to resist turbulent times. There are consequences to decisions, and those who decided to support ever-longer lockdowns need to face the consequences of their decisions/desires- i.e. that it needs to be paid for and they need to pay their share.

[Note: to those who work in the public sector and may say I don't understand it- during my career to date I've done 2 multi-year stints in the public sector, once in Local Govt and once in the Civil Service; from the latter I changed jobs into a large corporate in the private sector- same salary slightly less good pension- mainly to be more able to work effectively even though I have a disability, then was eventually made redundant and set up my own business. So I've experienced a range of workplaces- public sector, large corporate and SME/microbusiness- over the years.]

TPO

 

[Bikeman78]

As I understand it when they are modelling they are meant to model a range of scenarios, the problem is too often the modellers and the media make out the worst case scenario is the most likely one, which I agree is completely unacceptable.

This is what I don't understand about the whole response. It was always about bad news and stoking up the fear, which the book "A state of fear" mentioned up thread discusses at length. It was always about infections and deaths, not about how many people survived.

It's not a prediction, the number was the reasonable worst case scenario. Scenarios are often used when there are many unknowns making predictions difficult or for planning purposes. The reasonable worst case is the worst of what could realistically happen, meaning usually it will be much lower than that. In January 2020 few deaths would have been reported, nearly all in China so the scenario is unlikely to be covid specific due to lack of data. There may have been an element of suppression which prevented data reaching countries sooner to better inform the response.

Using the 750k reasonable-worst case scenario from the pre-covid Influenza Pandemic strategy and adjusting for the increased population gives a number in the 820s. That planning scenario has the vast majority of those over 12-15 weeks.

I'm sorry but I simply don't buy it. Around half the working population had to carry on going to work and nearly all of us had to shop for food. If the virus had been as dangerous as the government made out, we'd have been stuffed anyway. You can't hide from a virus.

 

[Eyersey468]

I suspect the reason they were stoking up the fear through appalling messaging was to try to ensure compliance, despite the number of acts of hypocrisy from Cummings, Boris, Hancock etc etc

 

[Stephen42]

Whichever way you look at it, the modelling proved yet again to be wildly inaccurate. It’s completely unacceptable. In most industries, if you’re paid to provide accurate models or forecasts and you get it consistently so wrong as to completely misinform policy and decision making, you find yourself out of a job.

It's unclear what exactly was said, I wouldn't trust Hancock's account to be complete or perhaps even accurate. Similarly Whitty isn't infallible, I found some public remarks of his imprecise and occasions where it was foreseeable the media would focus on parts without full context. However, calling a reasonable worst case scenario wildly inaccurate if the outcome is less severe is unfair. You would expect most times the outcome to be less, often several times less severe. Firing people and throwing away all the scenarios means pandemic plans have no way of measuring their suitability or understanding what scenarios it would be appropriate for. If waiting until the characteristics of the threat are known and understood, it's far too late to put anything in place and likely to lead into the rushed decisions everyone rightly wants to avoid.

Yes, that’s what I understand too, the data was a decade old emergency scenario adjusted for population.

But need to put in perspective of about 700,000 die in UK each year, and that anything over a short pause would unravel over time with other consequences.

Thats where we ended up, millions waiting for other health treatments, millions lost parts of their schooling, hundreds of thousands scared to go out or other mental health issues, and epic debts.

I don't think there's any easy answers. Some back of the envelope numbers, the first year of England hospital admissions (390k) with the 1957/1958 flu profile, has 66k beds in the peak week and above the covid 2021 peak for 5 weeks. That's two thirds of all England NHS hospital overnight beds with the heroic assumption that staff illness wouldn't reduce the total. I don't want to start a debate on the numbers, there's plenty of factors that would alter in either direction, but gives some sense of the challenge of a single peak. There's definitely plenty of lessons to be learnt, both from what happened in the UK and elsewhere.

 

[DustyBin]

It's unclear what exactly was said, I wouldn't trust Hancock's account to be complete or perhaps even accurate.

I completely agree with you on this at least!

Similarly Whitty isn't infallible, I found some public remarks of his imprecise and occasions where it was foreseeable the media would focus on parts without full context.

Whitty is an interesting one. It’s easy to forget how very early on in the pandemic he was actually the voice of reason. When the media decided that herd immunity was tantamount to murder, and it became clear that “follow the science” really meant “blame the scientists” he suddenly changed his tune, perhaps understandably.

However, calling a reasonable worst case scenario wildly inaccurate if the outcome is less severe is unfair. You would expect most times the outcome to be less, often several times less severe.

Was it reasonable though? And was it spelt out clearly that it was worst case? Ferguson has a credibility problem in my opinion; this isn’t the first time his modelling has been called into question.

That said, presuming the politicians and their advisors were presented with all of the scenarios, they are ultimately responsible for the (poor) decisions made.

Firing people and throwing away all the scenarios means pandemic plans have no way of measuring their suitability or understanding what scenarios it would be appropriate for.

I agree to an extent. However, this doesn’t explain why we threw away decades of pandemic planning and decided to implement a lock down. I actually don’t think there was much science involved; there was however weak (read non-existent) leadership, buck passing and dogma in abundance.

If waiting until the characteristics of the threat are known and understood, it's far too late to put anything in place and likely to lead into the rushed decisions everyone rightly wants to avoid.

Again, I agree to an extent. I’m slightly forgiving of the first lockdown for this reason, notwithstanding the point I made above in regard to established pandemic protocol.

However, by the time the second lockdown was implemented this no longer applied; we knew enough by that point. Then of course there was the third, which was (and is) completely inexplicable and indefensible in my opinion.

 

[bramling]

I completely agree with you on this at least!



Whitty is an interesting one. It’s easy to forget how very early on in the pandemic he was actually the voice of reason. When the media decided that herd immunity was tantamount to murder, and it became clear that “follow the science” really meant “blame the scientists” he suddenly changed his tune, perhaps understandably.

I don’t really blame Whitty for that. I suspect he sensed, almost certainly correctly, that he was being lined up to be the person who would ultimately be held accountable in the event of an outcome which turned out to be politically untenable. There’s absolutely no doubt Johnson would have had him straight under the bus. At one point he was even alluding to political choices for politicians to make.

That said, presuming the politicians and their advisors were presented with all of the scenarios, they are ultimately responsible for the (poor) decisions made.

We must never lose sight of who made the actual decisions. The buck stops with the politicians on that.