Lockdown effects now killing/harming more people than Covid

[Eyersey468]

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.




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

Agreed. I don't really blame Whitty, I do however blame the likes of Johnson, Hancock etc for throwing away existing plans in a panic and implementing inhumane rules they couldn't even try and follow themselves. The buck does stop with them.

 

[Dent]

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.

I suspect there is an element of re-writing history going on here, I don't recall all the models being presented at the time as being only worst case scenario. I seem to recall at least one model was actually presented at the time as the best case scenario, yet was still far worse than anything that actually happened.

If it were true that only the most extreme worst case scanarios were ever modelled then there would be serious questions to ask about why public policy was based only on extreme worse case scanarios with no more realistic possibilities being investigated.

 

[Stephen42]

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.

"Follow the science" was unhelpful from the start, it's a sound bite that falls apart very quickly under further inspection. There were occurrences during the various briefings where Whitty referenced the deaths society would accept during a bad flu year and the need to decide what is acceptable for covid.

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.

In the BBC article it is clear that it was stated as the worst case. The modelling closer to the first lockdown (from what I remember) had smaller death figures, to me it seems unlikely the decisions would have been so late if it was smaller than what they already expected. The source document with the scenario clearly states it's a reasonable worst case and a long paragraph about what that means, why it's unlikely to happen, why it's sensible to plan for.

Reasonableness is subjective and people will have different opinions. There aren't many large scale pandemics in humans, taking the highest clinical attack rate and fatality rate of those together seems a good starting point. (Mutations tend to make more infectious, less lethal but that doesn't apply to the first wildtype). The small margin on top of the fatality rate is more debatable but didn't make much difference to the total. It's not something crazy like assuming a very lethal virus would spread or that avian flu would be as successful in humans.

Ferguson isn't perfect, but some of those calling him into question haven't shone either. The spectator article that stripped the lower half of all the confidence intervals and compared the outcome to the number that is expected to be above the actual 97.5% of the time was either dishonest or poorly researched. Particularly the case where Ferguson stated to the BBC at the time of the model that the most likely outcome would be towards the lower end and the top was a long tail.

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.

Part of the issue is that local pandemic planning was for a number several times smaller than the reasonable worst case (mostly due to cost). Coupled with a healthcare system struggling with a normal year, personally I suspect there was an eventual realisation that the plans weren't workable.

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.

Yes, there was time by that point for a different approach to be tried. Some of the more alternative voices weren't helpful, e.g. trying to push PCR false positive narratives to say nothing required than urging focus on how to deal with the next potential peak. There would also have been political resistance to a different approach including some of SAGEs suggestions that didn't involve widespread restrictions.

I suspect there is an element of re-writing history going on here, I don't recall all the models being presented at the time as being only worst case scenario. I seem to recall at least one model was actually presented at the time as the best case scenario, yet was still far worse than anything that actually happened.

If it were true that only the most extreme worst case scanarios were ever modelled then there would be serious questions to ask about why public policy was based only on extreme worse case scanarios with no more realistic possibilities being investigated.

No where near all models were presented to the public. In some ways the transparency of the modelling was part of the problem, various media outlets just used the visually appealing graphs into stories rather than focusing on making it clear what the models covered, their limitations and guidance on interpretation. In some cases the most optimistic scenario modelled was careless morphed into the 'best case' in the media stories which is a very different thing, the everything goes down and you don't need to do anything scenario is rarely included as the decision is obvious and the time to create/typeset/proof it is wasted.

 

[kristiang85]

And more evidence...

A record number of people died from alcohol last year, which is likely to be the result of increased drinking during the pandemic, according to the Office for National Statistics.
There were 9,641 deaths in the UK in 2021, compared to 7,565 in 2019 - a 27% increase.
The ONS says people who were already big drinkers before the pandemic drank more during the Covid years.
Charity Drinkaware said the numbers were "devastating" and "unacceptable".
....
She said warning signs of the heaviest drinkers drinking more during the pandemic were missed, because people were less able to access support.

Record alcohol deaths from pandemic drinking

The number of people dying rose by 27% between 2019 and 2021, to more than 9,000.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[duncanp]

And more evidence...

Record alcohol deaths from pandemic drinking

The number of people dying rose by 27% between 2019 and 2021, to more than 9,000.

www.bbc.co.uk

Increased drinking, despite the facts that the pubs were closed for three months during the first lockdown () and six months during the second ()

It wasn't just that people weren't able to access support (due to the NHS being closed), it was also as a reaction to the stress and uncertaintly caused by the lockdown, and that normal avenues for the release of stress, such as social mixing, sports and leisure activities such as travel were banned.

Yes. the lockdown chickens are well and truly coming home to roost.

The one thing that encourages me about all these revelations is that it will make imposing any future lockdown or restrictions virtually impossible.

Either the government just wouldn't dare trying to impose restrictions, or the vast majority of the population would tell the government to **** off and ignore the rules.

 

[greyman42]

On Channel 5's Jeremy Vine show this morning, one of the topics discussed was whether we should bring back masks in light of the STREP A "crisis".
When will these nutters let it go?
Perhaps if we had never had the lockdowns we would not have a STREP A problem?

 

[Richard Scott]

On Channel 5's Jeremy Vine show this morning, one of the topics discussed was whether we should bring back masks in light of the STREP A "crisis".
When will these nutters let it go?
Perhaps if we had never had the lockdowns we would not have a STREP A problem?

Why is everything now a crisis? Media hype is just ridiculous now.
Would love to know the scientific reason for this suggestion, oh there isn't one. This idea that masks solve these problems is a very dangerous one and this should be pointed out. No, masks aren't the solution, sometimes simple hand washing with soap will be much more beneficial but seems we instantly default to masks now, why? Probably because people have been misguided?

 

[greyman42]

Why is everything now a crisis? Media hype is just ridiculous now.

Change.org are now calling for schools to close early for Christmas to stop the spread!

 

[Richard Scott]

Change.org are now calling for schools to close early for Christmas to stop the spread!

As we know it won't stop it just kick the can down the road and children who aren't mixing will have even poorer immune systems leading to a greater problem. These people don't understand do they? Seem to think they can stop pathogens by shutting down parts of society, they really are more dangerous than the pathogens!

 

[MikeWM]

To follow-on from the above discussion, there's a lot more revealed about Hancock and the behaviour of the Government in this article in the Spectator, which appears to be free-to-read:

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-truth-about-matt-hancock/
The truth about Matt Hancock

There's not really anything surprising in any of this, at least not to me, but here are some choice bits (bold mine):

1. Masks in schools only happened because the Government were too weak to stand up to Sturgeon.

Hancock describes {Sturgeon's} move to mandate mask-wearing in secondary schools in late August 2020 as ‘one of her most egregious attempts at one-upmanship to date’, admitting the UK government was left ‘scrabbling around to formulate a response’. The UK government’s own guidance on face coverings had specifically excluded schools. Faced with an unpleasant choice between wheeling out the chief medical or scientific officer to say that the Scots were wrong or performing a U-turn, Downing Street chose the latter. That, rather than any medical reason, is why millions of schoolchildren were forced to spend months with grubby bits of material stuck to their faces.

2. Masks in general were known to be useless, and were mainly introduced because Dominic Cummings was throwing his weight around.

Hancock, Whitty and Johnson knew full well that non-medical face masks do very little to prevent transmission of the virus. People were made to wear them anyway because Dominic Cummings was fixated with them; because Nicola Sturgeon liked them; and above all because they were symbolic of the public health emergency.
...
An ‘obsessed’ Cummings was the driving force behind mandating mask-wearing in all healthcare settings – and then in retail and hospitality. On 28 June he messaged Hancock to complain that the government was being insufficiently ‘aggressive’ on the issue and demanding that they be compulsory in shops and for restaurant staff.

3. The state was deeply involved with trying to combat so-called 'misinformation' (most of which of course turned out to be true) and used its influence over big Tech to help it do so.

Aided by the Cabinet Office, the Department of Health harnessed the full power of the state to crush individuals and groups whose views were seen as a threat to public acceptance of official messages and policy. As early as January 2020, Hancock reveals that his special adviser was speaking to Twitter about ‘tweaking their algorithms’. Later he personally texted his old coalition colleague Nick Clegg, now a big cheese at Facebook, to enlist his help. The former Lib Dem deputy prime minister was happy to oblige.
...
Such was the fear of ‘anti-vaxxers’ that the Cabinet Office used a team hitherto dedicated to tackling Isis propaganda to curb their influence. The zero-tolerance approach extended to dissenting doctors and academics. The eminent scientists behind the so-called Barrington Declaration, which argued that public health efforts should focus on protecting the most vulnerable while allowing the general population to build up natural immunity to the virus, were widely vilified: Hancock genuinely considered their views a threat to public health.

4. The expansion of the vaccine rollout to the whole population, rather than the vulnerable, was political rather than scientific.

The crusade to vaccinate the entire population against a disease with a low mortality rate among all but the very elderly is one of the most extraordinary cases of mission creep in political history.
...
{Hancock's} enthusiasm was constrained by medical and scientific advisers, and by the Covid vaccine tsar Kate Bingham, who was so alarmed by his haste that at one point she warned him that he might ‘kill people’. She never thought it was necessary to jab everyone and repeatedly sought to prevent Hancock from over-ordering. Once he had far more than was needed for the initial target group of elderly and clinically vulnerable patients, he seems to have felt compelled to use it. Setting ever more ambitious vaccination rollout targets was a useful political device

 

[yorksrob]

To follow-on from the above discussion, there's a lot more revealed about Hancock and the behaviour of the Government in this article in the Spectator, which appears to be free-to-read:

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-truth-about-matt-hancock/
The truth about Matt Hancock

There's not really anything surprising in any of this, at least not to me, but here are some choice bits (bold mine):

1. Masks in schools only happened because the Government were too weak to stand up to Sturgeon.


2. Masks in general were known to be useless, and were mainly introduced because Dominic Cummings was throwing his weight around.


3. The state was deeply involved with trying to combat so-called 'misinformation' (most of which of course turned out to be true) and used its influence over big Tech to help it do so.


4. The expansion of the vaccine rollout to the whole population, rather than the vulnerable, was political rather than scientific.

With regard to point 1, it reflects as badly on Ms Sturgeon and the SNP as it did on the Johnson Government.

 

[DustyBin]

To follow-on from the above discussion, there's a lot more revealed about Hancock and the behaviour of the Government in this article in the Spectator, which appears to be free-to-read:

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-truth-about-matt-hancock/
The truth about Matt Hancock

There's not really anything surprising in any of this, at least not to me, but here are some choice bits (bold mine):

1. Masks in schools only happened because the Government were too weak to stand up to Sturgeon.


2. Masks in general were known to be useless, and were mainly introduced because Dominic Cummings was throwing his weight around.


3. The state was deeply involved with trying to combat so-called 'misinformation' (most of which of course turned out to be true) and used its influence over big Tech to help it do so.


4. The expansion of the vaccine rollout to the whole population, rather than the vulnerable, was political rather than scientific.

This is all pretty much what many of us have suspected for the last two and a half years (or more). We saw through the political games, manipulation and outright lies. Unfortunately even now some people are too bloody minded, or perhaps simply too embarrassed, to admit that they were conned.

 

[Bikeman78]

To follow-on from the above discussion, there's a lot more revealed about Hancock and the behaviour of the Government in this article in the Spectator, which appears to be free-to-read:

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-truth-about-matt-hancock/
The truth about Matt Hancock

There's not really anything surprising in any of this, at least not to me, but here are some choice bits (bold mine):

1. Masks in schools only happened because the Government were too weak to stand up to Sturgeon.


2. Masks in general were known to be useless, and were mainly introduced because Dominic Cummings was throwing his weight around.


3. The state was deeply involved with trying to combat so-called 'misinformation' (most of which of course turned out to be true) and used its influence over big Tech to help it do so.


4. The expansion of the vaccine rollout to the whole population, rather than the vulnerable, was political rather than scientific.

How utterly depressing. When Mark Drakeford brought in masks in Wales, the best reason he could come up with was to bring Wales in to line with England and avoid confusion. Hardly a compelling argument.

 

[Freightmaster]

How utterly depressing. When Mark Drakeford brought in masks in Wales, the best reason he could come up with was to bring Wales in to line with England and avoid confusion. Hardly a compelling argument.

He'd obviously never heard of the phrase 'two wrongs don't make a right' then!






MARK

 

[Eyersey468]

To follow-on from the above discussion, there's a lot more revealed about Hancock and the behaviour of the Government in this article in the Spectator, which appears to be free-to-read:

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-truth-about-matt-hancock/
The truth about Matt Hancock

There's not really anything surprising in any of this, at least not to me, but here are some choice bits (bold mine):

1. Masks in schools only happened because the Government were too weak to stand up to Sturgeon.


2. Masks in general were known to be useless, and were mainly introduced because Dominic Cummings was throwing his weight around.


3. The state was deeply involved with trying to combat so-called 'misinformation' (most of which of course turned out to be true) and used its influence over big Tech to help it do so.


4. The expansion of the vaccine rollout to the whole population, rather than the vulnerable, was political rather than scientific.

None of that surprises me to be honest

 

[Jimini]

A quick look on Amazon suggests that Hancock's book has already sold out, and the Kindle edition is available for £20(!) only.

Anyone on here got a copy / had a read of it yet, other than the stuff published in the Mail over the weekend?

 

[Cdd89]

3. The state was deeply involved with trying to combat so-called 'misinformation' (most of which of course turned out to be true) and used its influence over big Tech to help it do so.

Point 3 ties in with the “Twitter Files” revelations that the accounts of those pointing out the harms of lockdowns were reduced in visibility:

https://twitter.com/bariweiss/status/1601011428579717121

Take, for example, Stanford’s Dr. Jay Bhattacharya (
@DrJBhattacharya
) who argued that Covid lockdowns would harm children. Twitter secretly placed him on a “Trends Blacklist,” which prevented his tweets from trending.

I personally find this pretty shocking.

 

[yorksrob]

A quick look on Amazon suggests that Hancock's book has already sold out, and the Kindle edition is available for £20(!) only.

Anyone on here got a copy / had a read of it yet, other than the stuff published in the Mail over the weekend?

We used to have the programme called "Drop the Dead Donkey" to digest such literature !

 

[Jimini]

Don't get me wrong, I'm not going to pay for it! Just wondered if anyone had seen a copy and had anything to add re: its contents.

 

[Eyersey468]

A quick look on Amazon suggests that Hancock's book has already sold out, and the Kindle edition is available for £20(!) only.

Anyone on here got a copy / had a read of it yet, other than the stuff published in the Mail over the weekend?

Frankly hell has more chance of freezing over than me even contemplating reading that work of fiction

 

[MikeWM]

Point 3 ties in with the “Twitter Files” revelations that the accounts of those pointing out the harms of lockdowns were reduced in visibility:


I personally find this pretty shocking.

Yes, definitely so. Shocking but sadly unsurprising, I'd say.

But then we already knew (from Alex Berenson's successful lawsuit against Twitter) that the Biden White House was pressuring Twitter to close down high-profile accounts that they found problematic due to their going against the narrative they were pushing so strongly - even if they weren't actually breaking Twitter's terms of service. Closing the account of a leading Stanford professor in a relevant field may I suppose have been considered a bit too much, particularly as Bhattacharya is always very measured and non-sensational in his posts, so they employed other measures instead.

Whatever else one may think of Elon Musk, he's doing the world a massive service by showing that this stuff went on.

 

[Eyersey468]

Yes, definitely so. Shocking but sadly unsurprising, I'd say.

But then we already knew (from Alex Berenson's successful lawsuit against Twitter) that the Biden White House was pressuring Twitter to close down high-profile accounts that they found problematic due to their going against the narrative they were pushing so strongly - even if they weren't actually breaking Twitter's terms of service. Closing the account of a leading Stanford professor in a relevant field may I suppose have been considered a bit too much, particularly as Bhattacharya is always very measured and non-sensational in his posts, so they employed other measures instead.

Whatever else one may think of Elon Musk, he's doing the world a massive service by showing that this stuff went on.

I agree.

 

[317 forever]

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.

Hunt has subsequently changed his views, at least ouwardly. He said early in the leadership campaign that he saw no need for lockdowns anymore due to the vaccines.

 

[kristiang85]

Hunt has subsequently changed his views, at least ouwardly. He said early in the leadership campaign that he saw no need for lockdowns anymore due to the vaccines.

The fact he ever thought it was a good idea to forcibly march people out of their homes and put them in camps should preclude him from ever getting a chance of high office again. Sadly, it's all too easily forgotten.

 

[Razorblades]

The fact he ever thought it was a good idea to forcibly march people out of their homes and put them in camps should preclude him from ever getting a chance of high office again. Sadly, it's all too easily forgotten.

That he's now Chancellor of the Exchequer sadly gives the lie to your very erudite observation.

 

[kristiang85]

That he's now Chancellor of the Exchequer sadly gives the lie to your very erudite observation.

Well, that's what I meant by " it's all too easily forgotten"

 

[nw1]

The fact he ever thought it was a good idea to forcibly march people out of their homes and put them in camps should preclude him from ever getting a chance of high office again. Sadly, it's all too easily forgotten.

I think that Hunt has annoyed so many people one way or another that I doubt many have a particularly high opinion of him.

 

[Howardh]

Flu continues to spread in England with number of hospital patients up 79%

NHS England medical director urges people to have vaccinations against Covid and flu to minimise ‘twindemic’

www.theguardian.com

Statistics can be twisted any way you like, I'd like to know the number of flu patients in hospital now compared to December 2019, whether lockdown over 2 winters has cost us some kind of immunity, due to lack of our usual exposure to flu, and/or whether today's patients, even if jabbed against flu and covid, have had covid to a lesser degree but it's attacked the immune system letting flu in?

(Does any of that make sense? I'm juat a puzzled layman!)

The recent rise in the number of flu patients in hospital in England has continued, with an increase of 79% being recorded in the last week.

An average of 3,746 people with flu were in hospital across the seven days to 25 December, up week-on-week from 2,088, according to NHS England.

The number was just 772 at the start of the month.

The sharp increase has been across both general hospital and critical care beds – those for the sickest patients.

https://www.theguardian.com/society...c-board-game-33-hours-inside-an-nhs-in-crisis
The average number of critical care patients with flu rose from 149 in the seven days to 18 December, to 267 in the week leading up to Christmas Day.

At this point in 2021, just 34 patients were in hospital with flu, with only two in critical care.

 

[yorkie]

Yes low rates of flu in the past few years means we now have to catch up; it was inevitable.

 

[TPO]

Yes low rates of flu in the past few years means we now have to catch up; it was inevitable.

Agreed.

I have to admit, I am worried that there are attempts to introduce "COVID" measures for flu control to "Save the NHS" again.

I found the group-think on what were extreme control measures very scary, and equally scary the response at the time to any view expressed that was not part of the on-going COVID group-think. I fear that those emotions have not gone away, and in difficult times the govt might try to deflect scrutiny of other problems by reintroducing COVID-type controls for flu.

Please tell my concerns are unfounded....... (and thanks Yorkie for keeping this sub-forum open)

TPO