Should our lockdown have been harsher/stricter?

[LittleAH]

Moderator note: Split from https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/deterioration-in-r-number.205166/

This is a very good point which, as you say, is largely ignored by the “lock down until we have a vaccine”, “lives before economic growth” brigade.

Fixating on reducing deaths from COVID 19 is irrational if, as a result of the measures imposed, we end up with more overall deaths from other causes.

As fair as that point may be - had we actually had a proper lockdown like other nations rather than the half baked one we have done, we'd be in a far better position than we are now.

 

[Bletchleyite]

As fair as that point may be - had we actually had a proper lockdown like other nations rather than the half baked one we have done, we'd be in a far better position than we are now.

That is by no means a given. Because the risk of outdoor spread is low, I think by allowing outdoor exercise we may well have had a public health masterstroke. Our curve - both ways - is very similar to Italy.

 

[scotrail158713]

I’d be inclined to agree with @Bletchleyite on this. Letting people out for exercise daily may actually have encouraged people to go out, who wouldn’t usually have gone out.
And let’s be honest - who, apart from China, could have imposed a Chinese-style lockdown?

 

[Bletchleyite]

I’d be inclined to agree with @Bletchleyite on this. Letting people out for exercise daily may actually have encouraged people to go out, who wouldn’t usually have gone out.
And let’s be honest - who, apart from China, could have imposed a Chinese-style lockdown?

Italy and Spain banned going out other than food shopping and restricted that to I think twice a week. Spain committed institutional child abuse by imprisoning children (you know, the lowest risk ones) in their homes (often flats, so no sunlight at all) for two months. I have heard it said that in Italy's case that was because people were going out "for exercise" and still meeting and hugging their friends, but I don't know how true that is, but I do agree very much with our stance on this matter and it doesn't seem to have acted to our disadvantage at all. It was very clear from what Chris Whitty and Jenny Harries were saying in the early days that they saw this as rather a public health opportunity - people with time on their hands taking up outdoor exercise, of whom at least some will continue with it permanently. There will be rather a lot of unused bicycles in garages and running shoes in shoe racks at the end of this, I suspect, but there will be at least some of them which continue in use.

My opinion is certainly that if that hadn't been allowed in the UK there would have been a massive obesity problem, particularly of children, by now. Yes, you can do video bootcamps and the likes, but half an hour doing that (which is all most people can manage a day) burns nothing like the calories of a long walk, and if you get injured (as I have doing those and had to take a few weeks off!) you end up with nothing.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

That is by no means a given. Because the risk of outdoor spread is low, I think by allowing outdoor exercise we may well have had a public health masterstroke. Our curve - both ways - is very similar to Italy.

I agree. Hopefully in the long term people will exercise more. It may help with obesity which of course is a pre- existing condition which exacerbates Covid symptom. Masks for all in close proximity to people seems to be a good way forward.

 

[Llanigraham]

And let’s be honest - who, apart from China, could have imposed a Chinese-style lockdown?

France, Spain, Greece, and even tougher then - China, Mongolia.
And they are all recovering socially and economically better than we are.

 

[Huntergreed]

The problem at this point isn’t the initial lockdown, it’s the fact that England eased up 3 weeks too early, and didn’t let their cases fall enough, which means it’s going to take far longer to get them to fall, potentially much longer with restrictions on our lives, and much more economic damage sadly.

 

[philosopher]

I think the problem in the UK was that the lockdown started too late, rather than it was not harsh enough. Most of Germany’s lockdown measures where less strict than the UK, I think partners for example where still allowed to visit each other. They however banned large gatherings, closed schools and other business earlier than was done in the UK.

 

[yorkie]

It definitely should not have been a harsher lockdown, in my opinion.

What we had wasn't great for the mental health of many people but it could have been far, far worse.

 

[Socanxdis]

I would like to visit my parents indoors. They live very far away and it's not feasible for me to drive there only to spend time outdoors.

 

[Esker-pades]

Not necessarily harder/stricter, but certainly a week or two earlier.

 

[Spamcan81]

Not harsher but IMO we should have gone for it a week or two earlier and held it longer to drive the R rate down further to give more headroom when restrictions started being eased.

 

[Yew]

I'm not sure about the general population, but there certainly should have been more thorough measures to protect the vulnerable, especially given that initially we were perusing a herd-immunity approach. Discharging infected people to care homes was a severe mistake

 

[yorksrob]

I think that when the inquiry takes place, there will be found to have been a number of different courses of action that we should have taken.

I very much dount that a harsher lockdown will be one of them.

 

[adc82140]

In retrospect, we should have locked down earlier, but who would have actually been brave enough to make that decision? We are in uncharted territory. If it happens again, then hopefully whatever government we have will take note of history. The whole concept of such an erosion of our freedoms was difficult enough to sell to the public when it was, and we'd had a couple of weeks to get used to other countries doing it. Imagine if we'd have been the first to do it. I really can't believe the public would have accepted it at that point.

 

[northernchris]

It was very clear from what Chris Whitty and Jenny Harries were saying in the early days that they saw this as rather a public health opportunity - people with time on their hands taking up outdoor exercise, of whom at least some will continue with it permanently. There will be rather a lot of unused bicycles in garages and running shoes in shoe racks at the end of this, I suspect, but there will be at least some of them which continue in use.

My opinion is certainly that if that hadn't been allowed in the UK there would have been a massive obesity problem, particularly of children, by now. Yes, you can do video bootcamps and the likes, but half an hour doing that (which is all most people can manage a day) burns nothing like the calories of a long walk, and if you get injured (as I have doing those and had to take a few weeks off!) you end up with nothing.

Not sure if it was known at the time, but with obesity now being linked to having a higher chance of dying from the virus this could have been a good move to reduce deaths in the future

 

[43066]

Not necessarily harder/stricter, but certainly a week or two earlier.

This is probably correct, with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight.

If we were going to go down the lockdown route, it would have been better to have done so earlier, to prevent the virus gaining a foothold. What we have ended up with is the worst of all worlds - both a damaging lockdown and a high infection and death rate.

That said, I’m not sure a mandatory lockdown was ever the way to go: the *voluntary* approach a la Sweden wasn’t given enough of a chance, in my view.

Should our lockdown have been stricter? Absolutely not, especially given how well it was observed during the first few weeks.

 

[Bletchleyite]

This is probably correct, with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight.

If we were going to go down the lockdown route, it would have been better to have done so earlier, to prevent the virus gaining a foothold. What we have ended up with is the worst of all worlds - both a damaging lockdown and a high infection and death rate.

Agreed. I personally considered it started on Monday 16th, but nearly a week was lost until even vaguely enough people complied with it when it became mandatory.

That said, I’m not sure a mandatory lockdown was ever the way to go: the *voluntary* approach a la Sweden wasn’t given enough of a chance, in my view.

I'm not sure British people are community minded enough for that. If anything, we needed the formal lockdown to shift the mentality - I believe it pretty much would work now, and indeed we are shifting that way slightly.

The other reason for a call for mandatory closure of businesses was that without it claims could not be made on business continuity insurance.

 

[43066]

The other reason for a call for mandatory closure of businesses was that without it claims could not be made on business continuity insurance.

Yes, I acknowledge that is a good economic argument in favour of having a mandatory lockdown, if you’re going to have one at all.

It will be interesting to see a couple of years hence how much of an economic impact “mandatory” v. “voluntary” lockdowns have had on the countries which have adopted the different approaches.

 

[Carlisle]

Not harsher but IMO we should have gone for it a week or two earlier and held it longer

Where’s the compelling international evidence that’d have worked ? Sweden & Belarus for example didn’t lockdown at all & the likes of Turkey only chose half hearted weekend efforts, however none of them has come close to our overall death rates

 

[nlogax]

Where’s the compelling international evidence that’d have worked ? Sweden & Belarus for example didn’t lockdown at all & the likes of Turkey only chose half hearted weekend efforts, however none of them has come close to our overall death rates

Sweden's situation has worsened over time while northern European neighbours have been emerging from things and in much better shape. It's clearer now than it was that no-one should be looking to Sweden for answers on how to deal with future pandemics, unless you're looking for an object lesson in how not to do things.

Sweden’s PM Rebuked as Covid Deaths Ignite Political Anger

The prime minister of Sweden was forced to defend his Covid-19 strategy after opposition parties mounted a scathing attack on his government amid signs its handling of the pandemic has been fatally flawed.

www.bloomberg.com

The prime minister of Sweden was forced to defend his Covid-19 strategy after opposition parties mounted a scathing attack on his government amid signs its handling of the pandemic has been fatally flawed.

With more than 4,500 Swedes now dead as a result of the coronavirus, and Sweden’s chief epidemiologist admitting mistakes, Prime Minister Stefan Lofven was the target of a series of rebukes during a debate among party leaders broadcast on Sunday night.

Ulf Kristersson, the leader of the main opposition party known as the Moderates, said “there have been obvious, fundamental failures” in Sweden’s response to Covid-19.

 

[Esker-pades]

This is probably correct, with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight.

If we were going to go down the lockdown route, it would have been better to have done so earlier, to prevent the virus gaining a foothold. What we have ended up with is the worst of all worlds - both a damaging lockdown and a high infection and death rate.

That said, I’m not sure a mandatory lockdown was ever the way to go: the *voluntary* approach a la Sweden wasn’t given enough of a chance, in my view.

Should our lockdown have been stricter? Absolutely not, especially given how well it was observed during the first few weeks.

No, not with hindsight. Other countries did it at the time (New Zealand, Denmark, etc.) mainly after the warning signs from Italy. We just ploughed on regardless.

Meanwhile, Sweden has all but admitted it got it wrong. The 'State Epidemiologist' said as much last week.

Sweden Admits Light Lockdown Was Wrong Approach To Fighting Coronavirus

Per capita, the Scandinavian country has the 7th highest Covid-19 death toll in the world.

m.huffingtonpost.co.uk

Coronavirus: Sweden's Tegnell admits too many died

Anders Tegnell says more should have been done early on to stem coronavirus in Sweden.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[takno]

Meanwhile, Sweden has all but admitted it got it wrong. The 'State Epidemiologist' said as much last week.

Sweden Admits Light Lockdown Was Wrong Approach To Fighting Coronavirus

Per capita, the Scandinavian country has the 7th highest Covid-19 death toll in the world.

m.huffingtonpost.co.uk

Coronavirus: Sweden's Tegnell admits too many died

Anders Tegnell says more should have been done early on to stem coronavirus in Sweden.

www.bbc.co.uk

So essentially in Sweden things are absolutely not getting worse, they are reducing, albeit rather slowly. The regrets about mistakes largely refer to their failures around nursing homes, where like the UK and Belgium they havr experienced more than half their deaths.

On the face of it it seems like if you want to drive down overall deaths you need to throw a shield around nursing homes. Throw a few billion at bonuses and testing for nursing home staff and you could have made that work pretty well.

For the rest of the population the death and serious illness rates are low enough with simple social distancing. If you choose to do a lockdown on top of that then you almost certainly kill more people through the consequences of lockdown than you save.

In summary, the mistake wasn't being too late or not harsh enough with lockdown, it was ever doing it at all when we could have done something much more effective for a fraction of the cost.

 

[Huntergreed]

In summary, the mistake wasn't being too late or not harsh enough with lockdown, it was ever doing it at all when we could have done something much more effective for a fraction of the cost.

If this is the case, why are the government still so insistent on it's importance? It's clear they feel it's completely necessary as we are told every day to follow the restrictions otherwise we will overwhelm the NHS. The economic and social damage this is causing is off the scale and I would certainly hope they wouldn't impose these restrictions for any longer than they really are essential for public health.

 

[takno]

If this is the case, why are the government still so insistent on it's importance? It's clear they feel it's completely necessary as we are told every day to follow the restrictions otherwise we will overwhelm the NHS. The economic and social damage this is causing is off the scale and I would certainly hope they wouldn't impose these restrictions for any longer than they really are essential for public health.

I think it's a combination of two things. The first is that they don't want to acknowledge how catastrophically they got both sides of the reaction wrong. If they can keep pointing to a few people on a beach or a march and divert the blame to them then they don't have to face up to the thousands they managed to kill or the hundreds of billions of pounds they wasted doing it.

The second is that they have been altogether too successful at building an environment of fear. It's now easier to face the sackcloth and ashes brigade ghoulishly waving a small number of ongoing deaths at them, than it is to face the economic, social and non-Covid health catastrophe that they are building by slavishly following their mistake right down to the very end

 

[MikeWM]

So essentially in Sweden things are absolutely not getting worse, they are reducing, albeit rather slowly. The regrets about mistakes largely refer to their failures around nursing homes, where like the UK and Belgium they havr experienced more than half their deaths.

Indeed. Anders Tegnell also said quite explicitly that he still hasn't seen any evidence that lockdowns work, but most of the British press stories strangely omitted that part of his interview.

Unfortunately the only link I can find that seems to more actually reflect his comments is to the (paywalled)Telegraph, who having been given somewhat more attention to anti-lockdown voices than the rest of the media, are probably keener to more accurately report on Sweden than the rest. Still, the headline should sum it up well enough.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/20...nchbag-architect-swedens-virus-model-another/
'I haven’t changed my mind': Swedish science chief remains confident country is building immunity

On the face of it it seems like if you want to drive down overall deaths you need to throw a shield around nursing homes. Throw a few billion at bonuses and testing for nursing home staff and you could have made that work pretty well.

For the rest of the population the death and serious illness rates are low enough with simple social distancing. If you choose to do a lockdown on top of that then you almost certainly kill more people through the consequences of lockdown than you save.

In summary, the mistake wasn't being too late or not harsh enough with lockdown, it was ever doing it at all when we could have done something much more effective for a fraction of the cost.

I completely agree; we protected those who didn't need protecting, and directly exposed those who did need protecting. This strategy - aggressively shield those who need protecting, let everyone else carry on with sensible hygiene changes - ought to have been the strategy from the very start, and I'm fairly certain if we had done that then we'd now be in a much better place.

 

[Mogster]

There seems to be increasing evidence that targeted lockdowns would have been more valid. I think we’ll see further discussions about the social and economic effects of the global lockdown for years, possibly decades to come. I really don’t think we’ll see further severe lockdowns even if there is a second wave. Leaders of countries that locked down hard causing severe economic damage only to have no or very low excess mortality must really be wondering how their actions will be viewed in a year or so.

Coronavirus: Norway wonders if it should have been more like Sweden

Cost of lockdown sees prime minister raise questions about strategy

www.telegraph.co.uk

On Wednesday night, Norway's prime minister Erna Solberg went on Norwegian television to make a startling admission. Some, even most, of the tough measures imposed in Norway's lockdown now looked like steps too far. "Was it necessary to close schools?" she mused. "Perhaps not."

 

[Yew]

Sweden's situation has worsened over time while northern European neighbours have been emerging from things and in much better shape. It's clearer now than it was that no-one should be looking to Sweden for answers on how to deal with future pandemics, unless you're looking for an object lesson in how not to do things.

If they can get there early, yes. However despite minimal restrictions, deaths per capita seem no worse than seen in other European countries that did lock down, and certainly nowhere near the predictions of Prof Fergusons model, even he admits that it was roughly as effective as our more invasive measures (https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/11769567/neil-ferguson-praises-sweden-lockdown/)

 

[nlogax]

If they can get there early, yes. However despite minimal restrictions, deaths per capita seem no worse than seen in other European countries that did lock down, and certainly nowhere near the predictions of Prof Fergusons model, even he admits that it was roughly as effective as our more invasive measures (https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/11769567/neil-ferguson-praises-sweden-lockdown/)

I'd suggest that some of Sweden's issues are still to come. Their death rate is only now on the cusp of falling, and that imbalance with the rest of Europe (including their immediate neighbours) is going to cause financial pressures for some time to come in terms of trade and tourism.

The school closures thing needs a lot more investigation, it increasingly looks like children aren't nearly as high a risk factor as initially thought and if there's one lesson we should take from Sweden, maybe it's that one. But I don't have kids and haven't looked at that too closely.

 

[Spamcan81]

Where’s the compelling international evidence that’d have worked ? Sweden & Belarus for example didn’t lockdown at all & the likes of Turkey only chose half hearted weekend efforts, however none of them has come close to our overall death rates

regarding Sweden, a much lower and much more dispersed population than the UK gives the virus less opportunity to spread so you cannot compare it to a country such as the UK with a much higher and much more concentrated population. As for Belarus, the president as good as it said that Covid didn’t exist and given the nature of the government I wouldn‘t trust any figures coming out of that country.