Covid-19 response

[Amity Island]

Today, this is the type of response (as expected) we are now getting during the inquiry. The covid response is all being put down to "mistakes" and "errors" or simply blaming others. Problem with this is, is that a "mistake" is like putting an I before an E after C. Whereas, what was done during the virus outbreak were not "mistakes". Every decision, every strategy and the advice was done with considered intention and knowing of what the likely outcome would be. No cost benefit anaysis was done to see if what they proposed would be of reasonable benefit compared to the cost and effect it would have on all of society, like job losses, damage to the NHS, people's mental health, economy, schools, businesses etc

Even a complete idiot would know to advise those who are sick to stay at home. Instead we got told to stay at home if you are well and specifically told to go out of your home (to test) if you are sick.

And told to "stay at home", regardless if you're are ill, injured or need treatment for other things etc

And scared away from hospitals through shear fear of catching a virus that was effecting a small proportion of the population and of those, mainly having a serious effect on the elderly.

Instead of suffering three years (and decades to come) of terror, fear, testing, passports, test and trace, impacts on society we could of just said "stay at home if you are sick" and let people manage their own risk by shielding the elderly until the worst of the virus had passed (and it would/did), that would of been an easy and reasonable message and strategy to manage throughout.

 

[Bruce Stephens]

Instead of suffering three years (and decades to come) of terror, fear, testing, passports, test and trace, impacts on society we could of just said "stay at home if you are sick" and let people manage their own risk by shielding the elderly until the worst of the virus had passed (and it would/did), that would of been an easy and reasonable message and strategy to manage throughout.

Would it have been possible or successful?

Imagine the conversations about asking people to stay at home when sick (and for children to stay at home when sick): most people would need support for that, and the government at the time (and now) just wasn't going to give it. (How did it work in Sweden? Sweden has a much more generous social safety net, including for supporting parents who need to take care of sick children. In contrast it took ages for our government to change our rather mean statutory sick pay, and those changes have been reversed. And the other support only paid out after receiving a positive test.)

While earlier on there was an idea that the infection could pass through the "healthy" population and then we'd have a population with little infection (so more vulnerable people would only need to shield for a while), surely we can all accept that that was a mistaken idea? (It's not practical to shield a significant proportion of the population, and infections sadly haven't gone away: it's endemic now.) The change (for most of the vulnerable population) is vaccines.

Those who don't respond to vaccines are still stuck shielding (only without much support and decreasing amounts of sympathy from the medical profession; I see regular reports that they're being referred to counselling sessions as having inappropriate anxiety about being infected).

 

[Dragonheart]

Your right. They weren’t just honest mistakes. They were greed, arrogance, ignorance, denial, and a whole bunch of other reasons. The science wasn’t always followed, hell it wasn’t always known with any degree of certainty. The ethical, moral, health or financial motivations for decisions often conflicted each other. Now you and I often disagree on what the priorities were or should have been and which mistakes were which but just about everyone agrees there were mistakes made, for less than genuine reasons, in many countries not just ours. Trying to boil it all down to black and white answers will never work or be realistic

Or do you actually believe there was some greater deliberate conspiracy behind either the virus or the vaccines or the choice of mitigation strategies? Population control on a global scale perhaps? Or a secret cabal of hidden world leaders fighting it out? An attempt to manage global warming or an appreciation for empty streets? Why did governments the world over insist on medication if they knew the risks were as large as some believe? Why did they ant us locked away? It’s not enough to say it’s all hidden agendas without saying what they were.

 

[Amity Island]

aren’t you contradicting yourself here?

No, just making the disctintion between a genuine "mistake" (like picking the wrong wall paper for your living room or buying the wrong variety of apples at the supermarket) and what they describe as a mistake when they told people to stay at home for example. And no, no cost benefit anaylsis was done on their decision to lockdown etc

No we weren’t. That’s a gross oversimplification again. It was always said to seek medical attention if it was needed. Yes that was often done in a different way and sometimes less serious things got delayed. That is not to say people didn’t fall through the cracks or no harm was done at all. But the drs and nurses in hospitals were just a little busy at the time with people dying or near dying. They couldn’t do it all. GP’s perhaps didn’t have quite the same pressures on them as hospitals.

That's because the public message was over simplistic "stay at home". We can see here the effect on hospital attendance at A & E after the daily announcements started. I never heard BJ mention anything about "go to hospital if you are ill etc"

Again there is some truth in what you say but also more oversimplifying.

I'm not oversimplifying, it was their message that was over simplified and hence the way the public reacted. Their message should of been "stay at home if you have symptoms", a far better message than just "stay at home". "stay at home if you have symptoms" could of been used intead of the three years of hell and forever changing messages from one day to the next. What exactly were they hoping to achieve by all this?

Obviously, the more it dragged out, the more upheaval, driven apart and separated from our families and friends, the hopelessness of it all, effects on economy, health etc, the more likely we are to take "the jab" to "get back to normal" as they promised us.

And how do you manage those that lived with those that were vulnerable? Look granny/dad/ daughter/sister in the bedroom so you don’t infect them? How do they work or go to school? or do lock the whole household away too?

And the risk wasn‘t/isn’t just death. Long term complications are a consideration ignored by many even now.

They were never going to be able to control nature and it was airborne. Once it's here, it's here for good. I think simply by just asking those with symptoms to stay at home and trying to sheild the vulnerable would have been sufficient to make a real difference, but allowed life to continue on as well as possible. There is only so much humans can achieve when fighting nature. It's unrealistic to try what they did, changing strategies, alerts, messages. There is little we can do in these situations, it's best to stick to a simple strategy and message, one that remains coherent throughout.

And the risk wasn‘t/isn’t just death. Long term complications are a consideration ignored by many even now.

What else can we do? This is nature we are fighting against.

 

[Amity Island]

Your right. They weren’t just honest mistakes. They were greed, arrogance, ignorance, denial, and a whole bunch of other reasons. The science wasn’t always followed, hell it wasn’t always known with any degree of certainty. The ethical, moral, health or financial motivations for decisions often conflicted each other. Now you and I often disagree on what the priorities were or should have been and which mistakes were which but just about everyone agrees there were mistakes made, for less than genuine reasons, in many countries not just ours. Trying to boil it all down to black and white answers will never work or be realistic

I just don't think the word "mistake" is appropriate in these circumstance.

 

[Amity Island]

Would it have been possible or successful?

Imagine the conversations about asking people to stay at home when sick (and for children to stay at home when sick): most people would need support for that, and the government at the time (and now) just wasn't going to give it. (How did it work in Sweden? Sweden has a much more generous social safety net, including for supporting parents who need to take care of sick children. In contrast it took ages for our government to change our rather mean statutory sick pay, and those changes have been reversed. And the other support only paid out after receiving a positive test.)

While earlier on there was an idea that the infection could pass through the "healthy" population and then we'd have a population with little infection (so more vulnerable people would only need to shield for a while), surely we can all accept that that was a mistaken idea? (It's not practical to shield a significant proportion of the population, and infections sadly haven't gone away: it's endemic now.) The change (for most of the vulnerable population) is vaccines.

Those who don't respond to vaccines are still stuck shielding (only without much support and decreasing amounts of sympathy from the medical profession; I see regular reports that they're being referred to counselling sessions as having inappropriate anxiety about being infected).

It appears nature has a wonderful way of dealing with pandemics, those that are sick stay at home (because they are in bed sick and away from the public). And, the more deadly the virus, the less likely the people are going to be up and about spreading it. So in terms of advising people to stay at home if they are sick, in reality, this is a self supported strategy. Of course, as we learnt through the pandemic, people are also very good at policing themselves.

 

[Dragonheart]

I just don't think the word "mistake" is appropriate in these circumstance.

So now this is about your definition of mistake verses other people’s definition of mistake. For you it means minor. For me it means an error, something done wrongly.

 

[Dragonheart]

They didn’t say “stay at home if you have symptoms” because that was NOT their message, so why would they have said that. You may think it should have been the choice but it wasn’t. They wanted us to stay at home, rightly or wrongly. Out of interest are you any more qualified than the monkeys we had in charge to decide what should have happened?

At least a small part of the reduction in A&E attendance was because lots of people go that that don’t really need it so it was appropriate the numbers dropped. Also less work, less transport, less traffic all would have contributed to lower accidents. And I certainly heard reassurance that genuine emergencies should still attend. As to whether individuals heard it or made sensible decisions about attending I don’t know. I do know I heard it, make my choices and was mindful that I would risk exposure to the virus in a way I didn’t anywhere else at that point in time.

I’m not defending the gov at the time. I think they got a lot wrong. Just not the same stuff you do.

What else can we do? This is nature we are fighting against.

and you prove my point about ignoring non death outcomes. Your reply doesn’t even address that.

 

[Bruce Stephens]

So in terms of advising people to stay at home if they are sick, in reality, this is a self supported strategy.

Sure, but the ability to make such choices varies a lot. If you're poor you're going to have much less of a choice (in general, though of course it'll vary). In previous pandemics a whole lot of people died. I think we were hoping we could do better than just letting poor people die.

 

[Amity Island]

Sure, but the ability to make such choices varies a lot. If you're poor you're going to have much less of a choice (in general, though of course it'll vary). In previous pandemics a whole lot of people died. I think we were hoping we could do better than just letting poor people die.

I don't think we can tailor our response to suit the individual and regarding protecting the poor, it was the poor who lockdowns harmed the most, that is the exact reason the w.h.o always advised against lockdowns and one of hundreds of reasons I was against them in this instance. So if you are in favour of protecting the poor, then you must be against lockdowns too?

Incidentally, it wasn't the virus alone that caused all those deaths in historic pandemics, it was a bacterial pneumonia.

 

[Amity Island]

So now this is about your definition of mistake verses other people’s definition of mistake. For you it means minor. For me it means an error, something done wrongly.

These were wrongdoings (likely to cause harm) not mistakes (picking up wrong tin of paint at b and q for your living room) many of them criminal in my opinion.

 

[Amity Island]

Out of interest are you any more qualified than the monkeys we had in charge to decide what should have happened?

Qualified? Qualifications are no substitute for integrity, impartiality, knowing right from wrong and common sense; this is where the problems lie.

 

[Dragonheart]

Qualified? Qualifications are no substitute for integrity, impartiality, knowing right from wrong and common sense; this is where the problems lie.

I meant in any sense not just certificates. Yes the leaders of of country did seem to be lacking in many of these traits. As did many of those scamming business loans or ignoring basic infection control and going out and about knowing they were infected and could infect others with who know what consequences. Good sense has been proven to be anything but common in so many situations around covid.

I have all those things yet we disagree frequently. What makes your opinions any more valid or correct than mine? We can both bandy other peoples (political, scientific, media) opinions about to justify our own positions.

 

[Bruce Stephens]

So if you are in favour of protecting the poor, then you must be against lockdowns too?

Just because lockdowns disproportionately harmed the poor doesn't mean that (absent other measures) not having lockdowns would have been better.

We could, perhaps, have done without lockdowns had the government acted a little more strongly a little earlier, and kept infection numbers low enough that contact tracing could have kept numbers low. Probably not, though, without tests. But later it might have been possible. But the government deliberately chose to reduce restrictions as much as possible, constraining it only so that the NHS wasn't at risk of being overwhelmed, but at those levels contact tracing couldn't work so that set things up so we were intermittently subject to high restrictions.

Relying more on individual choices really depended on us all being able to make such choices, and the government really didn't want to provide sufficient support for that. Overall I suspect because of that reluctance (by Dr Death, our current PM) many of the subsequent events were largely forced.

Incidentally, it wasn't the virus alone that caused all those deaths in historic pandemics, it was a bacterial pneumonia.

Sure, flu doesn't kill that many people on its own. I think pneumonia is a factor in many COVID-19 deaths, too. And in some COVID-19 deaths, by the time people actually die the virus isn't that significant.

 

[Amity Island]

I meant in any sense not just certificates. Yes the leaders of of country did seem to be lacking in many of these traits. As did many of those scamming business loans or ignoring basic infection control and going out and about knowing they were infected and could infect others with who know what consequences. Good sense has been proven to be anything but common in so many situations around covid.

I have all those things yet we disagree frequently. What makes your opinions any more valid or correct than mine? We can both bandy other peoples (political, scientific, media) opinions about to justify our own positions.

I think we largely agree on pretty much everything and I enjoy and appreciate your valid and sensible points in our discussions. I'd say the main thing we differ on are the reasons behind the way we responded and all the "mistakes".

It was always portrayed as if we (the entire population/world) were susceptible to it, this is clearly not the case. And, that nobody is safe until everybody is safe, clearly also not true either. So you have to ask, why make such flagrant false statements? Why ignore natural immunity? Why go out of their way to actually ban possible drugs that may help, afterall, this was coined as the greatest health crisis of our generation? Why ignore the benefits from previous coronavirus infections saying nobody has any prior immunity (cos its a novel virus). All these types of statements do is bring about suspicion in the motives behind such claims.

To me, they had already made the decision early on to get everyone jabbed, the calamitous response that followed (all the false statements, "mistakes", lockdowns, breaking their own rules, a year of complete instability and destruction of our democratic way of life) favoured and encouraged people to seek to get back to a normal life and thus take the jab. I've still yet to meet anyone who took the jab for health reasons.

The head of the vaccine agency force said nobody under the age of 18 will recieve the vaccines, they are an adult only vaccine for the over 50's, for the vulnerable and elderly. Why then did they not only back track on this, but ignored the JCVI advice and also not take any advice from their ethics group (which is on public record)?

As I showed on the thread before, salt rinse has really good results against severe symptoms and hospitalisation, yet was never mentioned or encouraged.

The one thing/advice etc that did feel right, truthful, reliable and honest during the entire pandemic was the statement from Chris Whitty. Note he is the only person/organisation I know (besides me) to accurately say that you can have asymptomatic carriage of the virus NOT asymptomatic disease, covid 19.

Chris Whitty- Government Daily Briefing 11/05/2020.

“A significant proportion of people will not get this virus at all, at any point of the epidemic which is going to go on for a long time.

Of those who do, some of them will get the virus without even knowing it, they will have the virus without even knowing it, they will have the virus with no symptoms at all- asymptomatic carriage, and we know that happens.

Of those that get symptoms, the great majority, probably 80%, will have a mild or moderate disease,-might be bad enough for them to have to go to bed for a few days, not bad enough for them to have go to the doctor.

An unfortunate minority will have to go as far as hospital, but the majority of those will just need oxygen, and will then will leave hospital, and then a minority of those will end up have to go to severe and critical care, and some of those sadly will die, but that’s a minority, it’s 1% or possibly even less than 1% overall, and even in the higher risk group..Uh..this will be significantly less than 20% i.e. the great majority, even the very highest groups, if they catch the virus will not die”

 

[Amity Island]

What makes your opinions any more valid or correct than mine?

btw I don't think my opinion is any more important than anyones, including yours, there is just something about this, that never felt right from the beginning and that is the only reason I've made an effort to keep this thread going. I can't put my finger on it, but there is more to this than meets the eye. I've never had such a strong intuitive feeling about anything my entire life, it's never happened to me before. It's really weird actually.

 

[Dragonheart]

I think we largely agree on pretty much everything

Really? We both think a lot went wrong. Other than that we rarely agree, on what or why

I've still yet to meet anyone who took the jab for health reasons.

You’re talking to one. Almost everyone I know took it for health reasons. Personally I don’t know anyone in real life who admits to taking it because they felt forced to in order to go back to “normal”. Those that didn’t want it didn’t take it.

So whilst some of those statements were not totally accurate what do you think the motives behind saying them were? You still don’t say, which is what I asked

Whitty says asymptomatic carriage takes place. Almost everyone agrees with that. Some may call it the virus some the disease but they are all talking about the same thing and using the terminology interchangeably even if it’s not strictly accurate (do you ever call a vacuum a hoover, or a disposable ink pen a biro?). He didn’t say that is incapable of infecting others which also seems to be how you are interpreting it.

 

[Bruce Stephens]

I've still yet to meet anyone who took the jab for health reasons.

Bet you have. Isn't that why most people took it? There were a relatively small number who were expected to for their jobs, for example I think all Fox News employees (and there's certainly an argument over whether that was a sensible policy or not) and students (again, I think there's a reasonable argument over whether that made sense).

But the rest of us? I remember my first dose on January 31, and everyone there had definitely chosen to be there, presumably because of their health (I think it was local GP surgeries getting rid of excess doses so I think we were all CV people getting a dose a little early). It was a genuinely joyful event: we were all getting (slightly earlier than expected) some protection from the virus causing this miserable pandemic. I remember my colleagues discussing (online, since our office was closed) when they'd get the chance to be vaccinated, again very much looking forward to it.

 

[Amity Island]

Really? We both think a lot went wrong. Other than that we rarely agree, on what or why

I think it went as they intended it to go and that no mistakes were made. Your comments are all made with the right intention, so although we don't agree all the time, I'm happy that at least you are willing to talk about it, many don't want to.

You’re talking to one.

We've never met, but I think we'd get on because you are honest and act with good intentions.

Those that didn’t want it didn’t take it.

I wish that were true. So many took it because they had to or they'd lose their jobs. Even the elderly people I know took it not cos they wanted to take it or for the good of their health, but felt compelled to take it becasue of the back lash of those around them and to be able to go out etc. The younger people I know said they did it not for their health but for others. Others said they took it to travel etc.

So whilst some of those statements were not totally accurate what do you think the motives behind saying them were? You still don’t say, which is what I asked

I have said why. If you work back from the rollout, everything else makes more sense. They didn't even have the integrity to inform people of the actual absolute risk reduction offered by the vaccines which was near to 1% not the 95% they publicised.

Whitty says asymptomatic carriage takes place. Almost everyone agrees with that. Some may call it the virus some the disease but they are all talking about the same thing and using the terminology interchangeably even if it’s not strictly accurate (do you ever call a vacuum a hoover, or a disposable ink pen a biro?). He didn’t say that is incapable of infecting others which also seems to be how you are interpreting it.

That we clearly disagree on. To me the virus and the disease are two different things, and yes, they got blurred into one, another one of those things that wasn't quite right. That way they could tell people who were well they had covid19 ( a case) when they didn't, they just had the virus (or at least have a positive test).

 

[Amity Island]

Bet you have. Isn't that why most people took it?

I'm not saying lots of people hadn't taken it for health reasons, just that many didn't take it and many took it for other reasons besides their own health. Many in the UK felt compelled to take it because of the appalling behaviour of others (threats they were not welcome in their home etc if not vaccinated). People were talking about it as if it was going to end the pandemic, or stop them passing the virus onto others or not even catch covid once they were vaccinated. These false beliefs caused the split of families, friends and work colleagues, because whilst some of us could see through the flagrant false claims, others believed every word.

Here's yet another (one of many) of those flagrant false claims the public were being told about the pandemic.

"The coronavirus will no longer be circulating in Britain by midsummer, according to the government's departing vaccine taskforce chief"

COVID-19: 'Britain will be free of the coronavirus by August', says outgoing vaccine taskforce chief

The UK will have a population protected from COVID by midsummer, the departing chief of the UK's vaccine taskforce says.

news.sky.com