Covid-19 response

[Amity Island]

In a new article in the times today, a study claims that:

A large-scale study suggests the virus may have affected the intelligence of millions of people, with worse effects linked to severe cases.

How Covid made us more stupid: even mild infection ‘leads to fall in IQ’

A large-scale study suggests the virus may have affected the intelligence of millions of people, with worse effects linked to severe cases

www.thetimes.co.uk

However, in an older BBC article, it was claimed it was the confected pandemic response (note not covid) that has caused the changes in our brains.

Scientists think people who haven't had Covid are also suffering increased tiredness, impaired decision-making and a lack of focus due to the pandemic.

During the pandemic, our way of life and routine became uncertain, happhazzard, ridiculous and full of hyped up fear (psychological nudging etc).

"Uncertainty influences the biology of our brains - and generally we can cope with a certain amount of uncertainty but the longer we have it, generally the worse it is for our brain.

Covid: How could the pandemic have affected your brain?

Scientists say uncertainty and disruption have affected people even if they haven't had Covid.

www.bbc.com

 

[everydayupsanddowns]

claimed it was the confected pandemic response (note not covid)

I’m not sure many would recognise that description of the significant measures that Governments across the world were forced to take to try to reduce the unfolding health emergency?

I think mistakes were made, and hindsight allows commentators to see flaws in some of the decisions that were taken (or weren’t taken) as events unfolded at pace - but to say the response was ‘confected’ seems to suggest the whole thing was a fiction, and completely underplays the seriousness of the situation IMO. Personally I find that choice of words rather unkind to anyone who lost a loved one, family member, or whose life continues to be negatively affected by their experience of the pandemic, Covid 19, and the impact it had on their life.

 

[Docb]

Absolutely agree @everydayupsanddowns. I would also add that it is very easy to look back and make lots of noise about what ought to have been done with the assistance of knowledge gained in the interim. Having to make judgements up front, based on patchy information and conflicting opinions from people knowing only part of the picture and each with their own agendas is a different ball game altogether.

Been there 😉

 

[Bruce Stephens]

Instead, sufferers are simply experiencing the normal effects of recovering from a virus, which can include fatigue, brain fog and shortness of breath – known as post-viral syndrome.

Yes, there seems to be a drift towards removing the covid part of the term, so calling it post-viral syndrome. I worry a bit that it's going to result in pretending that the illness doesn't exist (or just isn't important enough to care about). The medical profession has done a terrible job handling ME/CFS and there was some hope that the pandemic might help with that (since lots of people have been getting similar symptoms all at once) but it's hard to be optimistic. Despite lots of money there's pretty much nothing available, though at least there seems acceptance that exercise can be harmful.

Analysis found no evidence that COVID-19 positive adults were more likely to have symptoms a year after their diagnosis when compared to symptomatic adults who were negative for COVID-19.

I'd note that a year of impairment is pretty significant, but more generally they're dealing with an unusual population: very high vaccination rates, and the vaccinations came before almost all the infections. Meanwhile, in the UK we're deliberately allowing children to be repeatedly infected without offering vaccines.

 

[everydayupsanddowns]

I worry a bit that it's going to result in pretending that the illness doesn't exist (or just isn't important enough to care about). The medical profession has done a terrible job handling ME/CFS and there was some hope that the pandemic might help with that (since lots of people have been getting similar symptoms all at once) but it's hard to be optimistic.

Completely agree @Bruce Stephens

My youngest lives with CFS/ME (as do some on the forum) and there is pitiful almost non-existant ‘support’, which essentially seems to revolve aroind “How about pretending you don’t have CFS, and just carrying on anyway?”

 

[Amity Island]

I’m not sure many would recognise that description of the significant measures that Governments across the world were forced to take to try to reduce the unfolding health emergency?

Mike, they already had a world beating pandemic preparedness plan for respiratory viruses in place before covid arrived.

However, this was ditched, and instead, we suffered a completely confected, off the cuff, business ruining, school closing, nhs destroying, mental health destroying, lockdowns, with ever changing rules, along with those making and breaking their own rules. They brought in measures without any evidence they worked, be it masks, lockdowns and social distancing. They brought in laws without any regard to the impact it had financially, mentally or longer term health impacts.

I think mistakes were made

No mistakes were made. Every policy, every rule, every measure was intentional. A mistake is something you didn't intend to do, everything they did was intended. Be it, eat out to help or if a scotch egg is a meal or putting a mask on to leave your table. Like a virus cares about these things.

hindsight allows commentators to see flaws in some of the decisions that were taken (or weren’t taken)

Not hindsight. Many of us were shouting from the rooftops at the time about what we were being subjected to. It all fell on deaf ears or we were ridiculed.

but to say the response was ‘confected’ seems to suggest the whole thing was a fiction, and completely underplays the seriousness of the situation.

Saying the response was confected, in no may implies the whole thing was fiction. I am just making an accurate summary of how we responded.

Personally I find that choice of words rather unkind to anyone who lost a loved one, family member, or whose life continues to be negatively affected by their experience of the pandemic, Covid 19, and the impact it had.

This is the part of your response I don't get.

The confected response was as bad, if not worse than the problem (virus).

It seems I am the only person on this forum that is appalled by the response. We were gas lit, treat like idiots, divided, nudged, scared, kept from loved ones, the elderly were treat terribly and unlawfully, the country, the NHS, businesses, school children were treat appallingly. Jobs were lost, some people were coerced and mandated into taking a novel jab. They had their parties, affairs and travelled as they pleased.

The virus didn't do all this. The confected response did and it just went from bad to worse. Three weeks to flatten the curve we were told....

Stay at home should have been sufficient to reduce cases, no need for all the rest. They never made any attempt to try and stop it anyway. No mistakes were made.

 

[Amity Island]

Yes, there seems to be a drift towards removing the covid part of the term, so calling it post-viral syndrome. I worry a bit that it's going to result in pretending that the illness doesn't exist (or just isn't important enough to care about). The medical profession has done a terrible job handling ME/CFS and there was some hope that the pandemic might help with that (since lots of people have been getting similar symptoms all at once) but it's hard to be optimistic. Despite lots of money there's pretty much nothing available, though at least there seems acceptance that exercise can be harmful.

I'd note that a year of impairment is pretty significant, but more generally they're dealing with an unusual population: very high vaccination rates, and the vaccinations came before almost all the infections. Meanwhile, in the UK we're deliberately allowing children to be repeatedly infected without offering vaccines.

I agree that some will take this as if nobody was sick, but all it means is that the term used throughout was a confected term. It doesn't mean people didn't suffer after having covid they did, it was simply post fatigue syndrome, like we can all suffer following similar infections.

 

[everydayupsanddowns]

Stay at home should have been sufficient to reduce cases, no need for all the rest. They never made any attempt to try and stop it anyway.

But people DIDN’T stay at home when they were ill and possibly symptomatic did they? That’s why in the end the government had to make everyone stay at home.

No mistakes were made.

I genuinely can’t believe that you think there was some grand masterplan, and that everything happened exactly To Plan.

The fudges… the late response… the PPI scandals… the hamfisted attempts to do as little as possible (which then created the need for even more dramatic and costly action later). The way that other nations that acted differently have recovered better economically since, and had were reported during the pandemic to be having significantly fewer deaths.

You think our government (or some other shadowy controlling organisation) planned it all, and their plan was executed with no mistakes made?

No mistakes were made. Every policy, every rule, every measure was intentional.

If no mistakes were made then does that mean you think the
deaths, negative economic impact, negative impact on the NHS / waiting lists, negative (non-covid) physical and mental health outcomes were deliberate and planned? Who planned them? And what was their intention?

 

[Amity Island]

But people DIDN’T stay at home when they were ill and possibly symptomatic did they? That’s why in the end the government had to make everyone stay at home.

Why would we lock a well person in?

Are you referring to the Drosten report where he hadn't asked if the person had had covid symptoms as part of the paper he published? Where as a result of not asking about any symptoms he drew the conclusion of asymptomatic transmission. This idea of asymptomatic-spread of covid was then published around the world. He hasn't to this day corrected that paper.

I genuinely can’t believe that you think there was some grand masterplan, and that everything happened exactly To Plan.

I genuinely can't believe you believe that I believe that. Lol

You think our government (or some other shadowy controlling organisation) planned it all, and their plan was executed with no mistakes made?

No. By no mistakes were made, I mean just that. Nothing to do with a shadowy controlling organisation. What I mean is every rule, measure and law was not a slip of the tongue. It was intentional. They knew full well the repercussions of everything they did. Let's not make light of it or make excuses for them.

The confected response turned a bad situation into three years of hell for many. They unlawfully turfed the elderly out, told people to stay at home leaving hospitals empty for months. This wasnt a slip of the tongue, no mistakes were made.

 

[everydayupsanddowns]

The confected response turned a bad situation into three years of hell for many. They unlawfully turfed the elderly out, told people to stay at home leaving hospitals empty for months. This wasnt a slip of the tongue, no mistakes were made.

I think we have a very different interpretation of the phrase ‘no mistakes were made’

Would it be fair to say that bad decisions were made, and furthermore that good decisions were also delayed or avoided, and then that even more bad decisions had to be made as the situation escalated further?

 

[Amity Island]

I think we have a very different interpretation of the phrase ‘no mistakes were made’

Would it be fair to say that bad decisions were made, and furthermore that good decisions were also delayed or avoided, and then that even more bad decisions had to be made as the situation escalated further?

Yes, I'd say once an early bad decision is made, then yes, it will likely lead to more bad (making the best of a bad job) decisions.

I think those three years would have been better for everyone if we were advised to just stay home if you have symptoms and avoided all the rest of it. Going by my experience of it all, i'm certain we could of relied on people to enforce it.

Gone are the days of going in to work/office coughing with a fever etc.

 

[Dragonheart]

they already had a world beating pandemic preparedness plan for respiratory viruses in place

It wasn’t and isn’t simply a respiratory illness though. And how is it judged to be world beating when it was untested?

They brought in measures without any evidence they worked

So in the face of the early overwhelming hospitalisations we should have just sat back and waited for 5e studies to prove what they eventually did (eg mask wearing properly with decent masks did help. The Cochrane report did NOT show masks were ineffective btw but you’ve ignored that significant fact any times).

Every policy, every rule, every measure was intentional. A mistake is something you didn't intend to do, everything they did was intended.

Sure some of it was. I’m sure other things did have unintended effects. No one other than you can “prove” it was all deliberate

Not hindsight. Many of us were shouting from the rooftops at the time about what we were being subjected to. It all fell on deaf ears or we were ridiculed.

and many shouted in the opposite direction they weren’t doing enough with just as much being ignored or ridiculed

The confected response was as bad, if not worse than the problem (virus).

in YOUR opinion. Not an undisputed fact though is it?

Stay at home should have been sufficient to reduce cases, no need for all the rest.

again other than your opinion and wishes there’s no evidence this would have been enough. Discussed repeatedly in here

It seems I am the only person on this forum that is appalled by the response.

Nope, plenty of us were appalled by aspects. Just not always the same things for the same reasons as you.

 

[Dragonheart]

Why would we lock a well person in?

Again. Pre symptomatic people can and do infect others. Regardless of your position on asymptomatic transmission. And because someone decided their runny nose was an allergy not Covid didn’t make it true in many cases.

I genuinely can't believe you believe that I believe that. Lol

Well all your comments do make it look that way, as there’s simply no other way to explain. They deliberately and knowingly choose those outcomes is what you continuously claim. The huge unanswered question would be why did they do that

 

[Dragonheart]

Gone are the days of going in to work/office coughing with a fever etc.

you are joking? It’s worse than ever.

So few give a damn now, they are fully back to pretending every symptom is “just a nasty cold” and “we can’t go back to being afraid of the flu like in the pandemic”.

Schools are demanding sick kids go to school under pain of fines and court appearances as well as subtle punishment of sick kids by the withholding of rewards for attendance.

 

[Amity Island]

It wasn’t and isn’t simply a respiratory illness though. And how is it judged to be world beating when it was untested?

According to the w.h.o

"Most people infected with the virus will experience mild to moderate respiratory illness and recover without requiring special treatment."

Coronavirus

Coronavirus disease (COVID-19)

www.who.int

So in the face of the early overwhelming hospitalisations we should have just sat back and waited for 5e studies to prove what they eventually did (eg mask wearing properly with decent masks did help.

Scotland brought in masks not for medical reasons.

There is no such thing as long Covid, say health officials

Doctors in Queensland say the condition is no different to any post-viral syndrome

www.telegraph.co.uk

The Cochrane report did NOT show masks were ineffective btw but you’ve ignored that significant fact any times).

It would be accurate to say that the review examined whether interventions to promote mask wearing help to slow the spread of respiratory viruses, and that the results were inconclusive.

Statement on 'Physical interventions to interrupt or reduce the spread of respiratory viruses' review

www.cochrane.org

Sure some of it was. I’m sure other things did have unintended effects. No one other than you can “prove” it was all deliberate.

You are misunderstanding my point. I am saying that every rule, every measure and strategy was not a mistake, and many are using the "mistake" as an excuse. They were not mistakes.

and many shouted in the opposite direction they weren’t doing enough with just as much being ignored or ridiculed

Well this is what the public were told and to me this doesn't point to lockdowns.

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”⁵

in YOUR opinion. Not an undisputed fact though is it?

To say the response to the virus was as bad if not worse than the virus isn't an unreasonable opinion given the devastation caused by the response to the pandemic.

again other than your opinion and wishes there’s no evidence this would have been enough. Discussed repeatedly in here

Advising those sick with covid to stay at home is not an unreasonable strategy. Makes sense to me and probably many others.

 

[Dragonheart]

According to the w.h.o

"Most people infected with the virus will experience mild to moderate respiratory illness and recover without requiring special treatment."

They are not the only medical authority. What about all those (a huge proportion) with symptoms related to the CV system, genitourinary, kidney, pancreas skin, neurological etc etc etc. ie just anbout every body system? To hide behind a quote about the initial assumptions very early in the pandemic is a weak and lazy argument that too many have held onto.

Scotland brought in masks not for medical reasons.

Proves nothing about the wider effectiveness of them used properly. So perhaps they accidentally did the right thing.

It would be accurate to say that the review examined whether interventions to promote mask wearing help to slow the spread of respiratory viruses, and that the results were inconclusive.

Which is entirely different to claiming it proved masks ineffective. Campaigns were inconclusive not even masks themselves.

You are misunderstanding my point. I am saying that every rule, every measure and strategy was not a mistake, and many are using the "mistake" as an excuse. They were not mistakes.

I’m sure we’ve had the semantics debate about what you, I, and others mean by “mistake”. Mistake as in the wrong choice not as in accidental.

Well this is what the public were told and to me this doesn't point to lockdowns.

To say the response to the virus was as bad if not worse than the virus isn't an unreasonable opinion given the devastation caused by the response to the pandemic.

A small percent of millions is still an awful lot of people overwhelming the nhs - and it was overwhelmed to the point that significant amounts of other care couldn’t be administered. The families and friends of hundreds of thousands that died or have been left in deficit from their infections probably think it points differently than you do.

Advising those sick with covid to stay at home is not an unreasonable strategy. Makes sense to me and probably many others.

its frankly ridiculous imo and the core reason you will always see so much differently to me. We did tell people to do that. They didn’t do it enough - even with the rules - to prevent the devastation that did occur. Without the rules even fewer would have done so. And once again presymptomatic spread would still have occurred by your chosen option. Yes it would have been better than ignoring it completely and carrying on totally as normal . Medics that agree with you are few and far between too.

 

[Amity Island]

They are not the only medical authority. What about all those (a huge proportion) with symptoms related to the CV system, genitourinary, kidney, pancreas skin, neurological etc etc etc. ie just about every body system? To hide behind a quote about the initial assumptions very early in the pandemic is a weak and lazy argument that too many have held onto.

I am talking about transmission of an airborne virus and pandemic preparedness. It doesn't travel from people kidneys, skin or pancreas. It is an airborne virus and staying at home is a good way to stop the spread if you have symptoms.

Proves nothing about the wider effectiveness of them used properly. So perhaps they accidentally did the right thing.

It proves that millions of people were wearing masks for reasons other than their health.

Which is entirely different to claiming it proved masks ineffective.

I am claiming there has been no evidence masks make any difference when worn by the general public, which is true. This was also the case before the pandemic began with the w.h.o also giving same (no evidence) advice in their pandemic preparedness documents for masks They also advised against lockdowns.

In the UK this is what the public were told:

3 April 2020: England’s Deputy Chief Medical Officer Jonathan Van Tam tells a televised briefing: “we do not recommend face masks for general wearing.”

3 April 2020: Professor Jason Leitch (Scotland’s Clinical Director) makes an unequivocal statement that, “The global evidence is masks in the general population don’t work.”

16 April 2020: Transport Secretary Grant Shapps tells ITV wearing masks would be “counterproductive… the suggestions people would make their own masks; whether it’s clothing and that sort of thing which doesn’t really provide that much protection. Secondly, the way people take it off can sometimes do the reinfection. Thirdly it can provide a false sense of security.”

23 April 2020: UK Chief Scientific Officer Patrick Vallance tells televised briefing, “the evidence on masks has always been quite weak, quite variable… there’s no real trials on it.”

24 April 2020: Health Secretary Matt Hancock tells LBC, “the evidence for the use of masks by the general public, especially outdoors, is extremely weak.”

I’m sure we’ve had the semantics debate about what you, I, and others mean by “mistake”. Mistake as in the wrong choice not as in accidental.

If you buy the "wrong" colour car, is that a mistake or an intentional decision?
If they bring in lockdowns, is that a mistake or an intentional decision?
If you make a spelling mistake, then yes, that is a mistake, because it was un-intentional (a mistake).
No mistakes were made. Bad decisions yes, but not mistakes.

 

[Amity Island]

Pre symptomatic people can and do infect others.

Yes, but you are saying this as if the aim was to eliminate the virus from the population.

It was never the aim (nor was it possible) to stop the virus transmission. Nor was it ever achieved, even after the wonderful jabs were rolled out. The virus is still spreading to this day. So I don't get why you talk about locking everyone in to prevent asymptomatic or pre-symptomatic transmission.

This is why I have always referred to the old saying coughs and sneezes spread diseases and that instead of locking in well people, concentrate on those with symptoms. Also worth pointing out, if people are really sick, they will be self isolating in bed (no need to tell them to stay at home), they won't be well enough to get out of bed.

 

[everydayupsanddowns]

I am claiming there has been no evidence masks make any difference when worn by the general public, which is true

I remember sharing several peer reviewed studies from the US which demonstrated mask effectiveness (several times). There were states that mandated masks, and states that did not. And the estates that mandated masks had clinically significant reductions in infection/spread. I found those data convincing. Those data were collected after some of the quotes etc you often use to assert masks had no effect. Even anecdotally my personal experience was NO cases of cold or flu for ANY of the 4 people in my house during the times when masks had to be worn. There have been many colds before. And many colds since. But by some weird coincidence(?!) no one had a cold when everyone had to wear a mask, and abide by social distancing guidance.

It’s one of the reasons I don’t often comment on this long running thread. We have to agree to disagree.

I agree with you about the devastating impact of many of the measures that were made - both those that were anticipated (and delayed action being taken) and the unintended consequences.

I think the UK handled the pandemic badly. And different choices, different decisions, and different (less confused) communication with the public could have meant we lost fewer people, and would have better able to recover economically, socially, and have the NHS in a better place.

But we didn't. Perhaps couldn’t, as a nation?

And I think if we had done less, and left things even later, my feeling is that things would have been even worse.

I’m not sure even another 600 posts on this thread would add much more clarity for me.

 

[Amity Island]

I remember sharing several peer reviewed studies from the US which demonstrated mask effectiveness (several times). There were states that mandated masks, and states that did not. And the estates that mandated masks had clinically significant reductions in infection/spread. I found those data convincing. Those data were collected after some of the quotes etc you often use to assert masks had no effect. Even anecdotally my personal experience was NO cases of cold or flu for ANY of the 4 people in my house during the times when masks had to be worn. There have been many colds before. And many colds since. But by some weird coincidence(?!) no one had a cold when everyone had to wear a mask, and abide by social distancing guidance.

It’s one of the reasons I don’t often comment on this long running thread. We have to agree to disagree.

I agree with you about the devastating impact of many of the measures that were made - both those that were anticipated (and delayed action being taken) and the unintended consequences.

I think the UK handled the pandemic badly. And different choices, different decisions, and different (less confused) communication with the public could have meant we lost fewer people, and would have better able to recover economically, socially, and have the NHS in a better place.

But we didn't. Perhaps couldn’t, as a nation?

And I think if we had done less, and left things even later, my feeling is that things would have been even worse.

I’m not sure even another 600 posts on this thread would add much more clarity for me.

I've never said Masks don't work.

I am just saying that for example, according to the w.h.o or the Cochrane report (which was the largest study and collections of studies ever undertaken) that they didn't find anything conclusive and thus, masks were brought in as a "just in case" they worked, not because they were to proven (evidence based) to work.

Although in Scotland, they were brought in for reasons other than health as confirmed at the covid enquiry last week.

Sturgeon making children wear masks was political, Sir Patrick Vallance wrote in Covid diary

Chief scientific adviser said Scotland’s PPE policy for schools was not based on medical advice but rather to go ‘their own way’

www.telegraph.co.uk