Lockdowns

[Amity Island]

Moderator Note: These posts were split from a thread on Universal Basic Income into their own thread.

No going back on this one. Whatever us adults do today will impact the following generations to come. Lockdowns were based on flawed and discredited models by the terrifying and ludicrous predictions.

 

[everydayupsanddowns]

Lockdowns were based on flawed and discredited models by the terrifying and ludicrous predictions

You simply cannot state that as a fact. It is more of an ideological opinion. It seems to me it is the ideologies that are keeping these conversations alive (individual freedoms vs community responsibility… essentially right vs left).

In my opinion we do not have the data to show what you are suggesting with any certainty. Because we cannot see what would have happened to rates of covid illness and sarscov2 infection/NHS/economy/deaths a) if we locked down much faster and harder; or b) if we had not locked down at all - to compare with the situation in the UK at the time.

All the coulda woulda shoulda conversations about lockdowns are mostly just conjecture.

 

[Amity Island]

You simply cannot state that as a fact. It is more of an ideological opinion.

All the coulda woulda shoulda conversations about lockdowns are mostly just conjecture.

Mike,

Lockdowns in response to the first wave of the pandemic, when compared with less strict policies adopted by the likes of Sweden, prevented as few as 1,700 deaths in England and Wales. In an average week there are around 11,000 deaths in England and Wales.


Imperial College of London’s modelling exercises (March 2020), predicted lockdowns would save over 400,000 lives in the United Kingdom. This 400,000 lives is why the government locked down.

This is not my opinion nor conjecture.

Did lockdowns work? The verdict on Covid restrictions

Examine the impact of lockdowns on COVID-19 mortality, suggesting that voluntary changes in behavior, not strict restrictions, mitigated the pandemic.

iea.org.uk

 

[Amity Island]

You simply cannot state that as a fact. It is more of an ideological opinion. It seems to me it is the ideologies that are keeping these conversations alive (individual freedoms vs community responsibility… essentially right vs left).

In my opinion we do not have the data to show what you are suggesting with any certainty. Because we cannot see what would have happened to rates of covid illness and sarscov2 infection/NHS/economy/deaths a) if we locked down much faster and harder; or b) if we had not locked down at all - to compare with the situation in the UK at the time.

All the coulda woulda shoulda conversations about lockdowns are mostly just conjecture.

And

The Imperial College Report by Prof. Ferguson published on 16 March 2020 was widely attributed to a change of strategy by the UK government from one of Herd Immunity to one of lockdown (but of course things are more complicated). The model had been used over the past 20 years to inform policy, yet amazingly enough, this was the first time that a request to review the code behind the model was made. This code was released reluctantly to various companies such as Microsoft, who then publish an improved version on GitHub. The first review of this code was very damning.

Code, Models and Covid-19

The Imperial College Report by Prof. Ferguson published on 16 March 2020 was widely attributed for a change of strategy by the UK…

medium.com

 

[everydayupsanddowns]

Or this (2022) that suggests allowing Sars Cov 2 to run wild, and only shielding those deemed vulnerable may not have achieved herd immunity, and may have led to many more deaths

New modelling shows ‘shielding’ instead of lockdowns would have led to tens of thousands more deaths

Analysis from researchers in Bath's Department of Mathematical Sciences challenges the belief that just shielding the vulnerable would have contained COVID-19.

www.bath.ac.uk

Or this that says that the majority of the benefit would have been gleaned from less stringent measures

On the effectiveness of COVID-19 restrictions and lockdowns: Pan metron ariston - BMC Public Health

Background Early evaluations of the effectiveness of non-pharmaceutical intervention (NPI) mandates were constrained by the lack of empirical data, thereby also limiting model sophistication (e.g., models did not take into account the endogeneity of key variables). Methods Observational analysis...

bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com

Or... I dare say any number of other links that may argue they were essential and have modelled or observational data to show that?

This (in the thick of the action in 2020) observes the situation in some countries that took quick decisive action

Coronavirus (COVID-19) Everything You Need to Know | Healthline

Live news & updates on the Coronavirus (COVID-19) outbreak

www.healthline.com

At the end of the day, let‘s hope lessons are learned, and knowledge is gained after the researchers have had a chance to balance all the evidence and data gathered - so that the next time there is a global health emergency the basis on which decisions are taken will have a more solid footing?

 

[Amity Island]

Or this (2022) that suggests allowing Sars Cov 2 to run wild, and only shielding those deemed vulnerable may not have achieved herd immunity, and may have led to many more deaths

New modelling shows ‘shielding’ instead of lockdowns would have led to tens of thousands more deaths

Analysis from researchers in Bath's Department of Mathematical Sciences challenges the belief that just shielding the vulnerable would have contained COVID-19.

www.bath.ac.uk

Or this that says that the majority of the benefit would have been gleaned from less stringent measures

On the effectiveness of COVID-19 restrictions and lockdowns: Pan metron ariston - BMC Public Health

Background Early evaluations of the effectiveness of non-pharmaceutical intervention (NPI) mandates were constrained by the lack of empirical data, thereby also limiting model sophistication (e.g., models did not take into account the endogeneity of key variables). Methods Observational analysis...

bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com

Or... I dare say any number of other links that may argue they were essential and have modelled or observational data to show that?

This (in the thick of the action in 2020) observes the situation in some countries that took quick decisive action

Coronavirus (COVID-19) Everything You Need to Know | Healthline

Live news & updates on the Coronavirus (COVID-19) outbreak

www.healthline.com

At the end of the day, let‘s hope lessons are learned, and knowledge is gained after the researchers have had a chance to balance all the evidence and data gathered - so that the next time there is a global health emergency the basis on which decisions are taken will have a more solid footing?

Hi Mike,

I actually think there may be a place and time for using lockdowns, but March 21st 2020 wasn't it.

There were no excess death signals prior to the lockdowns and other methods employed.

The virus was recategorised from a high consequence disease to one that isn't.

The model (predicted 400,000 deaths without lockdown) that triggered the sudden u-turn was flawed, to be polite.

Lockdowns according to the report saved only 1700 lives, we are now seeing the results of lockdowns with more excess deaths than during the pandemic. The economy, peoples mental health, businesses etc have been irreparably damaged.

Its probably left us in a situation where we can't use lockdowns ever again, no matter how necessary.

 

[Robin]

I actually think there may be a place and time for using lockdowns, but March 21st 2020 wasn't it

I think March 2020 WAS it. Whether it needed to go on quite so long after the virus looked like it had mutated into a less severe strain is another matter.
We were hearing stories of nurses having to monitor four ICU beds at once, instead of the normal one to one. We were all outside clapping for he NHS because they were rushed off their feet. I wouldn’t care to speculate how many more deaths there would have been at the outset if people had been told, sorry, we haven’t got a ventilator or even extra Oxygen for you. Have you ever looked at the death rate for Peru in the early stages, a country that doesn’t have good hospital ICU facilities?
I've also said this before. There is no significance in the downgrading of the disease from a high consequence one. In England, 'High consequence diseases' (normally reserved for Ebola etc) MUST be referred to one of the two specialist isolation facilities. Imagine trying to squeeze the thousands who caught Covid in the early stages into two units! It was a purely pragmatic decision.
This is my last word on the subject, I seem to keep repeating myself across various threads.

 

[Amity Island]

I think March 2020 WAS it. Whether it needed to go on quite so long after the virus looked like it had mutated into a less severe strain is another matter.
We were hearing stories of nurses having to monitor four ICU beds at once, instead of the normal one to one. We were all outside clapping for he NHS because they were rushed off their feet. I wouldn’t care to speculate how many more deaths there would have been at the outset if people had been told, sorry, we haven’t got a ventilator or even extra Oxygen for you. Have you ever looked at the death rate for Peru in the early stages, a country that doesn’t have good hospital ICU facilities?
I've also said this before. There is no significance in the downgrading of the disease from a high consequence one. In England, 'High consequence diseases' (normally reserved for Ebola etc) MUST be referred to one of the two specialist isolation facilities. Imagine trying to squeeze the thousands who caught Covid in the early stages into two units! It was a purely pragmatic decision.
This is my last word on the subject, I seem to keep repeating myself across various threads.

I said from the very beginning on this very forum that the pcr test didn't tell you if you were infectious or not.

Locking down people regardless of whether they were infectious or not and whether they were actually well or not was to me bad science. In May 2020 a test was available which DID show infectiousness, this should of been the game changer for the entire pandemic.

The Most Important Test You’ve Never Heard Of

In May 2020, Stanford scientists developed a test that could have altered the course of the pandemic response. It was never rolled out.

davidzweig.substack.com

 

[EmmaL76]

This is a tough one for me. I fully understood the reasons at the time but looking back I have some resentments, like my nan suffering a short terminal illness and dying virtually alone. Losing a dear friend to suicide, she was in an abusive relationship and being stuck in the house may have been too much, not being able to attend her funeral. Covid shut down the department dealing with my sons autism referral (still not been assessed to this day) my diagnosis was during covid lockdown so you can guess how that went and then there are the months and months of missed schooling for some children school was respite from an unhappy home. Mental health certainly should have been more of a consideration, yes no doubt lives were saved because of lockdown but the bigger picture may yet to be realised.

 

[Robin]

I said from the very beginning on this very forum that the pcr test didn't tell you if you were infectious or not.

Locking down people regardless of whether they were infectious or not and whether they were actually well or not was to me bad science. In May 2020 a test was available which DID show infectiousness, this should of been the game changer for the entire pandemic.

The Most Important Test You’ve Never Heard Of

In May 2020, Stanford scientists developed a test that could have altered the course of the pandemic response. It was never rolled out.

davidzweig.substack.com

Yes, but that’s a separate issue from the one you raised in the post I was replying to, which is, Should we have locked down in March 2020? As I said, I think in the first instance we had to, because we didn’t know what we were dealing with, and didn’t have any defences. It’s a whole separate issue as to whether it needed to go on beyond May 20, (or in the same draconian terms),or beyond when we had a vaccine and the virus seemed to have mutated to a milder form, for various different reasons.

 

[Amity Island]

Yes, but that’s a separate issue from the one you raised in the post I was replying to, which is, Should we have locked down in March 2020? As I said, I think in the first instance we had to, because we didn’t know what we were dealing with, and didn’t have any defences. It’s a whole separate issue as to whether it needed to go on beyond May 20, (or in the same draconian terms),or beyond when we had a vaccine and the virus seemed to have mutated to a milder form, for various different reasons.

It is the issue. Why lock well people in?

As you know, they weren't even trying to end the pandemic with lockdowns etc etc, the aim was only to reduce infections to reduce covid hospital admissions. As I said before, they had their parties, affairs, travelled as they pleased whilst we were all frightened stiff every night. Their own response didn't align with the response the public had to endure.

Telling those with actual symptoms to stay home, would be more than sufficient to reduce tranmission, wouldn't you agree? however during the whole time, anyone with any credibility, expertise and medical training offering an alternative opinion was simply ignored and reported as a threat to the country and put on watch.

Later on, they could have avoided all the other restrictions and lockdowns by testing for infectiousness, instead they used a flawed test which meant everyone had to isolate regardless of whether they were sick or not, infectious or not.

David Davis says secret unit that targeted lockdown dissent should be shut down

The former Cabinet minister tells this week’s Chopper’s Politics podcast that his tweets were monitored by the Counter Disinformation Unit

www.telegraph.co.uk

Secret government unit collected Telegram posts about Covid policy critic

Writing in The Telegraph, Prof Carl Heneghan reveals the chilling effects of being monitored by a Counter-Disinformation Unit

www.telegraph.co.uk

 

[Amity Island]

This is the reason we shouldn't have locked down, (because there were lots of other options like telling sick people to stay at home).

At least half to nearly all of the excess deaths immediately after lockdown and other measures, were not even due to covid.

See the graphs for excess mortality after 23rd March 2020 (lockdown) in carehomes and peoples own homes. Blue non covid deaths, pink covid deaths.

This isn't ideology or conjecture or right versus left.

 

[Satan’s little helper]

It is the issue. Why lock well people in?

As you know, they weren't even trying to end the pandemic with lockdowns etc etc, the aim was only to reduce infections to reduce covid hospital admissions. As I said before, they had their parties, affairs, travelled as they pleased whilst we were all frightened stiff every night. Their own response didn't align with the response the public had to endure.

Telling those with actual symptoms to stay home, would be more than sufficient to reduce tranmission, wouldn't you agree? however during the whole time, anyone with any credibility, expertise and medical training offering an alternative opinion was simply ignored and reported as a threat to the country and put on watch.

Later on, they could have avoided all the other restrictions and lockdowns by testing for infectiousness, instead they used a flawed test which meant everyone had to isolate regardless of whether they were sick or not, infectious or not.

David Davis says secret unit that targeted lockdown dissent should be shut down

The former Cabinet minister tells this week’s Chopper’s Politics podcast that his tweets were monitored by the Counter Disinformation Unit

www.telegraph.co.uk

Secret government unit collected Telegram posts about Covid policy critic

Writing in The Telegraph, Prof Carl Heneghan reveals the chilling effects of being monitored by a Counter-Disinformation Unit

www.telegraph.co.uk

I don’t actually think this is anything new. The SDS or “hairies” unit was set up in 1968 & ran for 40 years?
There does also seem to be attempted influences on public opinion in the UK (& elsewhere.) online from other regimes, like the “Russian web brigade.”

 

[Amity Island]

I don’t actually think this is anything new. The SDS or “hairies” unit was set up in 1968 & ran for 40 years?
There does also seem to be attempted influences on public opinion in the UK (& elsewhere.) online from other regimes, like the “Russian web brigade.”

How do we get to a scientific "consensus" without open and free scientific debate and opinion? How can we get to an answer if all other answers are banned? Can there be only one way to deal with something? Is that way the best way? Doesn't democracy play a part too? We can all see what the likes of lockdowns and other strategies did. Almost all excess deaths after the 23rd March were non-covid related in care homes and peoples private homes.

 

[everydayupsanddowns]

This isn't ideology or conjecture or right versus left.

You genuinely don’t think there are any ideological forces at play in filtering and forming narratives around what was and wasn’t effective and appropriate in the response to the pandemic in various countries?

Covid-19 leaflets: How pandemic disinformation went offline

If you thought misleading coronavirus information was just circulating online - think again.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[Robin]

You genuinely don’t think there are any ideological forces at play in filtering and forming narratives around what was and wasn’t effective and appropriate in the response to the pandemic in various countries?

Covid-19 leaflets: How pandemic disinformation went offline

If you thought misleading coronavirus information was just circulating online - think again.

www.bbc.co.uk

That’s interesting, I’d never heard of 'The Light', the paper mentioned in the BBC article, but it’s still going, one dropped through the letterbox in the holiday cottage where we were staying in Bideford last week. It's still banging on about vaccines and masks, from what I could see on the front page. I didn’t read further.

 

[everydayupsanddowns]

That’s interesting, I’d never heard of 'The Light', the paper mentioned in the BBC article, but it’s still going, one dropped through the letterbox in the holiday cottage where we were staying in Bideford last week. It's still banging on about vaccines and masks, from what I could see on the front page. I didn’t read further.

I hadn't either. It was mentioned on BBC news this evening.

Apparently Totnes became a bit of a hotbed for non-mainstream narratives. Who knew?!

 

[nonethewiser]

So many more lives could have been saved had we locked down sooner.

 

[Amity Island]

You genuinely don’t think there are any ideological forces at play in filtering and forming narratives around what was and wasn’t effective and appropriate in the response to the pandemic in various countries?

Covid-19 leaflets: How pandemic disinformation went offline

If you thought misleading coronavirus information was just circulating online - think again.

www.bbc.co.uk

Hi Mike,

I'm saying, look at the graphs, look at all the excess non-covid deaths following lockdown. Many thought lockdowns were a good idea, but at what cost? They saved 1700 lives from covid but how many died as a result of lockdowns and other measures? What if we also include the loss of jobs, freedom, mental health, education, missed hospital treatment, debts, nhs, excess deaths today.

And why did they keep up all the measures and lockdowns going after they had the opportunity to use an alternative (infectiousness) pcr test?

 

[Amity Island]

That’s interesting, I’d never heard of 'The Light

Probably not worth the paper its written on, Light on facts lol.