It is widely accepted that lockdowns throughout the world have saved millions of lives
If this is what you think then what data do you have to back this up? And at the same time, because it is equally relevant, how many lives has lockdown policy cost, or will likely cost, since the effects of lockdown policy will be felt for many years going forward?
which is of course the reason there was pretty much universal agreement on the need for lockdowns.
Of course all scientists agree, when you censor (or smear) the ones who don't.
Was it wholly justified? I guess the answer depends on how much you value human life. Not everyone values human life to the same extent.
There are some big questions raised by this.
The value of extending life used to be measured by those providing treatment in terms of quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). I believe that since the resources of the NHS are not unlimited, and since treatment needs to be directed towards those who will benefit from it the most, then a value of £30,000 worth of treatment per QALY has been used in the past by the NHS as a rough guide for whether to provide treatment or not to treat.
Our panicked reaction Covid has blown this apart completely and we are now currently estimated to have spent somewhere in the region of £400 billion on Covid mitigation measures. To put that into perspective, we have so far spent over 3 times the whole annual NHS budget on things only to do with Covid. On mitigating one disease only, and none too successfully at that I might add.
Does that seem like good value for money to you or will future NHS and social care funding now be at risk because of the resultant huge burden of debt we now carry? How will our national debt burden impact the lives and health of people in the UK going forward? How will this all play out for people seeking treatment for other diseases in the future? How much should we value quality of life over quantity? How much value do we place on the mental health of the population? Do we know yet what damage the constant messaging of fear (‘killing granny’ etc) and school closures has done to our children or their education?
As you can see, it is not quite so simple as how much you value human life. It is not quite simple as eradicating Covid deaths at all cost.
To be honest, I am shocked that no impact assessment of lockdown policy and restrictions has seemingly even been presented by the government or its opposition who demanded even more lockdowns. Sooner, harder, tighter, longer cried Labour. Let us see who is on the right side of history when this all plays out.
(* – number pulled out of my arse, you can probably google projection statistics if you care sufficiently)
Less than 1% as was stated by Chris Whitty back in March 2020. He also said that for the vast majority Covid would be a very mild disease. Have we all forgotten this?
Also lockdowns helped prevent many catching C19 who may otherwise have suffered from long covid.
We will ALL either get or be exposed to Covid-19, no exceptions, so what you say regarding what used to be known as 'post viral syndrome' does not make any sense.
Strangely, the symptoms of anxiety or stress are remarkably similar to those described by Long Covid (post viral syndrome) sufferers. Given the huge stresses of the last two years caused by a relentless barrage of ever changing restrictions, uncertainty, combined with a never ending campaign of fear in the media, how can you be so sure that Covid-19 caused these symptoms?
If this is what you think then what data do you have to back this up?
Now, where did I put my no-restrictions control planet...?
how can you be so sure that Covid-19 caused these symptoms?
I have high functioning anxiety and am used to living daily with it and its symptoms for many years. Since having Covid a few weeks ago, I have additional symptoms not attributable to anything else, mainly;
a) A far quicker fall to fatigue, in fact remarkably and measurably so via Garmin analytics.
b) Prominent memory loss of small things that happened a week ago
c) I've been about 10-15% above resting heart rate from 2 days before my positive test until now, 3 weeks later.
d) If I get stressed, it rises very quickly an intense crescendo whereby I'm so stressed / running on the syphonatic system I can't speak. I'm having to identify it and work very hard to roll it back. This never happened before Covid, even during an anxiety attack.
Edit; this is just me, you should ask people like TiRed who've been affected far worse, and there's no way in hell I'd agree that TiRed is "only stressed" to the point of how he's been affected.
Honestly, this is page 934. You can argue with yourself.
I have high functioning anxiety and am used to living daily with it and its symptoms for many years. Since having Covid a few weeks ago, I have additional symptoms not attributable to anything else, mainly;
a) A far quicker fall to fatigue, in fact remarkably and measurably so via Garmin analytics.
b) Prominent memory loss of small things that happened a week ago
c) I’ve been about 10-15% above resting heart rate from 2 days before my positive test until now, 3 weeks later.
d) If I get stressed, it rises very quickly an intense crescendo whereby I’m so stressed / running on the syphonatic system I can’t speak. I’m having to identify it and work very hard to roll it back. This never happened before Covid, even during an anxiety attack.
I had similar symptoms too after catching Covid back in 2020. Most noticeable was a loss in performance and breathless-less on the bike when climbing on climbs where it never used to be a problem. After a couple of months things were back to normal. Similarly after Glandular Fever in my 20's I was left with some very strange and unusual symptoms for 18 months afterwards, one of these was extreme fatigue. I had never experienced those symptoms before, but again completely back to normal after 18 months or so. My partner was similar after a bout of bad flu a few years back.
All the above were once considered fairly normal after a serious viral infection and symptoms varied greatly from person to person. All can be described as 'post viral syndrome' to some degree. Until of course the phrase ‘Long Covid’ was coined.
I am not doubting your symptoms or making light of your position, far from it, I am just concerned that because you are now worried you have ‘Long Covid', rather than the more standard post viral syndrome, it could be adding greatly to the stress and anxiety you must already be feeling. This in turn is probably not helping your recovery.
Whether we need to shut down sections of our society for the above, compounding the damage is another question.
Was it wholly justified? I guess the answer depends on how much you value human life. Not everyone values human life to the same extent.
That's the nub of the argument. 174,000 dead of Covid in the UK - from the death certificates - DESPITE all the lockdown restrictions. Estimates suggested 450,000 without action.
So there's your potential human cost. Some people feel that would have been a price worth paying, some don't. That's not a scientific judgement, that's personal morality and I understand that everyone's threshold is different.
The only way to "save the NHS" was to either lockdown to prevent it being swamped by Covid patients - which it was, remember, and if you know someone in front line ICU you will know that for a fact, or to not treat Covid patients at all, and put them in special units to either die or recover as nature takes it course. We could have given them an uplifting name like "Nightingale Hospitals".
Economically, I seem to recall a report last year indicating that the average "years left" for Covid victims would have been 10 years -remember, most people who make 80 now make 90. So that's 1,749,000 economically active years lost - working, buying goods and services, keeping others in employment, paying taxes. Even people in care homes are paying for services, keeping people in jobs and paying taxes on their pension income.
I don't know how that balances against the economic cost of lockdown. I'd be interested to see some expert opinion.
The mental health cost - yes, that's been huge. As another functioning anxiety sufferer it's been huge. The isolation has put my mental health, my career aspirations and my families financial future in huge jeopardy. Am I prepared to deal with that rather than the reality of another couple of hundred thousand people drowning as their lungs fill up in a temporary hospital - yeah, I'll take the hit.
You can disagree with my view, that's fine. That's your moral position. And it's a simple one to hold. Until it's your parent, partner or child drowning internally as their lungs fail.
All can be described as ‘post viral syndrome’ to some degree. Until of course the phrase ‘Long Covid’ was coined.
Coined as in referring to covid. That and it’s more than fatigue people are suffering, there are reports of organ problems.
how can you be so sure that Covid-19 caused these symptoms?
Well by diagnosis.
That’s the nub of the argument. 174,000 dead of Covid in the UK – from the death certificates – DESPITE all the lockdown restrictions. Estimates suggested 450,000 without action.
Add to the cost of the nhs being even more inundated with covid patients, meaning more departments would need to outsource staff to covid patients, operations and life saving treatments wouldn’t be able to go ahead, the mental impact of all those families losing loved ones.
Estimates suggested 450,000 without action
Ahh from the much discredited Neil Fergusson modelling. When has Neil Ferguson or his associates got any of their predictions even nearly right? What were his predictions for Sweden again? 80,000 dead was it if there was not a mandatory lock down? How has that played out?
Anyway we were never not going to do nothing, but whether we have done the right or proportionate thing considering who is susceptible is highly questionable.
174,000 dead of Covid in the UK
Mostly 'with Covid'. Only approx 17,000 were down to Covid alone with all others having other, often multiple serious co-morbidities. Many would have died anyway with or without Covid.
The only way to “save the NHS” was to either lockdown to prevent it being swamped by Covid patients
No it wasn't, alternatives were available. Our previously well thought through pandemic planning based on years of scientific thinking, and the knowledge that lockdowns cause far more damage than they solve got chucked out the window on whim, such was the panic and lack of leadership in March 2020.
You can disagree with my view, that’s fine. That’s your moral position. And it’s a simple one to hold. Until it’s your parent, partner or child drowning internally as their lungs fail.
Let's not even go here. We have all lost loved ones from various diseases over the years. A death from Covid is not more tragic than a death from any other cause, of which there are many times more.
Mostly ‘with Covid’. Only approx 17,000 were down to Covid alone
Source for that please
Our previously well thought through pandemic planning based on years of scientific thinking,
Were based on theoretical flu, not the Covid that arrived.
Let’s not even go here.
But it's the core of the argument. How many deaths is acceptable to a society?
Are we not still banning new members from this thread? This is so tiresome
Are we not still banning new members from this thread? This is so tiresome
They are engaging in debate and contributing to other threads.
They've learnt 🤣
Mostly ‘with Covid’. Only approx 17,000 were down to Covid alone with all others having other, often multiple serious co-morbidities. Many would have died anyway with or without Covid.
Source please.
Let’s not even go here. We have all lost loved ones from various diseases over the years. A death from Covid is not more tragic than a death from any other cause
Great response, in answer to a point that no-one's made.
Many would have died anyway with or without Covid.
Well I think we’ve now confirmed you’re trolling.
Are we not still banning new members from this thread?
It's likely people frequented the forum without registering/creating an account. But felt the need to join to comment.
Is it only valid opinion if you’ve been on STW for years? (don’t get me wrong, I can imagine you probably get inundated with trolls)
Debates (as long as it’s reasoned and respectful) are healthy, and can help alleviate someone’s misplaced concerns. Echo chambers are not, and probably enforce their views.
Christ I know this is stw but can we not have the same f*ing arguments again?
When is this guy going to get tired of re-registering, going to the trouble of scattering a few other posts, before coming back to this thread to post
The Same. <span style="font-size: 0.8rem;">F*ing. Opinion. Over. And. Over.</span>
Dude. Get a life. IRL no one is going to care if you wear a mask or not now. I mean some people will but if you don't GAF then just get on with it. Somewhere else.
I myself spend far more time than is healthy on the forum, 99.9% reading and not commenting.
Sorry Barry - you're right, people are allowed opinions but this guy has form. A lot of it. 🤷
Debates (as long as it’s reasoned and respectful) are healthy, and can help alleviate someone’s misplaced concerns. Echo chambers are not, and probably enforce their views.
The problem is there have been people not engaging with debate and spreading provable misinformation and/or conspiracy theories, getting banned, and rejoining under a new name to start again, which derails an incredibly useful and informative thread.
I totally understand the echo chamber issue, I reckon the mods get it about right.
Ah ok. Fair enough
No doubt vexatious trolling is a side effect of the vaccine they didn't want to take but took it anyway..cos you know.
🤦
Changing the subject marginally, what are people here feeling about attending large events? Wife wants us to go to watch a 6 nations game in the millenium stadium two weeks before we move house. Personally, it seems like a risk and especially given the timing is not one worth taking, but would be interested in other opinions.
but would be interested in other opinions
As another anxiety sufferer myself (a few people mentioned they suffer recently), I'd be worried.
BUT it would also depend on what my plans were for the following two weeks tbh. If I had important stuff going on at work, or family plans that would be screwed by catching it, NO. But if it's BAU then it could be good for the head, to go do stuff.
I'm also in the anxiety sufferer box. It's just the thought of incubating it a few days later, being ill for a week/10days and then trying to clear out a house etc. To be honest I think jsut writing it has made my mind up, I won't enjoy sitting next to a stranger whos happily singing away - its not like the seats feel spacious at the best of times!
Personally, it seems like a risk and especially given the timing is not one worth taking, but would be interested in other opinions.
Depends on your own perception, but you want opinions. And sorry for a probably longish answer.
I've been to a few gigs, and events since we really started to open up. I'm generally healthy, triple vaxxed and had it in August (as a result of kids having it and bringing into house, almost certainly from timings not related to anything I did). All the events I've been to have required some kind of 'passport' prior to entry (NHS app, or recent test, etc.) and while I know it's a risk it's one I am prepared to take, for the benefits of not being on hold any longer. Wife and kids love the theatre so have been to several London shows, again it's trying to have some kind of life and normality.
At the same time, when we were at MiL's at Christmas, i didn't go with the family into the shops in the outlet village....they wanted to do that, I didn't see the benefit, happy to stand outside. And I totally respect others saying they 'need' to go to the pub, or whatever else.
As it happens, we then got Covid back in the house earlier this month probably from being back at college or my daughter's job, which then got passed to my wife and son. So unless you totally lock yourself away you're 'at risk' of catching it anyway. In the end up to you how you weigh the risks and benefits of living a little. Yes, by going you will be at increased risk, only you know what problems that might create you / family and whether that's a coin flip you accept because going to a 6N game again would be fantastic.
WRT 'returning friends'. I get the bit about echo chambers and healthy debate and I'm all for it but....
I'm not proud but when I was a kid what passed for fun in my rural village was ringing the doorbell and running away. One old man used to go absolutely raging at us, from our vantage point behind a bush. Over and over again...
There was another house where the owner came out a couple of times and then just stopped answering the door.
Guess which one got our custom time after time?
what are people here feeling about attending large events?
Wife and daughter off to see a show down in That There London tonight, travelling by train.
We're at the "resigned to it" stage here really. Not rushing out to do stuff, but not avoiding it. All vaxxed and masked. Daughter is at school, wife is a social worker who's been visiting throughout the pandemic,been resigned to it for a long while, but been lucky.
being ill for a week/10days and then trying to clear out a house etc.
No ta! Moving house is bad enough at the best of times. I'd (regrettably) give that a swerve too if it were me.
I'm with Barry... I'd have no problem going to a large outdoor event (I'd mask up though)... like a gig or the Rugby... but not right before a house move / wedding / operation etc.
Debating whether lockdowns may or may not have had an effect is a hiding to nothing. Faced with a new pathogen, no immunity, no treatments and past experience of SARS-CoV-1, I would welcome the other serious suggestions - in May 2020 there were none. In May 2022, we are in a completely different place. This new respiratory disease is now much better understood. But 22 months post infection, I still can't smell and have pains in my chest. That's not your typical post-viral fatigue (had that previously too for influenza and EBV).
SARS-CoV-2 has reduced UK life expectancy. Not by a huge amount, but measurable. The early projections on mortality, if taken over the course of the epidemic (area under daily deaths curve) turned out to be reasonable (1-2% cull). Interventions meant that scenario did not come to pass as we postponed most infections into a vaccinated and treatable population. Vaccination and treatments will restore this decline in life expectancy. Just like the UK GDP in fact. The application of cost-benfit and QUALYs is something for SARS-CoV-3, when we most likely WILL have prospective antivirals available, stockpiling and in-stream vaccine production.
This epidemic has taught us the folly (and cost) of NOT preparing properly. It has been an expensive lesson, but not one that has come out of the blue. The biggest lesson is fight the next pathogen not the last. The antivirals we have now were first identified immediately after the last SARS in 2004. I trust we don't make the same mistake again!
[tl:dr] This cost of this epidemic has taught us that preparation for the next is money well spent. And spend it we must.
The problem is there have been people not engaging with debate and spreading provable misinformation and/or conspiracy theories, getting banned, and rejoining under a new name to start again, which derails an incredibly useful and informative thread
How do you know it's the same person? I'm not sure I've seen any misinformation or conspiracy theories on here recently. I really don't understand the reaction from 'the regulars' here to someone posting contrary views.
@akbar weakens his case with some of the stuff he has posted, and his "I know better" attitude from behind the comfort of his keyboard. But I still think there is something worthy of debate in there. It's not a given that the approach we have taken has led to the 'best' overall outcome, taking into account many factors which can't be measured easily in real time. I suspect that will be studied and argued over for years to come.
How do you know it’s the same person? I’m not sure I’ve seen any misinformation or conspiracy theories on here recently
The mods/IT bods have traced the different usernames back to the same source.
But yes, I agree a debate will go on. But thus far, no one has provided any robust evidence that stands up to scrutiny to back up the (valid) theory that lockdowns caused more damage than letting it rip. No one is producing stats to show a big enough increase in suicides to make me think we should have sacrificed another 100,000+ to Covid to prevent the mental health crisis, for example.
I trust we don’t make the same mistake again!
I would think Covid would be imprinted on us for decades.
It's clearly not compariable to a world war, but hugely stressful and will be part of conversation or peoples subconsious for a very long time.
I have two school aged children (one of which gifted Covid to us actually! ). I do worry about the psychological effects on our childen. It's hard to avoid it, but the constant level of fear/worry from us lot in everyday decisions and actions. The conversations we as parents have, and they're there in the background. Hopefully they're resilient enough to shrug it off!
I would welcome the other serious suggestions – in May 2020 there were none
If I remember the timeline correctly the 'let it rip' / Nightingale strategy alluded to earlier was a serious suggestion at the time. I'm not saying this would have been a good idea!! I recall feeling relieved when they changed course and belated introduced lockdown.... but I'm still prepared to hear contrary viewpoints.
It’s not a given that the approach we have taken has led to the ‘best’ overall outcome
I'd agree completely. Depends on the objective function to be minimised and the political/ethical standpoint; mortality, morbidity, GDP, pharma sales, dog ownership... Different viewpoints will have different objective functions.
But it is important not to judge decisions with perfect hindsight. I can still recall analysing daily European cases from the first wave looking for when the epidemic might peak and possible effects of intervention. The effects of intervention are in fact self-evident in the data now, after adjusting for the lag time to see their effect (about 7-14d). The costing of those interventions comes afterwards in preparedness for the next wave and pathogen. What is clear is doing nothing is a poor strategy.
EDIT
If I remember the timeline correctly the ‘let it rip’ / Nightingale strategy alluded to earlier was a serious suggestion at the time
It would never have survived the first tidal wave of admissions and deaths. The outcry in Italy as patients overwhelmed healthcare saw to that. The original Imperial model, which is in fact reasonable, saw to that. All options were bad and we took the least bad one - as did almost every other country with similar demographics.
I do worry about the physological effects on our childen. It’s hard to avoid it, but the constant level of fear/worry from us lot in everyday decisions and actions. The conversations we as parents have, and they’re there in the background. Hopefully they’re resilient enough to shrug it off!
Likewise. Ours seemed to shrug if off at the time, but now a few issues are arising, no way of knowing if caused by accumulated covid-anxiety, or unrelated. However any such issues are of course nothing compared to kids who have lost a parent.
But I still think there is something worthy of debate in there. It’s not a given that the approach we have taken has led to the ‘best’ overall outcome, taking into account many factors which can’t be measured easily in real time. I suspect that will be studied and argued over for years to come.
I agree. Even though I support what we did, I think we had tough choices and while we did mainly the right things, doesn't mean we did them in a timely way, or effectively. We need to review and reflect and think whether we got it right, and what we have learned from it.
That's not the same as saying I think our returning friends MO is right though, that's mainly just trolling or sealioning, not really trying to start a serious debate.
I do worry about the physological effects on our childen. It’s hard to avoid it, but the constant level of fear/worry from us lot in everyday decisions and actions. The conversations we as parents have, and they’re there in the background. Hopefully they’re resilient enough to shrug it off!
There are some worrying signs that our tweens / teens / young adults have really suffered. That their mental and social health is pretty poor, and that they are not being asked or listened too over this.
I will dig a couple of bits out.
I find it odd how easily you guys are all duped into engaging with the likes of Akbar.
Happens every time…new post appears and spouts absolute pish, everyone immediately calls out it’s a new account looking to troll, and don’t bother responding
Then you all ignore your own advice and spend the next umpteen pages arguing with them until they are banned..
Every single time 😂
It would never have survived the first tidal wave of admissions and deaths. The outcry in Italy as patients overwhelmed healthcare saw to that. The original Imperial model, which is in fact reasonable, saw to that. All options were bad and we took the least bad one – as did almost every other country with similar demographics.
its the millenium bug gambit. look how much time and effort we spent avoiding a problem that never happened...
For some science, a new paper in Nature Genetics - loss of smell is associated with mutations in two enzymes that metabolise odourants in the nose. Evidence suggests that it is not the olfactory bulb neurons that are damaged, but our prepossessing of the molecules before they are sensed that causes loss of smell during infection. It does not, however, discuss long-term loss of smell. That may be due to more extreme damage of the nasal epithelium 🙁
What is clear is doing nothing is a poor strategy.
Indeed. Bruce Schneier (crypto researcher and author) posted after 9/11 than the correct response wasn't to react to the last attack (apart from detailed things like adding locked cockpit doors and changing the assumption that hijackers would want to negotiate) but to do things that add to resilience.
For example, instead of adding lots of screening at airports (meaning that screening queues might be a target, or sports stadiums might be targeted instead) a better response would be to improve disaster planning and police type intelligence. If you don't know the target, better to make sure that you have hospital capacity, rehearsed disaster plans so that your incident commanders are experienced etc. You may not use it for a terrorist attack but it'll be useful if there's a flood or a major fire.
If you don't know who the next attacker is going to be, follow up all the nutters rather than just non-white ones. You may catch some normal criminals too.
In this context, improving hospital capacity is one of the obvious steps. Trying for 100% capacity is moronic - basic queuing theory.
So's maintaining a high capacity for screening for disease, with the ability to change what you're screening for. So's having proper PPE stockpiles and manufacturing capacity onshore. Likewise vaccine and medicine R&D and production.
All these things are useful, many all the time e.g. hospital capacity, some as insurance e.g. PPE stockpile.
Who knows? Perhaps a healthier population will be happier and more productive.