Also In The News - part 3

[dsr-burnley]

7 minutes ago, Super_horns said:

If she was 100 18 months/ 2 years  after COVID started then surely by then should have been able to go outside and meet people  even if it was limited numbers?

 

Not sure what the time line was and I know we had a 2nd lockdown but as a CEV person I was back at work by August 2020 and outside meeting people obviously with protection.

 

But as the Government themselves showed some thought they were above the guidelines from the off sadly .

She died during the second lockdown.  She may have turned 99 when the first one started, I can't be sure.  (And at her age, incidentally, meeting people outside even in August was barely an option.)

[Tommy Fresh]

1 hour ago, dsr-burnley said:

That's the question that the enquiry should be focussing on.  Was it right to lockdown?  How many would have died if we hadn't?  Did Sweden have a better idea?  Did Sweden have a worse idea?  What did we do wrong? What did we do right?  And crucially, what should we do next time?

 

There is certainly a valid argument that locking down - even if it did save lives in the short term - caused more harm than it did good.  Was there a better way to protect the vulnerable (mainly the old) while also protecting the economy?  No-one doubts that vast debt and shortage of money costs lives; no-one doubts that closing the schools has caused damage to children.  How much damage?  Was the cure worse than the disease?

 

Quality of life needs considering.  My mother (she's 90) mental and physical health both suffered,  A friend of hers (she was 98 when it started) "celebrated" her hundredth birthday by standing in her doorway while neighbours shouted "happy birthday" from across the street.  She died soon afterwards, not of covid; her life was made worse by lockdown, and would her life have been better taking her chances?

 

The covid enquiry should give answers to these sort of questions.  But I bet it doesn't.

If you look in to the success and then subsequent failures in Uruguay it gives a pretty good picture. They shut everything down very early on, and were hailed as having one of the best responses and lowest rates of infection in the World, they shifted away from this during 2021 and everything went the opposite way completely.

 

Just to highlight how well they reacted initially in comparison to our shit show, the first case was confirmed in Montevideo, all public events were cancelled, and areas prone to crowding were closed, schools were closed and their border with Brazil was shut. They also managed to trace the first outbreak to a wedding, and within 24 hours all of those who attended were tested and were isolating. This was also applied to the next 3 outbreaks, two care homes and a city close to the Brazilian border.

Edited 1 November 2023 by Tommy Fresh

[Lionator]

3 hours ago, dsr-burnley said:

That's the question that the enquiry should be focussing on.  Was it right to lockdown?  How many would have died if we hadn't?  Did Sweden have a better idea?  Did Sweden have a worse idea?  What did we do wrong? What did we do right?  And crucially, what should we do next time?

 

There is certainly a valid argument that locking down - even if it did save lives in the short term - caused more harm than it did good.  Was there a better way to protect the vulnerable (mainly the old) while also protecting the economy?  No-one doubts that vast debt and shortage of money costs lives; no-one doubts that closing the schools has caused damage to children.  How much damage?  Was the cure worse than the disease?

 

Quality of life needs considering.  My mother (she's 90) mental and physical health both suffered,  A friend of hers (she was 98 when it started) "celebrated" her hundredth birthday by standing in her doorway while neighbours shouted "happy birthday" from across the street.  She died soon afterwards, not of covid; her life was made worse by lockdown, and would her life have been better taking her chances?

 

The covid enquiry should give answers to these sort of questions.  But I bet it doesn't.

Lockdowns could’ve been avoided if they had taken very strict early action. Ramping up testing once the first case was noted and putting people in quarantine. But if they did that, the right wing would’ve called nanny state, so it was never feasible. Therefore the floodgates were opened. New Zealanders lived an open life (although fortunate due to the geography) throughout because they took decisive early action, but they are much maligned by anti lockdowners despite having the least lockdowns 🤷🏼

[Footballwipe]

Not that we didn't already know, but this lockdown inquiry is really going to show the true colours of people and the mental gymnastics to claim that we should've just let even more people die due to covid.

 

Amazing how many are outing themselves as being so willing  to wipe so many older people (and tbh just people) out without trying to do anything drastic about it. I don't know if the pandemic either didn't affect anyone they knew, they're generally heartless or so down the "Le Tissier rabbit hole ©" that they're desperate to save face and won't come back up for air.

 

It's sad really, but not a surprise. I'm waiting for the inquiry to report back at how good everyone's personal 5G hotspot is though...

[Dunge]

7 minutes ago, Footballwipe said:

Not that we didn't already know, but this lockdown inquiry is really going to show the true colours of people and the mental gymnastics to claim that we should've just let even more people die due to covid.

 

Amazing how many are outing themselves as being so willing  to wipe so many older people (and tbh just people) out without trying to do anything drastic about it. I don't know if the pandemic either didn't affect anyone they knew, they're generally heartless or so down the "Le Tissier rabbit hole ©" that they're desperate to save face and won't come back up for air.

 

It's sad really, but not a surprise. I'm waiting for the inquiry to report back at how good everyone's personal 5G hotspot is though...

I was wondering just the other day whether the anti-vaxxers now go “hands up, we were wrong” or whether they convince themselves that their movement saved everyone from having 5G chips implanted in them by shining a light on it.

[Zear0]

10 minutes ago, Dunge said:

I was wondering just the other day whether the anti-vaxxers now go “hands up, we were wrong” or whether they convince themselves that their movement saved everyone from having 5G chips implanted in them by shining a light on it.

Think you already know the answer to that.

[dsr-burnley]

18 minutes ago, Footballwipe said:

Not that we didn't already know, but this lockdown inquiry is really going to show the true colours of people and the mental gymnastics to claim that we should've just let even more people die due to covid.

 

Amazing how many are outing themselves as being so willing  to wipe so many older people (and tbh just people) out without trying to do anything drastic about it. I don't know if the pandemic either didn't affect anyone they knew, they're generally heartless or so down the "Le Tissier rabbit hole ©" that they're desperate to save face and won't come back up for air.

 

It's sad really, but not a surprise. I'm waiting for the inquiry to report back at how good everyone's personal 5G hotspot is though...

That's the sort of emotionalism that got in the way of debate all along, IMO.  In real life, it's generally accepted that sometimes we allow people to die just because it makes life more convenient.  Motoring being a case in point - it would be easy to eliminate road deaths by having all vehicles governed to maximum speed 20 mph, with maximum 5 mph in towns, but we don't because it would be inconvenient.

 

It's a question.  If there are 100 old people with varying degrees of dementia, is it better for those 100 - on balance - if they are allowed frequent visitors and 10 of them die of covid, 15 die of other causes, and all 100 live their lives in a happier state than they would have been?  Or is it better to lock them up with no human contact and 5 die of covid, 15 die of other causes, and they're pretty miserable ands their dementia advances faster?  The numbers are made up but the general question needs answering.

 

And the wider issue.  Did closing the schools make any difference to the death rate?  And if it did, was it worth it?  We can't allow older people to die just because they're older, but on the other hand we can't make every effort to save the older people if it costs other people too much.  How many excess deaths were caused by lockdown?  What was the "value added" of the excess deaths caused by lockdown as opposed to that saved?  How much weight to we put on the cost to a child of two years' missed or affected schooling compared with the premature death of a sick older person?  

 

Again, lots of questions.  We need dispassionate answers from this enquiry.  My own personal position is that my mother would have been better off taking her chances, or some of them, by allowing people to visit each other in small numbers.  Keeping families apart was absolutely a step too far, for example.  I think closing churches was too.  But we await the results, don't we.

[Super_horns]

It’s a shame people felt they had to be shut away at all costs for longer than was required .

 

I think if everyone was careful it could have been safe to do more meet ups outside and the like .

 

Guess the trouble is many weren’t and just did as they pleased putting those trying to keep safe at risk .

 

I’d say to help kids get back to normal at school they should have scrapped the holidays ( summer ) for a year to allow them to catch up and adjust back into life .

 

Seems to me teachers were too worried about the affects of them getting COVID so not being able to see loved ones themselves.

Edited 1 November 2023 by Super_horns

[CosbehFox]

Sweden had a good idea because it's Swedish. Customs and culture there differ. Population more intelligent and more responsible. Vast open lands outside of the major cities. They have solitary lifestyle in such areas which is more self or part sufficient. Folk from Stockholm will literally in the midst of the summer leave the city for six weeks to somewhere more rural. 

 

Was it a success though? Denmark and its fellow Scandi-countries were better on death rate for example. In fact Denmark in particular got themselves open earlier (thank you for Randers away)

 

This is it with COVID and the ramble on about how was successful tactics to lockdown or not were - there are so many socio-economic factors within each individual country alongside geographical barriers that you can't call what works for one country for another. Brazil is massive but the dense population areas made a minimal lockdown lead to chaos. The UK has a medical care system which was creaking before the pandemic came along (there was a near mile queue outside LRI this morning for parking btw) and it just got completely whacked. 

Edited 1 November 2023 by CosbehFox

[CosbehFox]

1 hour ago, Dunge said:

I was wondering just the other day whether the anti-vaxxers now go “hands up, we were wrong” or whether they convince themselves that their movement saved everyone from having 5G chips implanted in them by shining a light on it.

As someone mentioned to me, any notion that this was some intelligent on-in the inside conspiracy has been really and truly laid to rest by the exposure of this circus. 

[st albans fox]

24 minutes ago, CosbehFox said:

As someone mentioned to me, any notion that this was some intelligent on-in the inside conspiracy has been really and truly laid to rest by the exposure of this circus. 

on the contrary - the CT's will say that its simply not feasible for the govt to have been as inept as this and they're clearly hiding the truth !

[Dunge]

1 hour ago, dsr-burnley said:

That's the sort of emotionalism that got in the way of debate all along, IMO.  In real life, it's generally accepted that sometimes we allow people to die just because it makes life more convenient.  Motoring being a case in point - it would be easy to eliminate road deaths by having all vehicles governed to maximum speed 20 mph, with maximum 5 mph in towns, but we don't because it would be inconvenient.

 

It's a question.  If there are 100 old people with varying degrees of dementia, is it better for those 100 - on balance - if they are allowed frequent visitors and 10 of them die of covid, 15 die of other causes, and all 100 live their lives in a happier state than they would have been?  Or is it better to lock them up with no human contact and 5 die of covid, 15 die of other causes, and they're pretty miserable ands their dementia advances faster?  The numbers are made up but the general question needs answering.

 

And the wider issue.  Did closing the schools make any difference to the death rate?  And if it did, was it worth it?  We can't allow older people to die just because they're older, but on the other hand we can't make every effort to save the older people if it costs other people too much.  How many excess deaths were caused by lockdown?  What was the "value added" of the excess deaths caused by lockdown as opposed to that saved?  How much weight to we put on the cost to a child of two years' missed or affected schooling compared with the premature death of a sick older person?  

 

Again, lots of questions.  We need dispassionate answers from this enquiry.  My own personal position is that my mother would have been better off taking her chances, or some of them, by allowing people to visit each other in small numbers.  Keeping families apart was absolutely a step too far, for example.  I think closing churches was too.  But we await the results, don't we.

I’d say two things here:

 

1. You’re never going to get a definitive answer to many of these questions because there will never be an equivalent “what if” - as people have said, the UK is different to Sweden, which is different to New Zealand, which is different to Brazil. Just because a tactic was deemed to work well somewhere doesn’t mean it would work somewhere else, or even that that somewhere else was therefore wrong with their tactics. We can infer and guide from what the inquiry finds but there will never be definite evidence.

 

2. Even if there was, it will be of limited value regardless because the next pandemic will be different in some way. Maybe it’ll be spread exclusively by touch, in which case we’d need a completely different strategy. Ultimately understanding the psychological reaction of the populace plays a part in the success of these strategies at any given time as well.

 

Frankly the whole inquiry feels like little more than a window of curiosity in the past. There will be things we can learn but I think the level to which it will positively inform future decisions is limited.

[CosbehFox]

Just to mention with Sweden, care home visits were eventually banned. 
 

80% of Swedes said they followed lockdown rules as most of the world. That was backed by the data received from mobile phones.

 

70 yrs old plus adults were affected the most; accounting at end of 2020 for just under 90% of the deaths. Half lived in care homes 
 

They did note that it was a success at primary level education. 
 

 

[MPH]

3 hours ago, Lionator said:

Lockdowns could’ve been avoided if they had taken very strict early action. Ramping up testing once the first case was noted and putting people in quarantine. But if they did that, the right wing would’ve called nanny state, so it was never feasible. Therefore the floodgates were opened. New Zealanders lived an open life (although fortunate due to the geography) throughout because they took decisive early action, but they are much maligned by anti lockdowners despite having the least lockdowns 🤷🏼

 

 

 NZ is larger land mass than Great Britain  but less than 10% of the population so What worked for them MIGHT not have worked for us.. Its really difficult  to give a definitive ' absolute' on how each nation should have done things... so many variables

 

 

Personally i would definitely have done a strict l early lockdown in the UK but its easy to say now we should have taken decisive early action ( i agree, with hindsaight, we should have).

 

What's damning for me is some of the attitudes towards covid we see coming out of the enquiry. Some people need to be locked up.

Edited 1 November 2023 by MPH

[urban.spaceman]

I miss lockdown. 

[Trav Le Bleu]

1 hour ago, urban.spaceman said:

I miss lockdown. 

I quite enjoyed it as a postman.

 

Very few letters (but lots of parcels!), but everyone was in, grateful to see us, and the roads were empty save for delivery vehicles.

 

Can I also say that with a lot of the comments that have gone before on how governments reacted to Covid19, what were saying about what we should have done - there's a hefty slice of hindsight involved.

[foxile5]

1 hour ago, urban.spaceman said:

I miss lockdown. 

The good it did for certain elements of the environment present an argument for some kind of mini lockdown for a portion of the year.

 

No traveling outside of your vicinity for a month or two. Closed services. Delivery only.

 

It would cut down tonnes on emissions.

 

It'll never ever happen though.

[Daggers]

[Wymsey]

Oh, Boris...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-67287003

 

[st albans fox]

2 minutes ago, Wymsey said:

Oh, Boris...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-67287003

 

At least it wasn’t bleach !

[tom27111]

4 hours ago, urban.spaceman said:

I miss lockdown. 

 

The first 16 weeks, when I didn't have to work, were arguably the greatest time of my life.

 

The weather was glorious and I virtually drank a case of beer a day.

 

100% would do again.

 

Queuing to get in to Sainsbury's was mental though.

[Jattdogg]

4 hours ago, Trav Le Bleu said:

I quite enjoyed it as a postman.

 

Very few letters (but lots of parcels!), but everyone was in, grateful to see us, and the roads were empty save for delivery vehicles.

 

...All those desperate housewives must have been so upset that their hubby's were at home....you couldnt deliver the special package.

[Jattdogg]

1 hour ago, tom27111 said:

 

The first 16 weeks, when I didn't have to work, were arguably the greatest time of my life.

 

The weather was glorious and I virtually drank a case of beer a day.

 

100% would do again.

 

Queuing to get in to Sainsbury's was mental though.

I remember wearing rubber gloves to push the shopping cart. Early days of the pandemic. Heck, we even washed the feckin vege/fruit right away gave up after like 5 shopping treks and accepted the consequences lol.

 

What a weird time that was. So much panic and nonsense, paranoia. Glad we are more or less back to normal now with less death.

[dsr-burnley]

8 hours ago, Trav Le Bleu said:

I quite enjoyed it as a postman.

 

Very few letters (but lots of parcels!), but everyone was in, grateful to see us, and the roads were empty save for delivery vehicles.

 

Can I also say that with a lot of the comments that have gone before on how governments reacted to Covid19, what were saying about what we should have done - there's a hefty slice of hindsight involved.

This enquiry is all about hindsight.  It's obviously concentrating hard on apportioning blame, which to me isn't important.  what is important is what decisions were made, what mistakes were made, and how to avoid making those mistakes in future.  Hindsight is all-important.

[Daggers]

The inquiry comes as no surprise to anyone who has read this