22nd February - Roadmap out of the pandemic, lifting of restrictions.

[Yew]

I just... You know, on here and other forums, I see people who act as though we're living through a conspiracy theory. And we're really not.

I don't think we are, but when we abandon evidence, our pandemic plans, and a cautious approach, and instead engage in highly damaging, unproven measures that were highly controversial until last year; I can understand those who start to ask questions.

 

[duncanp]

I went to the pub this afternoon with six friends. The one person who didn't have a smartphone had to sign in, that's all.

This is how it should be in all pubs.

No-one should be denied entry to a pub because they don't have a smartphone, either for checking in via the NHS app, or for placing an order via the pub's own app.

 

[SouthEastBuses]

It was a global disaster with no known cure. We were right to listen to scientists and stay inside. We might yet still need to.

By the by, every country on Earth bar North Korea used lockdowns and social movement restrictions to combat Covid. The tone amongst libertarians is that this was a British overreaction or a British problem, that only the British government was following lockdowns.

It was a global pandemic. Every country on the planet reacted the same way. Every country on the planet shut down businesses. Every country on the planet had to keep movement restricted, there was no choice with such a deadly respiratory disease for which, initially, there was no cure.

We could not feasibly been an island alone, promoting a total lack of care for health and welfare.

Not all countries (or US states) in the world had lockdowns.

You haven't heard about Sweden, or Florida.

No lockdown, no mask mandates... and guess what... they are no worse than countries who do have mask mandates and have implemented lockdowns. No difference. One evidence that shows you that lockdowns do not make a large difference.

You are entitled to your own opinion, but I am an anti lockdown person. Well, okay, when the pandemic started I used to be pro lockdown and pro restrictions as i had no idea how bad COVID-19 was, but since October 2020 I have now been anti lockdown, after starting to look at the bigger picture and realising that there is no scientific evidence that shows that lockdowns can actually make a difference in stopping the spread, and that their disadvantages outweigh the benefits.

So lockdown isn't necessary. Masks, yeah maybe (would love to see proper scientific evidence but looking at Japan they might work against covid) but not lockdowns.

 

[Yew]

I work in the NHS. I have heard from radiographers who saw xrays for which there was nothing in text books anything like it. We had 200+ patients in ICU at the peak last year. We must all wear masks, in our office, from start to finish.

I type what I do, how I do, because I've seen what Covid has done to real people, and why lockdown must happen again the moment cases rise, as they are across Europe.

This can be a very bad disease, however that does not excuse the lack of scientific rigour that has been seen in the orgy of restrictions.

In one of NASA's first space missions, Mercury Redstone 1, the rocket lifted off 4 inches from the launch pad, and settled back down on it. Some reckless and cavalier members of staff suggested shooting the rocket, filled with propellant and oxidiser, to relieve pressure in the tanks. This would have caused a massive explosion, and lead Apollo flight director, Gene Kranz, to coin the phrase "if you don't know what to do, do nothing".

 

[kristiang85]

This is how it should be in all pubs.

No-one should be denied entry to a pub because they don't have a smartphone, either for checking in via the NHS app, or for placing an order via the pub's own app.

Weirdly today my friends phone had died, and she was told it was fine as there was already a check in from her household.

Yet this was the same pub which told us on Monday that they get a £1000 fine for every customer who hasn't checked or signed in, should the council check.

 

[initiation]

I work in the NHS.

I'm not sure what role you are in within the NHS but a founding principle of medicine is first, do no harm. Lockdowns are intrinsically harmful. If lockdown was a drug, it would never be approved by NICE for use and, if it did, it would not be kept going on for months after other measures could be employed.

 

[yorkie]

Calling it "pandering" when restrictions are trying to keep people safe from a deadly disease is offensive.

I don't get this logic. Influenza is also a deadly disease, so do we need similar restrictions for that too?

I've had this before. I'm the only person in a thread who supports lockdown, supports restrictions, so I must be trolling.

You support lockdowns when the majority of the population, including almost all at risk groups, has good level of immunity against the virus?

I work in the NHS.

So did I and so did or do several forum members.

I have heard from radiographers who saw xrays for which there was nothing in text books anything like it.

We have radiographers here. Can you elaborate?

We had 200+ patients in ICU at the peak last year.

Okay

We must all wear masks, in our office, from start to finish.

That's not going to make any difference to infection levels.

I type what I do, how I do, because I've seen what Covid has done to real people, and why lockdown must happen again the moment cases rise, as they are across Europe.

What about those of us who have seen the effects of lockdown measures to real people?

Why would we lockdown if cases rise, when the at risk groups are already vaccinated?

 

[Mainline421]

By the by, every country on Earth bar North Korea used lockdowns and social movement restrictions to combat Covid. The tone amongst libertarians is that this was a British overreaction or a British problem, that only the British government was following lockdowns.

It was a global pandemic. Every country on the planet reacted the same way. Every country on the planet shut down businesses. Every country on the planet had to keep movement restricted, there was no choice with such a deadly respiratory disease for which, initially, there was no cure.

We could not feasibly been an island alone, promoting a total lack of care for health and welfare.

Except Japan, Sweden, Finland, Brazil, 6 US states, and doubtlessly many more. There's also countries like Tanzania that only locked down for a couple of weeks and only once. The idea the that every country imposed lockdowns isn't even remotely true.

 

[kristiang85]

Except Japan, Sweden, Finland, Brazil, 6 US states, and doubtlessly many more. There's also countries like Tanzania that only locked down for a couple of weeks and only once. The idea the that every country imposed lockdowns isn't even remotely true.

And North Korea, as far as we know, did lock down.

 

[Class 33]

Another article from The Telegraph. This one responding to Johnson's comments yesterday that the vaccines aren't responsible for getting the hospital admissions and deaths numbers down....

Science has proved Boris Johnson wrong – vaccines are reducing deaths and cases​

Study reveals stark difference in figures for elderly people who have been vaccinated compared to those who have not

BySarah Knapton, SCIENCE EDITOR14 April 2021 • 9:27pm


Boris Johnson raised eyebrows on Tuesday when he suggested that the reduction in Covid infections, hospitalisations and deaths has not been achieved by the vaccination programme, with the lockdown doing "the bulk of the work".
Thankfully, less than 24 hours later, science had proved the Prime Minister wrong.
New research from NHS England and the University of Manchester showed the stark difference in cases, admissions and deaths for elderly people who had been vaccinated compared to those who had not.
In a large study involving more than 170,000 people, researchers had scrupulously case-matched participants to make sure the results were not skewed by underlying conditions, sex or geographical location.
The results show that far from having little impact, the rate of Covid-related hospital admissions fell by 75 per cent in vaccinated 80 to 83-year-olds within 35 to 41 days of their first dose of the Pfizer jab. The rate of people getting Covid dropped by 70 per cent, with the number of positive tests falling from 15.3 per 100,000 people to 4.6.

The authors conclude: "The nationwide vaccination of older adults in England with the [Pfizer] vaccine reduced the burden of Covid-19."

On Wednesday, Sir Simon Stevens, the NHS chief executive, told the Health Service Journal: "Vaccines are successfully reducing hospitalisations and deaths amongst the cohorts that have had the vaccine."
The figures also suggest the link between infections and admissions has also been broken by the vaccine programme. While nearly 40 per cent of unvaccinated people who were infected ended up in hospital, only 32 per cent of the vaccinated cohort did.
On Wednesday, Tim Spector, professor of genetic epidemiology at King's College London and the lead scientist on the ZOE Covid Symptom Study app, said he had been "quite surprised" by Mr Johnson's comments and accused him of "living in a slightly different world".
"The vaccination programme has been hugely successful and anyone who says it isn't really isn't looking at the data," he said. "Even last summer we were still seeing cases in care homes, and hospitals outbreaks. And by vaccinating hospital staff and the elderly, we broke that really deadly cycle.
"So there's absolutely no doubt in my mind that the drop in rates is mainly due to the vaccination. Obviously lockdowns do have some effect, but the peak of infections was actually Jan 1 and that would have reflected what was going on a week before that, so actually you can't link the lockdown to exactly the drop in cases."
Prof Spector, speaking to Talk Radio, added: "I think the vaccination has really saved us. After the second [dose], you're 20-fold less risk for getting infected, so to say that doesn't count is clearly not very scientific."
Last week, researchers at Imperial College found that the rate of infection fell in all age groups and regions across those two months, with figures also indicating the vaccine rollout could be breaking the link between infections, deaths and hospital admissions.

According to the latest round of the Real-Time Assessment of Community Transmission (React-1) study, just one in 500 people on average was still carrying the virus in March – a 60 per cent reduction.
Steven Riley, professor of infectious disease dynamics at Imperial, said the team had seen "some divergence" between observed patterns of infection and patterns of death since January. He said: "We think this probably suggests that the mass vaccination is breaking that link, to some degree, between infections and deaths."
On Wednesday, experts said all the data was moving in the right direction and it was not surprising that the public was questioning why restrictions were still needed.
Professor David Spiegelhalter, the chairman of the Winton Centre for Risk and Evidence Communication at the University of Cambridge, told Radio 4's Today Programme: "All the indicators are running at extremely good levels.
"Deaths are very low, well lower than the five-year average. Cases, hospitalisations, they're all very low, and this was completely predictable that around now people will say 'why do we need to wait another two months before we are free of all these restrictions?'. We've just got to say that they are being very cautious.
"I'm glad I'm not in charge because I'd probably say 'oh come on, let's have a go', but they do not want to have to go backwards."
On Wednesday, the Government was accused of allowing "sloppy" data which overestimated the number of people currently dying from Covid infections to be presented to the public.
On Tuesday, figures from the Office for National Statistics showed that almost 25 per cent of people registered as Covid deaths had died "with" the virus, rather than "from" it.

Diseases expert Professor Hugh Pennington said: "I've been going on about this for a long long time, because the definition of somebody dying 'from' Covid is that they've had a positive test within the last month or the month before they died.
"And the assumption is then made that it was Covid that finished them off as it were. That's very, very sloppy, really. I would hesitate to use the word overkill, but on the other hand it is really important to get accurate statistics so that we know exactly what's happening.
"And these are not accurate statistics – these are sort of a catch-all kind of number which we have to treat with very great caution. More than just caution, we have to treat those figures with a great deal of disrespect."

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

OK its only a number but English hospitalisations below 2k this morning to stand at 1957 down from 7847 on 8th March so no sign education is causing any increase but NHS is still at Level 3 or is it Level 4 no one knows.

Also nowhere in England has a 7 day case rate above 100/100k. Last week Corby was a concern but dropped by 50% in under a week.

 

[brad465]

And North Korea, as far as we know, did lock down.

And they're on the cusp of a famine even Kim Jong Un has admitted to being a new Arduous March, where tight border closures for so long is one of the factors cited as being responsible (two others being extreme weather and continuing international sanctions).

Looking through the ONS release calendar, on the 26th April we should get provisional data for Suicides in England and Wales for the whole of 2020, although as its provisional it won't necessarily be complete, but could give an insight into the effects of lockdowns from that perspective. Quarter 4 will be the most interesting part as if this is complete this period covers lockdown 2 and general tightening of restrictions, and maybe also any Christmas cancellation impacts. However this area is one aspect of collateral damage that unfortunately is far from finished, firstly as it'll be a while before 2021 Q1 data comes about, which includes lockdown 3 and the annual peak of suicides, which tends be the onset of spring. Secondly as this whole thing isn't over yet either, there'll unfortunately be more to come.

 

[yorkie]

One of the arguments pro-lockdown people used is that lockdown measures do not cause depression and suicides; the recent closure of Humber Bridge to pedestrians due to unprecedented increase in suicides is just one example of why this is a ludicrously false statement.

I know several people who had Sars-CoV-2 infections; many of whom were asymptomatic and a few had mild Covid symptoms. In contrast I know many who have lost their livelihoods, or are worried about losing their livelihoods, or are suffering depression, and countless other issues. Kids are suffering very badly; many have put on weight and either lost the desire to engage in physical activity or have been denied the opportunities. I was not allowed to run the activities I ran for kids for 13 months. And now people wonder why there are so many incidents with antisocial behaviour (even York is plagued with it now).

The "Covid is all that matters" brigade is dangerous. Even the Government are denying the effectiveness of vaccines as Boris falsely claims lockdowns are the solution.

These are dangerous times and many people are angry.

I am going to continue to argue against lockdown enthusiasts because I have so much evidence to demonstrate why they are wrong.

 

[Pakenhamtrain]

Weirdly today my friends phone had died, and she was told it was fine as there was already a check in from her household.

Yet this was the same pub which told us on Monday that they get a £1000 fine for every customer who hasn't checked or signed in, should the council check.

How are they even checking? Is it a deep dive or are they just going "yep people have been checking in"

Down here in Australia it's been varied on how strict pubs have been to check in. Some have someone standing at the door yet others just leave the book/QR code unattended.

 

[initiation]

firstly as it'll be a while before 2021 Q1 data comes about, which includes lockdown 3 and the annual peak of suicides

I wouldn't be surprised if 2021 Q1 is the peak, this lockdown has felt so much more bleak than the others. At least last year we were in spring and it was looking like a short term thing (3/12 weeks etc...), then we had Christmas to look forward to etc...

One study has 1000 excess suicide deaths in the UK between 2008-2010 as a result of the recession. The recession was a ~4% drop in GDP, last year we saw a ~10% drop in GDP plus very significant compounding social factors such as enforced isolation and the cancellation of other medical treatments. Suicides will also be generally younger people leading to a greater number of life-years lost.

 

[DustyBin]

I wouldn't be surprised if 2021 Q1 is the peak, this lockdown has felt so much more bleak than the others. At least last year we were in spring and it was looking like a short term thing (3/12 weeks etc...), then we had Christmas to look forward to etc...

One study has 1000 excess suicide deaths in the UK between 2008-2010 as a result of the recession. The recession was a ~4% drop in GDP, last year we saw a ~10% drop in GDP plus very significant compounding social factors such as enforced isolation and the cancellation of other medical treatments. Suicides will also be generally younger people leading to a greater number of life-years lost.

Whilst anecdotal, I know of a pub that has lost five customers to suicide this year, all relatively young and all seemingly unable to cope with being made unemployed due to lockdown. Whilst I have no reason to disbelieve the manager anyway, the fact that they’ve planned a charity night for the end of June in their memory dispels any thoughts that they may be exaggerating. Truly awful, the forgotten victims of our covid response.

 

[35B]

Nobody is forcing you post on this thread if the views anger you that much. And it's not an echo chamber either.

As for your final comments as to opposition to restrictions not being in the population's best interests - neither are closed businesses, neither are suicides, neither are mental health problems, neither are physical health problems caused by shielding/closures of gyms etc. Since you're in the medical field based on your posts, I'd like to hope that you know that there are major societal consequences of lockdown.

Actually, it does tend to the echo chamber. A number of voices that tend to think very similarly, and get very shirty very quickly when their beliefs are challenged. And, going a little further, with a hefty dose of decrying the media while leaping on their pet publications, while frequently referencing views that this is somehow being engineered or made use of by government to control us.

For what it's worth, and while I broadly agree with him that the restrictions of the last year were proportionate and necessary, my hunch is that @aoin is wrong about the risk levels in future, and is being misled in his view that what did happen and was necessary in the last year will be necessary in a sustained way in future - the emerging figures do seem to support the predicted view that as vaccination levels increase, the ratios of infection to clinical cases to hospitalisations to deaths are being disrupted.

 

[kez19]

Actually, it does tend to the echo chamber. A number of voices that tend to think very similarly, and get very shirty very quickly when their beliefs are challenged. And, going a little further, with a hefty dose of decrying the media while leaping on their pet publications, while frequently referencing views that this is somehow being engineered or made use of by government to control us.

For what it's worth, and while I broadly agree with him that the restrictions of the last year were proportionate and necessary, my hunch is that @aoin is wrong about the risk levels in future, and is being misled in his view that what did happen and was necessary in the last year will be necessary in a sustained way in future - the emerging figures do seem to support the predicted view that as vaccination levels increase, the ratios of infection to clinical cases to hospitalisations to deaths are being disrupted.

So if its an echo chamber then of the same voices then surely its the same in the opposite direction in those advocating lockdowns etc? It can work both ways here not just one way.

However if you care to open your mind a little then who is to say there is more to the situation than there is? Or do we really have to believe everything we are told by our media? As far as I have seen its the media that are enjoying all this regardless but who knows, the truth will come out eventually.

Just to pick up on one thing, if the whole thing was to save lives, then how are we saving lives when in fact people who need treatment for other things have been thrown under a bus? Its not exactly saving them either is it? Its quite possibly killing them but of course COVID is above everything else than anyone else life - be mental/physical or anything else health related, once again thats the problem here.

As also once mentioned on one of these threads, during this whole thing we didn't see any other ads apart from belittling the public of staying in, yet all of a sudden we have the stroke ads back on TV, that can't be coincedence surely? Again COVID is priority but since the numbers dropping lets now highlight something else as what is a small distraction? Should have been advertising anything to do with health with the COVID ads at the same time not just making one thing priority above everything else.

 

[35B]

Even the Government are denying the effectiveness of vaccines as Boris falsely claims lockdowns are the solution.

Hmmm, I'm not sure I agree with this contention - the claim was that lockdown did the work of reducing case numbers; vaccination will do the work of keeping them low.

 

[PR1Berske]

Actually, it does tend to the echo chamber. A number of voices that tend to think very similarly, and get very shirty very quickly when their beliefs are challenged. And, going a little further, with a hefty dose of decrying the media while leaping on their pet publications, while frequently referencing views that this is somehow being engineered or made use of by government to control us.

For what it's worth, and while I broadly agree with him that the restrictions of the last year were proportionate and necessary, my hunch is that @aoin is wrong about the risk levels in future, and is being misled in his view that what did happen and was necessary in the last year will be necessary in a sustained way in future - the emerging figures do seem to support the predicted view that as vaccination levels increase, the ratios of infection to clinical cases to hospitalisations to deaths are being disrupted.

Thank you.

Discussion forums are the old-fashioned workhorses of the Internet. Many different trends have been and gone, and somehow the messageboard remains, hanging on there with its clunky interface and all the rest of it. What messageboards encourage is a rapid closing down of debate, truly ironic. I've noticed elsewhere that threads can become rather self-congratulatory and anybody who walks in with a counter view can feel like a stranger in a local pub, suddenly having to sit and listen rather than stand and contribute.

This thread prefers the Telegraph (anti-lockdown) to the Guardian (broadly pro-). And whilst I accept the view that coming here with a fully pro-lockdown attitude might lend itself to accusations of trolling, I do advise caution against having a discussion forum with little to no discussion.

ALL THAT SAID, I do take your last point. There is a direction of traffic in the UK which isn't happening in the EU with cases and deaths, and maybe the future increase in cases won't mean an immediate return to restrictions. Nobody can guarantee "never say never again."

 

[35B]

So if its an echo chamber then of the same voices then surely its the same in the opposite direction in those advocating lockdowns etc? It can work both ways here not just one way.

However if you care to open your mind a little then who is to say there is more to the situation than there is? Or do we really have to believe everything we are told by our media? As far as I have seen its the media that are enjoying all this regardless but who knows, the truth will come out eventually.

No, the echo chamber effect is that of the forum as a group, not that of individual posters. There is a definite asymmetry here, in which it is much friendlier for someone who is "anti lockdown" to post than someone "pro lockdown".

As for "the truth", I observe consistent reliance on a number of sources with common thinking, but consistently outside the general scientific and policy consensus - and which have relied heavily on sources who have since been discredited.

 

[kristiang85]

Thank you.

Discussion forums are the old-fashioned workhorses of the Internet. Many different trends have been and gone, and somehow the messageboard remains, hanging on there with its clunky interface and all the rest of it. What messageboards encourage is a rapid closing down of debate, truly ironic. I've noticed elsewhere that threads can become rather self-congratulatory and anybody who walks in with a counter view can feel like a stranger in a local pub, suddenly having to sit and listen rather than stand and contribute.

This thread prefers the Telegraph (anti-lockdown) to the Guardian (broadly pro-). And whilst I accept the view that coming here with a fully pro-lockdown attitude might lend itself to accusations of trolling, I do advise caution against having a discussion forum with little to no discussion.

ALL THAT SAID, I do take your last point. There is a direction of traffic in the UK which isn't happening in the EU with cases and deaths, and maybe the future increase in cases won't mean an immediate return to restrictions. Nobody can guarantee "never say never again."

I don't see where you have been closed down? You made points which other members countered with established facts. You can do the same, although I have yet to see evidence from your end on the points you were making. Debate seems to be very much welcomed here, and trust me I would not be sticking around if l saw certain voices being silenced for no good reason.

What is good about this forum is that many members do read around the subject and make informed posts. Anybody posting rubbish gets called out (including me, eg when I've inadvertently posted something I've seen on what I haven't realised was a not so reliable source).

As for the media, you would expect a railway forum - broadly speaking - to be fairly pro left wing in their views (given the current government's long standing record and opinion on public transport), thus would assume to gravitate towards the Guardian end of the spectrum (although we could debate unto the cows come home where on the political spectrum the Guardian sits these days; certainly I think traditional left and right has died a death). I think the fact that many see the Telegraph as their go to for COVID issues shows that they are utterly fed up with the Guardian's stance and the characters they like to quote, who can quite easily be taken apart with a bit of traditional scientific thinking.

 

[kez19]

No, the echo chamber effect is that of the forum as a group, not that of individual posters. There is a definite asymmetry here, in which it is much friendlier for someone who is "anti lockdown" to post than someone "pro lockdown".

As for "the truth", I observe consistent reliance on a number of sources with common thinking, but consistently outside the general scientific and policy consensus - and which have relied heavily on sources who have since been discredited.

Yet I would say I would have trusted the MSM such as BBC than Sky but they are all championing the one thing, they'll push for something, then push for another and another, so why should I ever trust them?

I would have said I was more of a BBC supporter to Sky regardless but since this has started I have lost faith in all UK media as its been more of clickbait(ing), this is why I question that narrative as example - they were happy for a vaccine to be produced, but the minute numbers drop its lets twist it with something else than add fear to it, where is the impartiality in all this? There is none its lazy journalism and scaremongering - cut the crap and be honest with the public than tell us what you want us to hear.

As I said before I don't follow any conspiracy theories but I have questioned this more but I have approached it with an open mind (than following above), on that part as an example - the talk of vax passports - supposedly rumours were going about last year I believe of this? Yet here we governments are all thinking about it (yet for me both UK/Scottish governments have had their heads in the sand and play clueless to the public in not knowing what they do, yet recently that truth is coming about with "thinking about it"), so if we can't trust our media let alone governments then who do we trust? Trust is eroding in those who are in power as all they ever think of is greed and their own self importance, whilst us as the public are taken for mugs for the shortcomings, but hey if we don't wake up then how do we get out of this sleep?

 

[Darandio]

For anyone still wanting to ignore/deny the true cost to 'real' people during this whole situation, here is a good little piece to start learning about it....

4.7 million waiting for operations in England

The February figures show the numbers waiting over a year for surgery continued to rise sharply.

www.bbc.co.uk

4.7 million waiting for operations in England​

Around 4.7 million people were waiting for routine operations and procedures in England in February - the highest since 2007, NHS England figures show.
Nearly 388,000 people were waiting more than a year for non-urgent surgery compared with just 1,600 before the pandemic began.
During January and February, the pressure on hospitals caused by Covid was particularly acute.
NHS England said trusts had been given funds to help their recovery.

 

[DustyBin]

Thank you.

Discussion forums are the old-fashioned workhorses of the Internet. Many different trends have been and gone, and somehow the messageboard remains, hanging on there with its clunky interface and all the rest of it. What messageboards encourage is a rapid closing down of debate, truly ironic. I've noticed elsewhere that threads can become rather self-congratulatory and anybody who walks in with a counter view can feel like a stranger in a local pub, suddenly having to sit and listen rather than stand and contribute.

This thread prefers the Telegraph (anti-lockdown) to the Guardian (broadly pro-). And whilst I accept the view that coming here with a fully pro-lockdown attitude might lend itself to accusations of trolling, I do advise caution against having a discussion forum with little to no discussion.

ALL THAT SAID, I do take your last point. There is a direction of traffic in the UK which isn't happening in the EU with cases and deaths, and maybe the future increase in cases won't mean an immediate return to restrictions. Nobody can guarantee "never say never again."

I’m not sure if you read my post #2,892? If so what are your thoughts?

This forum didn’t start out as an “echo chamber”, in fact I supported (or at least understood the reasons for) the first lockdown. With hindsight I’m not convinced it was the right course of action but I understand why it happened. What we’ve seen since though is different; a doubling down on questionable and in some cases downright ineffective restrictions and a wanton disregard for the wider issues affecting society. The media, and even more unforgivingly SAGE (which really is an echo chamber), have provoked hysteria, and that’s what this is. Cherry picked statistics, sensationalist headlines, and unsubstantiated claims regarding “variants” and “long covid” have led to people losing all sense of perspective. This a virus with a circa 1% IFR heavily biased towards easily identifiable vulnerable groups. Think about that, and think about what we’ve done in response; the damage caused is incalculable and I believe this is only the beginning.

 

[35B]

Yet I would say I would have trusted the MSM such as BBC than Sky but they are all championing the one thing, they'll push for something, then push for another and another, so why should I ever trust them?

I would have said I was more of a BBC supporter to Sky regardless but since this has started I have lost faith in all UK media as its been more of clickbait(ing), this is why I question that narrative as example - they were happy for a vaccine to be produced, but the minute numbers drop its lets twist it with something else than add fear to it, where is the impartiality in all this? There is none its lazy journalism and scaremongering - cut the crap and be honest with the public than tell us what you want us to hear.

As I said before I don't follow any conspiracy theories but I have questioned this more but I have approached it with an open mind (than following above), on that part as an example - the talk of vax passports - supposedly rumours were going about last year I believe of this? Yet here we governments are all thinking about it (yet for me both UK/Scottish governments have had their heads in the sand and play clueless to the public in not knowing what they do, yet recently that truth is coming about with "thinking about it"), so if we can't trust our media let alone governments then who do we trust? Trust is eroding in those who are in power as all they ever think of is greed and their own self importance, whilst us as the public are taken for mugs for the shortcomings, but hey if we don't wake up then how do we get out of this sleep?

I'm not condoning or agreeing with all the reporting on any channel; all have a tendency to hysteria and chasing a bandwagon. Similarly, on vaccine passports, I think it's blindingly obvious that the government have yet to make their minds up, and are trying to work out how to respond, balancing a number of factors.

But I don't expect any source to give me a definitive view of "the truth"; I know that I need to interpret what they report against a mixture of their own biases and those sowed by their sources.

What makes me uncomfortable with some is the reliance on a single source (the Telegraph is a current favourite), as though their reporting is definitively true, and beyond question, so therefore government must do what that implies or they are wrong. Leaving aside their credibility - and I've seen Sarah Knapton called out several times for poor reporting - the world just isn't that simple. Responding adequately Covid requires a number of trade-offs between our selfish interest as individuals and our common interest as a population. Those challenge how we see the role of government, and raise serious questions about the implications of modern doctrines of personal privacy - doctrines that have themselves come about because of the unparalleled power of modern technology to intrude on individuals' lives.

Take vaccine passports. Countries - our own included - have a legitimate interest in considering the transmission of Covid and bearing the cost of treating sufferers. A likely response to that will be that many countries will require some form of proof of vaccination. If governments have to provide that so that you or I can travel in future, then it's likely that they'll wonder if that proof has other benefits. Given the concern over transmission in large crowds, especially indoors, then it's unsurprising that some will leap on that idea for going out. Whatever your view on whether or not that's a good idea (and mine is that it's a waste of time), it makes far more sense to interpret it in terms of government working out how to react to Covid and the problems it throws up, than as some kind of plan to change the nature of our society. Even, perhaps especially, if it would be a major change to that society.

For anyone still wanting to ignore/deny the true cost to 'real' people during this whole situation, here is a good little piece to start learning about it....

4.7 million waiting for operations in England

The February figures show the numbers waiting over a year for surgery continued to rise sharply.

www.bbc.co.uk

A piece that when I read it made me wonder how much worse those figures would be had mobility restrictions not been applied.

My limited experience of the NHS this year is that they have done a lot to keep treating people, but taking care not to make patients more ill by spreading disease.

 

[Domh245]

For anyone still wanting to ignore/deny the true cost to 'real' people during this whole situation, here is a good little piece to start learning about it....

4.7 million waiting for operations in England

The February figures show the numbers waiting over a year for surgery continued to rise sharply.

www.bbc.co.uk

It's a horrifying number, but it does rather come back to a "what else could we do*" - no restrictions and unchecked covid spread (as seems to be implied as your preferred situation) would have resulted in more patients in hospitals and likely even more cancelled operations and larger backlog. There's no way to "win" with covid

*short of an impossible NZ like near-eradication

 

[Darandio]

It's a horrifying number, but it does rather come back to a "what else could we do*" - no restrictions and unchecked covid spread (as seems to be implied as your preferred situation) would have resulted in more patients in hospitals and likely even more cancelled operations and larger backlog. There's no way to "win" with covid

*short of an impossible NZ like near-eradication

Indeed. However this is more directed at the 'we'll need to lockdown again soon' or 'let's lockdown for another 12 months because we can manage it' brigade to show that there is a huge toll being taken outside of Covid, the only thing that matters to them.

 

[cuccir]

The media, and even more unforgivingly SAGE (which really is an echo chamber), have provoked hysteria, and that’s what this is. Cherry picked statistics, sensationalist headlines, and unsubstantiated claims regarding “variants” and “long covid” have led to people losing all sense of perspective. This a virus with a circa 1% IFR heavily biased towards easily identifiable vulnerable groups.

To be a little frank though: I could say the same about some of this thread. Every statement which expresses uncertainty or hesitancy is evidence that the ground is being laid for permanent restrictions or future lockdowns. I don't think the thread is quite anti-lockdown, but it is clearly pro-absolute-minimization-of-lockdown, and every bit of data for that is brought carefully forward, while data against it is dismissed.

I'd point to the response to Johnson's attribution of the majority of the case-decline in 2021 to lockdowns rather than vaccinations - multiple posters decried this claim, argued it's making way for future lockdowns, and at best retreated to a "it's not a helpful thing to say" position, despite the fact that it's a perfectly reasonable point to make (and I am no Johnson fan!)

That's not meant to sound too critical - I think having spaces where different views are discussed is good and this thread has definitely made me, someone who'd be inclined towards more cautious (but not more restrictive) forms of lockdown, change my views on some matters. There are very well-informed people who make excellent arguments here. But nothing I've seen makes me think that this forum is any less (or more) inclined towards hysteria, paranoia or unsubstantiated claims than most other forums or social media that I've encountered (Facebook excepted). The 'direction' of views is different but the quality seems similar, both for good and for bad.

 

[kez19]

I'm not condoning or agreeing with all the reporting on any channel; all have a tendency to hysteria and chasing a bandwagon. Similarly, on vaccine passports, I think it's blindingly obvious that the government have yet to make their minds up, and are trying to work out how to respond, balancing a number of factors.

But I don't expect any source to give me a definitive view of "the truth"; I know that I need to interpret what they report against a mixture of their own biases and those sowed by their sources.

What makes me uncomfortable with some is the reliance on a single source (the Telegraph is a current favourite), as though their reporting is definitively true, and beyond question, so therefore government must do what that implies or they are wrong. Leaving aside their credibility - and I've seen Sarah Knapton called out several times for poor reporting - the world just isn't that simple. Responding adequately Covid requires a number of trade-offs between our selfish interest as individuals and our common interest as a population. Those challenge how we see the role of government, and raise serious questions about the implications of modern doctrines of personal privacy - doctrines that have themselves come about because of the unparalleled power of modern technology to intrude on individuals' lives.

Take vaccine passports. Countries - our own included - have a legitimate interest in considering the transmission of Covid and bearing the cost of treating sufferers. A likely response to that will be that many countries will require some form of proof of vaccination. If governments have to provide that so that you or I can travel in future, then it's likely that they'll wonder if that proof has other benefits. Given the concern over transmission in large crowds, especially indoors, then it's unsurprising that some will leap on that idea for going out. Whatever your view on whether or not that's a good idea (and mine is that it's a waste of time), it makes far more sense to interpret it in terms of government working out how to react to Covid and the problems it throws up, than as some kind of plan to change the nature of our society. Even, perhaps especially, if it would be a major change to that society.

Neither do I but I believe the MSM need held accounted over all this include our own press if need be, but what is truth? People are quick to judge people if they agree with conspiracies but get called names but if its our media its like they are telling the truth, so again where is the truth in all this?

The MSM already call people following conspiracies as nutjobs, whackos etc, but yet I could then say hasn't there been some truth in the theories then, than what the MSM have been doing last year was bascially shutting it down and calling it lies? I'll still never forgive the BBC (World Service) for that conspiracy programme - yet I can mutter the hypocrisy in it, I think the MSM is going to get a wake up call and they may well not get away with this unscathed but in one way i'll be glad.

Even with the media I believe the public will no longer trust any media regardless be social/press/TV/radio etc as to me its just been hysteria to them but without consequences (yet) for their own actions, I know people would say, why not complain to OFCOM but we can't do that either as they are basically complicit with the storyline out of it, so if someone complained about BBC/Sky over inaccuracies of a report I am sure OFCOM would fob it off and say that what they reported was "fact" and in which could be misleading? People want the fake stuff pulled (rightly so) but you can't pull up one and not the other - if going for one then go for the other - end of but thats not the way is it?