Has there been any attempt to analyse what did or did not work? Or assess the pros and cons of various decisions?
That's probably the next phase of the enquiry though that has not stopped people arguing for lockdowns at this stage.
Has there been any attempt to analyse what did or did not work? Or assess the pros and cons of various decisions?
I fear we will never get to the bottom of it. I certainly think we should have taken Covid seriously earlier. Whether that meant lockdown earlier I don't know. But I suspect an earlier lockdown would not have needed to be so harsh. As is usual we lurch from one extreme to the other.Has there been any attempt to analyse what did or did not work? Or assess the pros and cons of various decisions?
Wasn't it Boris Johnson who set the terms of reference for the inquiry while he was still Prime Minister...? If so, hardly surprising is it...?Yet at the COVID enquiry people were arguing that we should have locked down earlier, harder and longer.
No, not at all. People think if we locked down earlier it would have been less of a problem. Utter rubbish, it's a virus it will transmit through the population whatever you do. There is no way to prevent people mixing even under those conditions in our society. People had to go to shops etc and just go out for their own sanity.I fear we will never get to the bottom of it. I certainly think we should have taken Covid seriously earlier. Whether that meant lockdown earlier I don't know. But I suspect an earlier lockdown would not have needed to be so harsh. As is usual we lurch from one extreme to the other.
I agree, I don't think an earlier lockdown would have made any differenceNo, not at all. People think if we locked down earlier it would have been less of a problem. Utter rubbish, it's a virus it will transmit through the population whatever you do. There is no way to prevent people mixing even under those conditions in our society. People had to go to shops etc and just go out for their own sanity.
+No, not at all. People think if we locked down earlier it would have been less of a problem. Utter rubbish, it's a virus it will transmit through the population whatever you do. There is no way to prevent people mixing even under those conditions in our society. People had to go to shops etc and just go out for their own sanity.
I agree the virus was going to get everyone but the goal was to not have too many seriously ill with it at one time. Also by slowing the spread there were many who got a vaccination before the real thing got to them.I agree, I don't think an earlier lockdown would have made any difference
No it wouldn't, all that would have happened is we'd have had more issues with economy and younger people missing out on education for no real gain.+
I agree the virus was going to get everyone but the goal was to not have too many seriously ill with it at one time. Also by slowing the spread there were many who got a vaccination before the real thing got to them.
An earlier lockdown would have slowed the spread giving the NHS a chance to cope. We would then have needed fewer restrictions to counter the rapidly increasing numbers. We let it get out of control.
Yet at the COVID enquiry people were arguing that we should have locked down earlier, harder and longer.
I've heard talk that lockdown should have been implemented earlier, but harder? It was already hard enough as it was. And longer? It already went on for probably longer than necessary. Was it really necessary to extend the 2020 lockdown until July 4th and the 2021 lockdown until halfway through April?
Regardless of when we locked down the cries of "its too early to come out of it" would have been made anyway by those in big houses and salaries with jobs that could be done at home and a years subscription to Netflix.
The people who I've come across who were pro lockdown were those with a good family life and decent financial security. I've yet to speak to a single, working age person who is pro lockdown, they had a tough time of it. A lot of children also suffered, now finding 4/5 year old who have language issues, older children who's mental health suffered as they couldn't see their friends etc.True, I suspect there is a correlation between the view that lockdown was too soft and a) wealth and b) lack of exposure to mental health problems, either personally or for people close to them.
The gain was people not Dying.No it wouldn't, all that would have happened is we'd have had more issues with economy and younger people missing out on education for no real gain.
I think the value of space is understood better now.Regardless of when we locked down the cries of "its too early to come out of it" would have been made anyway by those in big houses and salaries with jobs that could be done at home and a years subscription to Netflix.
Well I am working age and worked through it. Apart from when I caught Covid - the worst thing I have ever had btw. Worst was the Missus has ended up with long Covid. For me I was OK and could handle it again BUT she has been a lot of work and does not look like she will fully recover. If she could have got a vaccination before catching Covid got to her that would have been a lot better. That would be less stress for me now. Also three people she knew died of it - so our view is that Covid was worth avoiding.The people who I've come across who were pro lockdown were those with a good family life and decent financial security. I've yet to speak to a single, working age person who is pro lockdown, they had a tough time of it. A lot of children also suffered, now finding 4/5 year old who have language issues, older children who's mental health suffered as they couldn't see their friends etc.
Unlikely you'd have saved many, if any lives. The actual percentage that lockdowns saved was reputed to be well under 1%. I'm quoting off top of my head here.The gain was people not Dying.
I think the value of space is understood better now.
Well I am working age and worked through it. Apart from when I caught Covid - the worst thing I have ever had btw. Worst was the Missus has ended up with long Covid. For me I was OK and could handle it again BUT she has been a lot of work and does not look like she will fully recover. If she could have got a vaccination before catching Covid got to her that would have been a lot better. That would be less stress for me now. Also three people she knew died of it - so our view is that Covid was worth avoiding.
Those of you who did not get Covid badly and have suffered no consequences of the Covid itself and know no-one who died will have a different view.
But there is a balance to be had - So how do we balance people dying against mental health ?.
Do you think vaccinations made a difference ?. From my point of view it was a chance for people to have their first experience of Covid without catching the real thing. Then we could relax lockdowns otherwise lockdowns would have dragged on for longer.Whole thing was a waste of time in my view, covid is still around with all the other winter bugs the difference now is we don’t get it shoved at us by the media all day long. It is still here we just get on with life, look at the damage it has done to this country with all the shutdowns. If it really was as big a threat to the human race ,the people in charge would not have partied and behaved in the way they did.
One problem we have is that we only know the effects of what we actually did. We don't know what the effect of lighter lockdowns would have been (both on Covid and mental health). We don't know what the effects of harsher lockdowns would be. We cannot repeat the experiment. We can compare with other countries but there are variables - density of population, ways of working and how quickly they locked down in relation to the growth of Covid cases.Unlikely you'd have saved many, if any lives. The actual percentage that lockdowns saved was reputed to be well under 1%. I'm quoting off top of my head here.
You might have been fine with lockdowns, some of us weren't. Remember majority that died from it were old or seriously ill and, not wanting to be insensitive but realistic, probably had little time left anyway.
People got so worked up about this virus mostly due to media and politicians. Ok so some people had long covid, almost all got over it, some of those who had mental health issues are still dealing with them. Afraid you can get long lasting effects from most viruses.
As for your last point I know of more people who lost their lives through suicide (mostly young people too) due to lockdowns than did by catching the virus. You tell me what the balance is now?
Ah well there we are. We have developed such a sophisticated and interdependent society that it is all liable to fall apart like a house of cards. It is quite fragile. How many of us know how to grow food and catch meat ?. People will fend for themselves by looting food stores but won't know what to do when the food stores are empty.Some people will never learn or back down from their position. It’s not just the government who are in the business of face saving, it’s the public too.
Pretty saddening as it means it could happen again for the same unscientific reasons.
Im so worried I want to be locked up at home but can the poor people deliver me loads of stuff to my house and man the supermarkets, power stations, oil rigs etc. It is a pretty sick position to call for, especially whilst drawing that they are the ones that “care”
It may be obvious to you that if we'd locked down earlier we wouldn't have needed such a hrash lockdown but that's not true. The lockdowns achieved next to nothing, it was a political thing. There's this train of thought that we can control a virus by staying inside, it's just not true. Lockdowns at any time didn't really do anything worthwhile.Do you think vaccinations made a difference ?. From my point of view it was a chance for people to have their first experience of Covid without catching the real thing. Then we could relax lockdowns otherwise lockdowns would have dragged on for longer.
One problem we have is that we only know the effects of what we actually did. We don't know what the effect of lighter lockdowns would have been (both on Covid and mental health). We don't know what the effects of harsher lockdowns would be. We cannot repeat the experiment. We can compare with other countries but there are variables - density of population, ways of working and how quickly they locked down in relation to the growth of Covid cases.
It is obvious to me that had we locked down earlier we would not have needed such a harsh lockdown - that would be preferable. Instead the UK let the virus get a larger hold than we should. We then had to drastically slow its spread. I remember the tidal wave of cases hitting hospitals - we had to panic. The UK government was laughing at the state Northern Italy was in and woke up when it was our trn around 12 March. The clues were there from February.
I certainly think in the crowded South East of Britain we were sitting ducks. Then later other large cities felt it too.
Personally I was wary of Covid but assumed I would get by. I have never had a flu jab and never suffered that badly with Flu. Covid was a rude awakening to me how badly it affected me. Then discovering the effects around me.
Nowadays I would say Covid is no worse than Flu BUT it was a new virus back then and so was therefore going to be more dangerous. Covid is not new now we either have experience of it (like me), are dead, or have been vaccinated.
Looking back to previous pandemics we have learnt a lot about how to slow the spread. Perhaps we need to prove to ourselves what can happen if we ignore the next new virus.
As for older or frail/unhealthy people. I agree that there was an option to accept losses there - and I think that was being followed somewhat. But try telling that to those who lost their loved ones. Some where there is a balance and I don't know how close we got to it but I can tell there is no answer that would please everyone. What is different nowadays is people can debate about it - I wonder how much ordinary people pondered Spanish Flu. TBH they were probably thankful for what they had at the tail end of world war one.
We cannot stop the virus but we had to slow down its progress.It may be obvious to you that if we'd locked down earlier we wouldn't have needed such a hrash lockdown but that's not true. The lockdowns achieved next to nothing, it was a political thing. There's this train of thought that we can control a virus by staying inside, it's just not true. Lockdowns at any time didn't really do anything worthwhile.
Yes, people lost their loved ones, for majority harsh reality is they probably weren't long for this world. The youngsters who committed suicide likely had many years ahead of them. Reality is you expect to bury your parents but not your children.
So you were self sufficient whilst crying out for your lockdown?Ah well there we are. We have developed such a sophisticated and interdependent society that it is all liable to fall apart like a house of cards. It is quite fragile. How many of us know how to grow food and catch meat ?. People will fend for themselves by looting food stores but won't know what to do when the food stores are empty.
Okay - try not to think about it.
All we did made next to no difference but did damage economy and mental health. Can speculate all you like about possibilities of slowing it down but last two are facts.We cannot stop the virus but we had to slow down its progress.
No way was I self sufficient,. Mind you if I was I would be very vulnerable !.So you were self sufficient whilst crying out for your lockdown?
Not just the economy and mental health but a number of other things as well including children's educationAll we did made next to no difference but did damage economy and mental health. Can speculate all you like about possibilities of slowing it down but last two are facts.
The hypocritical argument, ok.No way was I self sufficient,. Mind you if I was I would be very vulnerable !.
I don't remember crying out for a lockdown but I accepted the arguments for it.
Very well said.Do you think vaccinations made a difference ?. From my point of view it was a chance for people to have their first experience of Covid without catching the real thing. Then we could relax lockdowns otherwise lockdowns would have dragged on for longer.
One problem we have is that we only know the effects of what we actually did. We don't know what the effect of lighter lockdowns would have been (both on Covid and mental health). We don't know what the effects of harsher lockdowns would be. We cannot repeat the experiment. We can compare with other countries but there are variables - density of population, ways of working and how quickly they locked down in relation to the growth of Covid cases.
It is obvious to me that had we locked down earlier we would not have needed such a harsh lockdown - that would be preferable. Instead the UK let the virus get a larger hold than we should. We then had to drastically slow its spread. I remember the tidal wave of cases hitting hospitals - we had to panic. The UK government was laughing at the state Northern Italy was in and woke up when it was our trn around 12 March. The clues were there from February.
I certainly think in the crowded South East of Britain we were sitting ducks. Then later other large cities felt it too.
Personally I was wary of Covid but assumed I would get by. I have never had a flu jab and never suffered that badly with Flu. Covid was a rude awakening to me how badly it affected me. Then discovering the effects around me.
Nowadays I would say Covid is no worse than Flu BUT it was a new virus back then and so was therefore going to be more dangerous. Covid is not new now we either have experience of it (like me), are dead, or have been vaccinated.
Looking back to previous pandemics we have learnt a lot about how to slow the spread. Perhaps we need to prove to ourselves what can happen if we ignore the next new virus.
As for older or frail/unhealthy people. I agree that there was an option to accept losses there - and I think that was being followed somewhat. But try telling that to those who lost their loved ones. Some where there is a balance and I don't know how close we got to it but I can tell there is no answer that would please everyone. What is different nowadays is people can debate about it - I wonder how much ordinary people pondered Spanish Flu. TBH they were probably thankful for what they had at the tail end of world war one.
So we could save up all those cases for the winter, when the NHS is usually strained?We cannot stop the virus but we had to slow down its progress.
Not sure of your point.The hypocritical argument, ok.
Thankyou.Very well said.
Afraid so - we were pushing the peak into the future because we could not deal with it even in summer. But the further we pushed it into the future then the less height that peak would have. Yes a lockdown of some sorts would be required for quite a while and did drag on.So we could save up all those cases for the winter, when the NHS is usually strained?
1. The summer was when cases were at their lowest, and also when the NHS is under least pressure from other winter conditions. Why would that be the time when the NHS is at risk of being overloadedAfraid so - we were pushing the peak into the future because we could not deal with it even in summer. But the further we pushed it into the future then the less height that peak would have.