Remaining Effects of Covid

[Mag_seven]

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.

 

[Peter Sarf]

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.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

Yet at the COVID enquiry people were arguing that we should have locked down earlier, harder and longer.

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...?

 

[Richard Scott]

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.

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.

 

[Eyersey468]

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, I don't think an earlier lockdown would have made any difference

 

[Peter Sarf]

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, I don't think an earlier lockdown would have made any difference

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.

 

[Richard Scott]

+

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.

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.

 

[nw1]

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?

Are there really people that think lockdown is too soft? It was already pretty hard. What else could they have implemented? Extreme measures such as prosecuting you if you ventured outside for a walk without a dog?

And think lockdown didn't go on long enough? What did they want, lockdown through the whole of 2020 and 2021?

 

[Mag_seven]

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.

 

[nw1]

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.

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.

 

[Richard Scott]

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 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.

 

[Peter Sarf]

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.

The gain was people not Dying.

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.

I think the value of space is understood better now.

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.

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 ?.

 

[Sorcerer]

People who talk about how we should've locked down earlier and came out of it later demonstrate, in my opinion, a lack of understanding about disease control and seem to be a hammer looking for a nail. In other words, they treated lockdown as either the primary option or the only option despite several countries around the world proving that there were ways of managing the virus without it, and even as a country we were regarded as among the most prepared for a pandemic. I think proper travel restrictions from affected countries combined with an adequate test and trace system at borders and maybe even in cities might've actually put us in a better position. Meanwhile nobody cared to even discuss the negative affects of lockdown in which I have already spoken of my personal experiences elsewhere on the forum.

 

[cygnus44]

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.

 

[Richard Scott]

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 ?.

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?

 

[Peter Sarf]

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.

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.

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?

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.

 

[VauxhallandI]

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 claiming that they are the ones that “care”

 

[Peter Sarf]

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”

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.

 

[Richard Scott]

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.

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.

 

[Peter Sarf]

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.

We cannot stop the virus but we had to slow down its progress.

 

[VauxhallandI]

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.

So you were self sufficient whilst crying out for your lockdown?

 

[Richard Scott]

We cannot stop the virus but we had to slow down its progress.

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.

 

[Peter Sarf]

So you were self sufficient whilst crying out for your lockdown?

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.

 

[Eyersey468]

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.

Not just the economy and mental health but a number of other things as well including children's education

 

[VauxhallandI]

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.

The hypocritical argument, ok.

 

[Purple Train]

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.

Very well said.

 

[Yew]

We cannot stop the virus but we had to slow down its progress.

So we could save up all those cases for the winter, when the NHS is usually strained?

 

[ainsworth74]

I'm open to correction but the impression I've gotten so far is that the people who are, in the inquiry, saying that we should have locked down sooner (most seem to have said a week or two, so not exactly dramatically earlier!) in spring 2020 are not the same people who are saying we should have locked down longer and harder (unclear how without going full Chinese Communist Party that could be achieved however). And I do broadly have some sympathy with that view.

The issue for me was never the first lockdown (other than some arguing about the precise timing of when to implement it) but a) the seemingly braindead approach of the Government to what was obviously going to be a crisis (Italy was all the evidence you needed that this was going to be bad) in the weeks leading up to it meaning once they couldn't ignore it, it was catastrophic and b) everything that happened afterwards especially the length of time that the first lockdown dragged on and the design of that lockdown.

I think the later part of b) is the key thing for me. If the first week or two, considering the Government had effectively panicked their way into a lockdown due to a), had been as harsh as we had that would have been one thing. But after that initial burst of panic they Government should have rapidly pivoted from "STAY AT HOME, LIVE IN TERROR" to a more sensible approach of encouraging people to still go out and get exercise outdoors (the weather was, after all, brilliant) and you can meet up with a few friends outdoors if you want. As well as dialling back on the "save the NHS" stuff which meant people with other acute illnesses avoided hospitals (oh it's just a bit of indigestion, not a heart attack) and died or left themselves with a worse quality of life (and the state picking up the bill for their care).

I think focusing on lockdowns and the length of lockdowns is a bit of a red herring. I know to some on here the very idea is anathema and to be opposed at all turns forevermore. But far more important to me is the decisions taken (or indeed not) before March which meant we got bounced into lockdown with no planning and then the decisions taken afterwards which lead to things like Derbyshire Police feeling that they could chase down people in the Derbyshire Dales with drones and being proud of it. When in reality we should have been encouraging people to do precisely that rather than stay at home whilst eating and drinking themselves to excess.

 

[Peter Sarf]

The hypocritical argument, ok.

Not sure of your point.

Very well said.

Thankyou.

So we could save up all those cases for the winter, when the NHS is usually strained?

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.
I would have locked down earlier BUT softer (maybe a lot softer).

I would like to know whether we relaxed too slowly in 2021 - I would have taken an earlier risk given it was summer.
But in 2020 cases jumped after August - Eat out to help out was maybe the culprit but it might be viewed as a way of letting some pressure out before winter. The resulting high number of cases as we went into Autumn 2020 probably influenced the (over) caution a year later in June-July 2021.

Instead we panicked as the number of cases quite predictably mushroomed. By 12 March 2020 just slowing the progress of the Covid was too late - we had to REVERSE it. A very hard lockdown was going to be required then to reverse it.

By summer 2021 we had a growing number of people who had been infected with Covid once and so were immune (that included me) or were dead. The arrival of vaccines finished of that process cutting down what was left of the peak.

Some questions I doubt the Covid enquiry will address :-

1) Was (is) the UK NHS generally in a worse state compared to Europe so we were going to have to lockdown harder to protect it ?.
Note Germany and France fared better than us as the Northern Hemisphere went from Autumn 2020 to Winter 2021.

2) Is the UK a more overcrowded place ?. That would lead to higher transmission, did that lead to harsher lockdowns ?.
I think we are overcrowded.

3) When the UK woke up around 12 March 2020 did other countries do better because they took control earlier or did they get hit later than us and took notice of what happened in the UK ?.
I know Northern Italy fared worse than us - The only Western European country to do worse than the UK was Italy. I remember the view at the time was a bit ha ha it will never happen to us. Well we ignored the clues and I suspect other countries took more notice. Either because the UK government was being an obstinate fool or because we only had Italy as an example.

As for the damage lockdowns did. I have no doubt. I also think the prime aim of the government would have been to protect the economy. Lockdowns were very damaging to the economy so the government at some point would have reluctantly adopted lockdowns (around 12 March 2020).

Italy.
I was acutely aware of Covid in Northern Italy as about 35% of our exports from my employer went there. As I had to deal with the incoming empty lorries I was the first to deal with Italians that might be infected. Standing on the ground below a drivers open cab window asking the driver questions was asking for it. I used to wear a FFP3 mask for that. It got a lot harder once the EU boundary changes happened - we had a lot of lorries stopped on site awaiting the new paperwork our UK government promised was straight forward - it wasn't, it was very very bad. December 2020 (date iirc) onwards got very difficult with lorries and their crews stuck on site for weeks. That is when I got Covid and had a fever for 6 days and mssed all but one small part of it (noticed bedroom furniture was wrong !).

I am sure our UK government mis-handled Covid. But I am not sure it is as simple as blaming lockdowns.

 

[Dent]

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.

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 overloaded
2. Can you explain the scientific theory that leads you to the conclusion that delaying the development of herd immunity would lead to the peak being lower? Surely the complete opposite is true, fewer people being immune will result in more people being infected, therefore a higher peak?