Remaining Effects of Covid

[Peter Sarf]

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.

I think that delay of just a few weeks from February 2020 led to a very high level of infection amongst the population. It is created by a doubling rate which left unchecked gets very large all of a sudden.

Think cases growing starting at one - 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, 128, 256, 512, 1024, 2048, 4096 onwards. The time between each doubling indicated how infectious the virus is. As time goes by the numbers go alarmingly from small numbers to large numbers but each doubling takes the same time.

I do think the messages coming from government were rather mixed up. We needed a consistent approach. We needed to not chop and change too much as it just left people incredulous. Eat out to help out was a confusion for many. But then I think we should have relaxed earlier in 2021 - but that might have been relying on assuming the vaccine worked and would have been chopping and changing.

Common sense says the government were primarily protecting the economy. The indication being the reluctance to lock down early enough. The death rate then loomed. The side effects of lockdowns were always going to be a late consideration but from the enquiry I see there were those trying to balance that.

It is incredible how much the UK government spent on Furlough and other support. I do wonder if it could have been worse.

One thing I see from the enquiry was how Boris Johnson was unable to understand the science. He does not have a scientific background and really could not grasp the statistical factors like the rate of doubling. Boris Johnson was not the right person at that time but then the UK is not generally run by people with practical experience.

 

[Richard Scott]

I think that delay of just a few weeks from February 2020 led to a very high level of infection amongst the population. It is created by a doubling rate which left unchecked gets very large all of a sudden.

Think cases growing starting at one - 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, 128, 256, 512, 1024, 2048, 4096 onwards. The time between each doubling indicated how infectious the virus is. As time goes by the numbers go alarmingly from small numbers to large numbers but each doubling takes the same time.

I do think the messages coming from government were rather mixed up. We needed a consistent approach. We needed to not chop and change too much as it just left people incredulous. Eat out to help out was a confusion for many. But then I think we should have relaxed earlier in 2021 - but that might have been relying on assuming the vaccine worked and would have been chopping and changing.

Common sense says the government were primarily protecting the economy. The indication being the reluctance to lock down early enough. The death rate then loomed. The side effects of lockdowns were always going to be a late consideration but from the enquiry I see there were those trying to balance that.

It is incredible how much the UK government spent on Furlough and other support. I do wonder if it could have been worse.

One thing I see from the enquiry was how Boris Johnson was unable to understand the science. He does not have a scientific background and really could not grasp the statistical factors like the rate of doubling. Boris Johnson was not the right person at that time but then the UK is not generally run by people with practical experience.

I don't think there was any science as such to understand. There were many different messages coming from the scientific community. So what about infection rate, a number of us do understand exponential increase and don't need it explaining? Almost everyone who got it was ill and recovered, ok so some people died, hate to tell you but it happens every day. Some die in car crashes, best lockdown so nobody drives or gets run over, some choke on food, best inly have a liquid diet, where do you draw the line?
The government should have protected economy, we can't pay for NHS with thin air.
What about the death rate, it was nothing close to the 500,000 some were batting around as a likely figure if nothing was done?
As I've said previously a number of those who died probably had little time left anyway, that may be harsh but true. How about the people who died from cancer as they couldn't get treatment? Many younger people there, perhaps you could try send persuade them your views are correct?
As for Boris Johnson not understanding science, Starmer would have been worse, he'd have had us locked down for longer to detriment of economy and mental health. Glad he wasn't in power at the time.

 

[Peter Sarf]

1. The summer was when cases were at their lowest, and also when the NHS is under least pressure form other winter conditions. Why would that be the time when the NHS is at risk of being overloaded

Because the NHS WAS getting overloaded. Just because winter should be worse (with no controls) does not mean the summer was going to be OK - and it was looking bad enough in Winter-Spring 2020 to not want to push out luck in summer.

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?

You are going to have the same number of people infected but you want to have fewer infected per month therefore spread over a longer time. That means the NHS had less to deal with on a month by month basis. The bonus is that once the Vaccines arrived there would be many who achieved immunity without needing to be exposed to the real and dangerous virus. So slowing the spread bought them the opportunity to avoid getting immunity the hard way.

Herd immunity is a risky phrase and process. To get to Herd Immunity you needed people to be infected with something that was seen as very dangerous. That was leading to unnecessary risks for those infected the first time. A hundred years ago we did not know so much about how viruses spread so we ended up achieving herd immunity by virtue of ignorance and a lot of unnecessary deaths.

You could argue that if we had done nothing then we would have achieved herd immunity quite early - but a lot of people would have died just because the hospital intensive care was overloaded. People who could be treated at a later date and then become immune.

Eventually vaccines short circuited that process - thankfully. So lockdowns meant we were also buying time for vaccines to take over.

 

[scarby]

Think cases growing starting at one - 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, 128, 256, 512, 1024, 2048, 4096 onwards. The time between each doubling indicated how infectious the virus is. As time goes by the numbers go alarmingly from small numbers to large numbers but each doubling takes the same time.

However, Farr's law of epidemics means that this cannot go on forever. What goes up must come down. Farr's law is based on the bell-shaped curve of epidemics. Eventually cases become so high that they start to fall because there are fewer people left to infect.

This was exactly what we saw happen throughout the pandemic, unfortunately it was often labelled as evidence of the restrictions "working".

 

[Peter Sarf]

I don't think there was any science as such to understand. There were many different messages coming from the scientific community. So what about infection rate, a number of us do understand exponential increase and don't need it explaining? Almost everyone who got it was ill and recovered, ok so some people died, hate to tell you but it happens every day. Some die in car crashes, best lockdown so nobody drives or gets run over, some choke on food, best inly have a liquid diet, where do you draw the line?
The government should have protected economy, we can't pay for NHS with thin air.
What about the death rate, it was nothing close to the 500,000 some were batting around as a likely figure if nothing was done?
As I've said previously a number of those who died probably had little time left anyway, that may be harsh but true. How about the people who died from cancer as they couldn't get treatment? Many younger people there, perhaps you could try send persuade them your views are correct?
As for Boris Johnson not understanding science, Starmer would have been worse, he'd have had us locked down for longer to detriment of economy and mental health. Glad he wasn't in power at the time.

My bold.
They would have been even less likely to get cancer (etc) treatment if the NHS was overrun.

However, Farr's law of epidemics means that this cannot go on forever. What goes up must come down. Farr's law is based on the bell-shaped curve of epidemics. Eventually cases become so high that they start to fall because there are fewer people left to infect.

This was exactly what we saw happen throughout the pandemic, unfortunately it was often labelled as evidence of the restrictions "working".

But was the curve going to come back down soon enough ?.

 

[Dent]

Because the NHS WAS getting overloaded. Just because winter should be worse (with no controls) does not mean the summer was going to

Not in the summer, cases were at their lowest then, and also the NHS was under least pressure from other winter conditions. Why do think that was the time the NHS was likely to be overloaded, and delaying more cases to instead happen in winter, when both COVID and other winter conditions would be higher, would be a benefit?

You are going to have the same number of people infected but you want to have fewer infected per month therefore spread over a longer time.

You still haven't explained the scientific theory that fewer people being immune before the next wave starts would result in the wave being spread over a longer period.

 

[Peter Sarf]

Not in the summer, cases were at their lowest then, and also the NHS was under least pressure from other winter conditions. Why do think that was the time the NHS was likely to be overloaded, and delaying more cases to instead happen in winter, when both COVID and other winter conditions would be higher, would be a benefit?


You still haven't explained the scientific theory that fewer people being immune before the next wave starts would result in the wave being spread over a longer period.

Where do you think the wave came from ?. It was from those already infected infecting more people. It is simply about slowing the progress of an infection through society.

 

[Magdalia]

I have some experience of Whitehall, and I've been shocked by some of the recent evidence at the covid inquiry.

Three of the cliche rules of management are:

• learn from your mistakes, but it is far better to learn from the mistakes of others
• fail to prepare and you prepare to fail
• hope for the best but prepare for the worst

In the first covid wave the UK had the huge advantage of not being first, and should have been learning from what was happening in China, Italy and Spain. The UK had time to prepare, in January and February 2020, but the inquiry evidence has shown that time was wasted, because of complacency. I would pick out three areas where the UK failed to prepare in this period:

• quarantine - once covid spread through Italy and Spain it was obvious that people returning to the UK from February half term skiing holidays would spread covid through multiple entry points and quarantining these people would have bought valuable time
• lockdown - when Whitehall was finally shaken out of its complacency in mid-March, it still had no lockdown plan, something that should have been worked out, with a risk assessment, in January and February
• care homes - it was obvious that care homes were very vulnerable, particularly from hospital discharges and agency workers working at multiple sites, but, there seemed to be no plan to manage these risks

Proper preparation in the January and February period would have made a big difference to how covid spread in March.

 

[DustyBin]

However, Farr's law of epidemics means that this cannot go on forever. What goes up must come down. Farr's law is based on the bell-shaped curve of epidemics. Eventually cases become so high that they start to fall because there are fewer people left to infect.

This was exactly what we saw happen throughout the pandemic, unfortunately it was often labelled as evidence of the restrictions "working".

This is absolutely crucial. Some people still seem to believe that infections and cases would rise exponentially without restrictions, which isn't the case.

But was the curve going to come back down soon enough ?.

Almost certainly.

 

[Dent]

Where do you think the wave came from ?. It was from those already infected infecting more people. It is simply about slowing the progress of an infection through society.

Obviously that is how a virus spreads. That still doesn't explain how having less immunity before the peak would result in the peak being lower, when the complete opposite is intuitively true.

 

[JamesT]

This is absolutely crucial. Some people still seem to believe that infections and cases would rise exponentially without restrictions, which isn't the case.

But Covid _did_ rise exponentially. All the fuss about the R number, when it's >1 then you have exponential growth.

 

[Dent]

But Covid _did_ rise exponentially. All the fuss about the R number, when it's >1 then you have exponential growth.

Only part of the wave looks like exponential growth, it does not increase exponentially ad infinitum.

 

[DustyBin]

But Covid _did_ rise exponentially. All the fuss about the R number, when it's >1 then you have exponential growth.

Apologies I should have said "continue to rise exponentially".

Only part of the wave looks like exponential growth, it does not increase exponentially ad infinitum.

Yes (poor wording on my part though in fairness).

 

[Peter Sarf]

Obviously that is how a virus spreads. That still doesn't explain how having less immunity before the peak would result in the peak being lower, when the complete opposite is intuitively true.

My bold
It does not reduce the peak that way.

The peak would be lower because we were controlling the spread. Not because the virus knew it had not yet peaked. The peak was less and later because we tried eventually to control spread. That meant there were less people immune or dead so yes we had to keep some level of control.

Whether that control was worse than letting the Virus take its natural course is open for debate. I am in the camp of trying to spread the load BUT the other side of the coin is the effect of lockdown on peoples mental health and financial health. I wonder - if more parents died would younger people feel better off ?.

There were a lot of unknowns but what was obvious was Covid was ripping through China, Italy and Spain - we chose to ignore the clues so we were always going to react late and harder once the need to lockdown was conceded.

The alternative was to do nothing. Early on (in March 2020 iirc) I had to take someone to hospital A&E they were not interested in the news etc. They were well enough to argue with me. They were checked and sent home. A&E was the emptiest I have ever seen it. Two people arguing with reception to be admitted with Covid but they were no where near ill. walking around shouting and panicking. I thought at the time that we were heading for anarchy.

Do you remember the stupid news shots of empty wards ?. That was because intensive care wards take about three times as many staff as a recovery ward. So if my hospital opened an extra intensive care ward it meant three ordinary wards had to be closed. That is why lots of elderly and infirm were dumped on care homes.

There was a lot of miss-information out there. Including repeating what the Orange idiot was suggesting (drink bleach). But the thing with most news and social media is that they need something interesting. Boring Facts don't sell advertising space.

 

[Richard Scott]

My bold.
They would have been even less likely to get cancer (etc) treatment if the NHS was overrun.

Nonsense, they weren't getting any at all as no-one allowed to go in for treatment in case they had covid! Nothing to do with NHS being overrun.

 

[Peter Sarf]

Nonsense, they weren't getting any at all as no-one allowed to go in for treatment in case they had covid! Nothing to do with NHS being overrun.

Consider the possibility that if the NHS was overrun more than it was then the start of "normal" procedures could well have been delayed more than it was.

 

[DustyBin]

The alternative was to do nothing.

This is a false dichotomy, as it completely disregards the important fact that most if not all people would have taken some steps to slow/avoid transmission regardless.

 

[Dent]

My bold
It does not reduce the peak that way.

The peak would be lower because we were controlling the spread. Not because the virus knew it had not yet peaked. The peak was less and later because we tried eventually to control spread. That meant there were less people immune or dead so yes we had to keep some level of control.

That's not what you claimed, you claimed that delaying infections from the summer until into the winter would result on the winter being lower.

Specifically in reply to a discussion about delaying cases from summer until winter, you wrote

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.

You still haven't explained the logic behind that assertion, and intuitively the complete opposite would be true as having less prior immunity would mean more people having to gain immunity in that wave before the peak is reached, therefore the peak would be higher.

 

[renegademaster]

I have some experience of Whitehall, and I've been shocked by some of the recent evidence at the covid inquiry.

Three of the cliche rules of management are:

• learn from your mistakes, but it is far better to learn from the mistakes of others
• fail to prepare and you prepare to fail
• hope for the best but prepare for the worst

In the first covid wave the UK had the huge advantage of not being first, and should have been learning from what was happening in China, Italy and Spain. The UK had time to prepare, in January and February 2020, but the inquiry evidence has shown that time was wasted, because of complacency. I would pick out three areas where the UK failed to prepare in this period:

• quarantine - once covid spread through Italy and Spain it was obvious that people returning to the UK from February half term skiing holidays would spread covid through multiple entry points and quarantining these people would have bought valuable time
• lockdown - when Whitehall was finally shaken out of its complacency in mid-March, it still had no lockdown plan, something that should have been worked out, with a risk assessment, in January and February
• care homes - it was obvious that care homes were very vulnerable, particularly from hospital discharges and agency workers working at multiple sites, but, there seemed to be no plan to manage these risks

Proper preparation in the January and February period would have made a big difference to how covid spread in March.

China showed that it doesn't matter if you have 2 years preparation if you're eventually going to open anyway everyone is going to get the disease anyway

 

[Richard Scott]

Consider the possibility that if the NHS was overrun more than it was then the start of "normal" procedures could well have been delayed more than it was.

It wasn't a possibility, as long as virus was around treatment was suspended overrun or not so no point it considering it as didn't happen.
You keep on about if locked down earlier etc but made no difference to things like this. People weren't encouraged to seek medical help or treatment was suspended. That's what happened irrespective of lockdowns and when they started.
As an aside I never took any of the precautions (I have a science based qualification so made up my own mind) and still have yet to have this virus so afraid all the precautions were just nonsense. Some picked it up by taking all the recommended precautions and some didn't. It really didn't make any real difference having lockdown except wrecking economy and many people's lives. However some just can't accept that and bleat on we could have saved more lives if did x, y or z sooner. Reality is that is nonsense.

 

[VauxhallandI]

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.

Have you forgotten that each country counted their covid deaths differently?
Remember our “he died in a car crash but he was asymptomatic covid positive so stick him down as a covid death.

The whole thing is like Swiss cheese.

It’s all Lockdown then work backwards with information to try and prove it’s the right thing to do. Sit back and what the theory tie itself up in knots.

 

[Bikeman78]

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

A motor vehicle is a greater threat to children than Covid ever was. No way schools should have closed.

 

[Sorcerer]

It’s all Lockdown then work backwards with information to try and prove it’s the right thing to do.

Absolutely this. Many of the arguments seem to basically boil down to "lockdown failed because we didn't lockdown enough, so we should lockdown more". I would argue that despite the advocates arguing that lockdown isn't an easy decision to be taken lightly, that lockdown is actually the easiest option because it means that they don't have to do anything else that is more meaningful but also requires more effort. Why bother setting up something such as a proper test and trace system or international travel restrictions when you can just lockdown every now and then under the premise of having no other choice. I am of the firm belief that lockdowns are blunt instruments that should never have been a serious primary option, and indeed prior to Covid they never were in any pandemic contingency plans, and as far as I know not even the World Health Organisation recommends them as a general measure.

 

[Tom B]

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.

"In an urban society, everything connects. Each person's needs are fed by the skills of many others. Our lives are woven together in a fabric. But the connections which make society strong, also make it vulnerable".
The opening lines to a film on a very different topic to covid, but it struck me in March 2020 as being incredibly relatable.

 

[DerekC]

There was IMHO a very good article on lockdowns by Adam Kucharski (Professor of Infectious Disease Epidemiology at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine) in the Independent last week. Unfortunately it's behind a paywall so I can't link it. Essentially it said that people who are totally for or totally against lockdowns are misunderstanding what actually happened and what could be made to happen better in a future pandemic. What people are perhaps forgetting is that the "lockdown" was a combination of a number of different interventions, each of which had a different impact on the transmission rate of the virus. Because our government mostly applied them all together across the whole country it is been difficult to quantify the impacts, but he quoted some figures which have now been arrived at by comparing the impacts of different policies in different countries. (He makes the point that this is extremely difficult because of different social and economic contexts). The rough figures he quotes are that limits on the size of gatherings reduced transmission by 25-40%, closing businesses reduced by 25-35% and stay at home orders reduced transmission by 10-15%. The overall impact of the first "lockdown" - i.e. the first combination of measures - was to reduce transmission by about 75%, which was sufficient to turn the infection curve downward. His last three paragraphs are worth quoting in full:

"It's important to understand what happened during COVID, but it's also crucial to look to the future. In Europe, lockdowns were a blunt, last ditch tool. They were implemented reactively in response to rapidly rising cases in spring 2020, without a clear exit strategy.

Countries will need to find a better alternative for future severe pandemics. Should and could the UK make more use of digital footprints to identify at risk contacts and stop chains of transmission, like South Korea or Singapore did for COVID? Should it try to eliminate transmission domestically, then rely on border measures to prevent you outbreaks, like Vietnam and New Zealand did? or should it do something else entirely?

When the next pandemic hits, it is not enough to ask simply whether or not we should lock down. The evidence shows that cutting social contacts at the right time will curb the spread of the disease. But having lived through this once, we should be in a better position to ask what we are hoping to achieve - and what tradeoffs we are willing to accept to get there"
.

 

[Eyersey468]

I wonder how the figures for reduction of transmission that he states were arrived at. I do agree that countries need to plan better for future pandemics and not just throw existing plans out of the window in a panic

 

[Bantamzen]

There was IMHO a very good article on lockdowns by Adam Kucharski (Professor of Infectious Disease Epidemiology at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine) in the Independent last week. Unfortunately it's behind a paywall so I can't link it. Essentially it said that people who are totally for or totally against lockdowns are misunderstanding what actually happened and what could be made to happen better in a future pandemic. What people are perhaps forgetting is that the "lockdown" was a combination of a number of different interventions, each of which had a different impact on the transmission rate of the virus. Because our government mostly applied them all together across the whole country it is been difficult to quantify the impacts, but he quoted some figures which have now been arrived at by comparing the impacts of different policies in different countries. (He makes the point that this is extremely difficult because of different social and economic contexts). The rough figures he quotes are that limits on the size of gatherings reduced transmission by 25-40%, closing businesses reduced by 25-35% and stay at home orders reduced transmission by 10-15%. The overall impact of the first "lockdown" - i.e. the first combination of measures - was to reduce transmission by about 75%, which was sufficient to turn the infection curve downward. His last three paragraphs are worth quoting in full:

Did he then go on to explain how the cycle of measures could be broken? You see its all well and good saying we need lockdown measures, but trashing the economy, killing off businesses, massively increasing state dependence, massively reducing tax revenue, and piling up debts tend not to be very good for the future of a nation. In countries like ours where healthcare is funded by taxation, killing off that very same revenue stream seems somewhat counter-intuitive, especially considering that sooner or later the virus will do what viruses do, spread. Just ask China about that.

And I know, lockdowns were to "save" the NHS from a possible crisis, a crisis it has had without fail year on year for decades. Its almost as if the virus wasn't the real problem....

 

[Mojo]

I suspect that the reason many at the Inquiry and in the media are saying lockdown should have started earlier than it did is to take away the doubt over the effectiveness of lockdown measures. We know from NHS triage data, death numbers and from the React study that infections were almost certainly decreasing before the lockdown came into legal force on 26th March. You can almost guarantee that had lockdown started one or two weeks earlier the usual suspects would have been claiming that this was down to lockdown. We also had another very close escape in December 2021.

From the proceedings yesterday I got the biggest ever indication that this is a stitch up; Sunak referred to a Qaly analysis done on the first lockdown which he claimed said that “the lockdown is likely to have generated costs greater than the likely benefit.” This was then immediately shut down by the QC who clearly doesn’t understand what it is, calling it a “quality life assurance model.”

 

[DustyBin]

The rough figures he quotes are that limits on the size of gatherings reduced transmission by 25-40%, closing businesses reduced by 25-35% and stay at home orders reduced transmission by 10-15%. The overall impact of the first "lockdown" - i.e. the first combination of measures - was to reduce transmission by about 75%, which was sufficient to turn the infection curve downward. His last three paragraphs are worth quoting in full:

The (significant!) flaw in this analysis is that the data suggests infections had already peaked by the time the first lockdown was implemented.

Nearly four years later we're still awaiting a satisfactory answer to one of the most fundamental questions of all, i.e. why didn't we simply stick to our long-standing pandemic plan?

I suspect that the reason many at the Inquiry and in the media are saying lockdown should have started earlier than it did is to take away the doubt over the effectiveness of lockdown measures. We know from NHS triage data, death numbers and from the React study that infections were almost certainly decreasing before the lockdown came into legal force on 26th March. You can almost guarantee that had lockdown started one or two weeks earlier the usual suspects would have been claiming that this was down to lockdown. We also had another very close escape in December 2021.

From the proceedings yesterday I got the biggest ever indication that this is a stitch up; Sunak referred to a Qaly analysis done on the first lockdown which he claimed said that “the lockdown is likely to have generated costs greater than the likely benefit.” This was then immediately shut down by the QC who clearly doesn’t understand what it is, calling it a “quality life assurance model.”

I strongly suspect the same. There's no way they can admit that lockdowns were unnecessary given the catastrophic harms caused, but at the same time they can't credibly claim that mistakes weren't made. To conclude we should have locked down earlier (reluctantly though of course....) is therefore the perfect cop-out.

 

[Peter Sarf]

That's not what you claimed, you claimed that delaying infections from the summer until into the winter would result on the winter being lower.

Specifically in reply to a discussion about delaying cases from summer until winter, you wrote

You still haven't explained the logic behind that assertion, and intuitively the complete opposite would be true as having less prior immunity would mean more people having to gain immunity in that wave before the peak is reached, therefore the peak would be higher.

I was not saying the same peak at the same time would be lower. I was saying that by slowing the spread the peak would be lower and pushed further into the future. You can push it far enough into the future that there is not much left of any peak.

Absolutely this. Many of the arguments seem to basically boil down to "lockdown failed because we didn't lockdown enough, so we should lockdown more". I would argue that despite the advocates arguing that lockdown isn't an easy decision to be taken lightly, that lockdown is actually the easiest option because it means that they don't have to do anything else that is more meaningful but also requires more effort. Why bother setting up something such as a proper test and trace system or international travel restrictions when you can just lockdown every now and then under the premise of having no other choice. I am of the firm belief that lockdowns are blunt instruments that should never have been a serious primary option, and indeed prior to Covid they never were in any pandemic contingency plans, and as far as I know not even the World Health Organisation recommends them as a general measure.

Oh yes it is easy to forget that a proper test and trace system could have managed things in a far better way. The risk was some people might have said why should I stay at home when others don't need to. Whatever we did it required buy in. Our test and trace system was so hopeless that we could only go for the blunt instrument.

I think lockdown was a reaction to the flood of cases we let into the UK before we got cautious. It was a late reaction so in my book was always going to be harsher than it could have been,

It feels like we went from a gung ho hoping for the best approach to full on panic.

There was IMHO a very good article on lockdowns by Adam Kucharski (Professor of Infectious Disease Epidemiology at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine) in the Independent last week. Unfortunately it's behind a paywall so I can't link it. Essentially it said that people who are totally for or totally against lockdowns are misunderstanding what actually happened and what could be made to happen better in a future pandemic. What people are perhaps forgetting is that the "lockdown" was a combination of a number of different interventions, each of which had a different impact on the transmission rate of the virus. Because our government mostly applied them all together across the whole country it is been difficult to quantify the impacts, but he quoted some figures which have now been arrived at by comparing the impacts of different policies in different countries. (He makes the point that this is extremely difficult because of different social and economic contexts). The rough figures he quotes are that limits on the size of gatherings reduced transmission by 25-40%, closing businesses reduced by 25-35% and stay at home orders reduced transmission by 10-15%. The overall impact of the first "lockdown" - i.e. the first combination of measures - was to reduce transmission by about 75%, which was sufficient to turn the infection curve downward. His last three paragraphs are worth quoting in full:

Yes it was that horribly dramatic lockdown that was needed to reverse an out of control soaring trend rather than merely slowing the trend. I have no doubt that a lot of the damage done could have been avoided if we had been more cautious in the beginning.