The first covid report

Cadenza123

I went along with everything that was asked of us. However with hindsight I think that lockdowns were far too damaging and we gave up our freedom too easily. Government should advise, we live in a free society, well ostensibly. People should be responsible for their own decision making, armed with credible information.

Like you, I agree, we all went along with it because of the sheer panicked state that prevailed, but with hindsight, I think lock downs were very damaging. I do hope that our government will not acquiesce to WHO's proposals to preside over any prospective pandemics. There is such a danger, to morph into a controlled police state if we surrender powers to un elected bodies.

There is always a danger if countries allow a totally unelected body to take control of the situation in their country. Many of the members of the WHO represent countries which are far from democratic themselves and to put the UK and other democratic countries under their control would be dangerous. We only need to look at the support the WHO gave to China, despite emerging evidence that the virus came from China and in all likelihood escaped inadvertently from a laboratory in Wuhan.

Yes I went along with it. I would not do that again. I think it's understandable that people reacted with fear, what is important is to reflect now that fear is over. I also dont know how you look at the risk/cost ratio, some of the things are quantifiable domestic violence, safeguarding incidents, even excess deaths caused by delays to treatment (although admittedly that's more complex) but some things such as societal behaviour are difficult if not impossible to measure.

I think the problem with lockdown was that there was absolutely no planning in place for it.

This is what Hallet's report is saying.

The report recommends ongoing planning for all possible eventualities, with that planning being regularly monitored and updated with regard to the new knowledge which emerges over time. It also places great emphasis on considering and planning for the needs of the vulnerable, something which we know was only dealt with in a 'last minute' and ad hoc fashion.
Well considered and thorough advance planning could have mitigated a lot of the ill effects of lockdowns which posters are now drawing attention to (and doubtless did so at the time)

What struck me during the whole episode was the reluctance of the government to take note of countries which successfully mitigated the effects of the virus, partially, I suspect, as a result of the prevailing government belief in British exceptionalism and dislike of admitting that other countries might have a better understanding of mitigations than did the UK.

MaizieD

I think the problem with lockdown was that there was absolutely no planning in place for it.

This is what Hallet's report is saying.

The report recommends ongoing planning for all possible eventualities, with that planning being regularly monitored and updated with regard to the new knowledge which emerges over time. It also places great emphasis on considering and planning for the needs of the vulnerable, something which we know was only dealt with in a 'last minute' and ad hoc fashion.
Well considered and thorough advance planning could have mitigated a lot of the ill effects of lockdowns which posters are now drawing attention to (and doubtless did so at the time)

What struck me during the whole episode was the reluctance of the government to take note of countries which successfully mitigated the effects of the virus, partially, I suspect, as a result of the prevailing government belief in British exceptionalism and dislike of admitting that other countries might have a better understanding of mitigations than did the UK.

Added to the fact that Boris Johnson was determined to get Brexit done, at all cost.

I believe the EU offered us a 'grace' period in the negotiations to deal with the unprecedented, and then unknowable, effects of the emerging pandemic.

I'm sure any sane individual would have given the option some thoughtful consideration.

He didn't.

apart from worrying, i quite enjoyed being locked down

I also think lockdown was very damaging and I certainly did not enjoy it.
Many of the rules were very silly and made little sense at all.
I certainly would not do it again.

Oh I loved it but I am anti social, middle class and the first lockdown i worked from home so the downsides were few. But I am also aware that my behaviour now is different because of it.

Would I support lockdown again?
I taught all through lockdown,
so certainly not in the same format as last time.

As Rosie1959 said,
Many of the rules were very silly and made little sense at all.

Others, like mask wearing, which, together with spacing resulted in a massive drop in the number of flu cases did have preventative value, though they didn’t completely stop people catching Covid.

Even those people who boasted that no one could make me a mask benefited from those who did.

The best news is that there is now no excuse for a lack of ongoing planning for all possible eventualities, with that planning being regularly monitored and updated with regard to the new knowledge which emerges over time.

We’ll never know how Labour would have handled it then, but we certainly know that they’ll be using hindsight to better organise things in case of a future pandemic and it will be interesting to see what form this organisation takes.

Good post, Mollygo 👏👏👏

I think one of the big problems was the initial refusal to accept that most transmission was air-borne. Hence, people were frantically quarantining their post and washing their shopping, but somehow it was alright to be in an enclosed space with people who could have been infected, as long as they were in your bubble (as if bubbles made people immune).

Famously, Sweden had no restrictions - except that people did restrict themselves. They met others in outdoor spaces and even post-16 students had the option of working online. Transmission wasn't stopped, but it was mitigated because people took responsibility for themselves and those close to them.

I thought that Sweden and the UK actually had similar rates of infections and deaths, when looking at percentages rather then numbers. Obviously any country with a small population and more landmass will have fewer numbers, so only percentages should be used to compare.

Just had a quick look and at Statista online. The USA had the greatest number of deaths, the UK about 224 thousand, Sweden only 24 thousand, but what do those raw numbers tell us? Only a percentage of population gives us the reality. The density of population is also a major factor. The majority of deaths in the UK were in cities, where population density is greatest. Of course people died who lived in the suburbs or villages, but people in cities were most at risk.
It probably won’t surprise anyone that the Cook Islands only had two deaths.

maddyone

Just had a quick look and at Statista online. The USA had the greatest number of deaths, the UK about 224 thousand, Sweden only 24 thousand, but what do those raw numbers tell us? Only a percentage of population gives us the reality. The density of population is also a major factor. The majority of deaths in the UK were in cities, where population density is greatest. Of course people died who lived in the suburbs or villages, but people in cities were most at risk.
It probably won’t surprise anyone that the Cook Islands only had two deaths.

The fact that people living in cities had a higher death rate is consistent with the fact that people tend to live their lives in closer proximity and use public transport more. There are also factors such as poverty and ethnicity - good luck to anybody trying to work out the weighting of each factor. Kemi Badenoch stood up in Parliament and stated that ethnicity wasn't a factor - may her nose one day grow very long!

I agree growstuff.

maddyone

Just had a quick look and at Statista online. The USA had the greatest number of deaths, the UK about 224 thousand, Sweden only 24 thousand, but what do those raw numbers tell us? Only a percentage of population gives us the reality. The density of population is also a major factor. The majority of deaths in the UK were in cities, where population density is greatest. Of course people died who lived in the suburbs or villages, but people in cities were most at risk.
It probably won’t surprise anyone that the Cook Islands only had two deaths.

I've never had Covid, but my partner has - twice. On both occasions, he caught it from his son, who was an anti-mask, it's only a cold - type of person. He gave Covid to both his parents. His mother was quite ill with it.

I didn't see my partner during lockdown at all (our relationship was in the very early days), but even when it was lifted, if I knew he'd seen his son, I made him wait three days and test himself before he saw me. We only ever met outdoors for ages.

My partner used to moan a bit, claiming that his son was in his bubble, but the problem was that it only needed one person to go outside the bubble for the virus to be caught and passed round everybody within a supposed safe space.

I was lucky because I didn't need to work or travel, so I avoided being in indoor spaces. For months, the only building I went into was the pharmacy (to collect my meds), where they were scrupulous about making sure everybody was masked and kept the social distancing rules. They also kept the door open.

I don't think the public would accept another lockdown, but they need to be told how transmission could be mitigated. The extremely vulnerable need extra protection. That includes making sure that all indoor spaces have good ventilation. Schools could do with it anyway, as anybody who has ever been in a stuffy classroom with 30 sweaty children on a hot day will know.

The great damage lockdowns did to some children, for many long term. We really didn't do a good job.

Cadenza123

The great damage lockdowns did to some children, for many long term. We really didn't do a good job.

The same conclusion is repeated in other countries.

I agree with everything you say in your post at 14/17 yesterday growstuff.
I have only ever had Covid once. I caught it because my very elderly mother had a fall and was taken into hospital where she caught it. When she came home, my husband went round to move some furniture because she’d been discharged with a walker, and all areas of her flat were not accessible to her because she needed the walker to move around her flat. We didn’t know she had Covid because she’d been tested twice in the hospital pre discharge. My husband was only there about twenty minutes but he caught Covid from mum. I then caught Covid from him. Mum and my husband and I were in a bubble together.

I’ve had all the Covid vaccines that I’ve been offered, as has my husband. Twice shortly after vaccination we were in very close contact (same house) with someone who had Covid and on neither occasion did either of us catch Covid.

I think one of the big problems was the initial refusal to accept that most transmission was air-borne

I think that was a huge error, growstuff, and the fact that even when airborne transmission was 'accepted' it took a long time for masking to be mandated. Whereas in Asian countries masking was common right from the start.

I still think it criminal that no attempt was made to protect children in schools once the importance of ventilation and air filtering was recognised. Looking at the money wasted on corrupt contracts and fraud it could have been far more usefully employed in installing air filters in schools and other educational establishments.

Abandoning masking and rudimentary ventilation was far too premature.

Hence, people were frantically quarantining their post and washing their shopping, but somehow it was alright to be in an enclosed space with people who could have been infected, as long as they were in your bubble (as if bubbles made people immune)^

People trusted the government and the scientists who said this was what was needed... 😒

When we have another pandemic it will be very difficult for the government to convince people that mitigating measures, whatever they may be and however well evidenced, are correct and necessary.

The appropriate member of the appropriate government department might ask the likes of Baroness Mone and co.: "what motivated you and your husband to mine enormous financial profit out of the panic and misery of the Pandemic by supplying vast amounts of defective PPE via using your connections to the Conservative party to obtain lucrative contracts? Or have I already answered that question?"

. . . the fact that even when airborne transmission was 'accepted' it took a long time for masking to be mandated. Whereas in Asian countries masking was common right from the start.
And the fact that the government in Asian countries had the control to enforce mask wearing.
The government here did not have the power to do that, nor were all the people willing to wear them, Declaring them unnecessary, or saying “you can’t make me wear one”.
Many Asian students at the local university, still wear masks both outdoors and on the buses.

People were always free to wear masks if they wanted to so I don’t understand the fuss about whether it was mandatory or not. Plus many people refused to wear masks anyway.

And the fact that the government in Asian countries had the control to enforce mask wearing.

As I understand it the Asian governments don't need the 'control' because masking is a common practice which people use when they have a respiratory disease.

It seems a measure of our British exceptionalism that the concept of voluntarily using a mitigation in order to protect fellow citizens has to be explained in the context of it being backed by oppressive government.

The trouble with saying that only the vulnerable should self-isolate and that the rest of society should carry on as usual is that large sections of the population were vulnerable. They included pregnant women, the obese, people with underlying disorders such as diabetes, and people from ethnic minorities who were dark-skinned. This would probably have been a large proportion of the working population. Also, workers in the NHS were exposed to large doses of the virus, as were transport workers, and some of them died. Wearing a mask isn't difficult for most of us. The UK lockdown was late, over-complicated and erratic. Clearly there had been no planning behind it.