Public Opinion on Lockdowns

[Bantamzen]

No they don't but a significant number do and would without treatment.

So are you saying no lockdowns or restrictions and let it rip?

I'll fully admit I thought Sweden had got it right but now I am very much against that view. You see, unlike some on here, I look at the evidence and decide what is the best course.

OK, whilst you are in change of mind mode, do you accept that viruses will spread regardless of political decision making? Because that is what happens in the real world, and has happened long before we were even a genetic mutation leading to our species (yes, ironic isn't it, we as a species came from the same mutation process we are now terrified of).

As for lockdowns, yes I say stop them now because they don't work. It should be blatantly obvious by know that the best they do is delay. But does that mean leaving the vulnerable to die, no. You skilfully evaded my point about the cost of restrictions, up to (and probably way beyond) £500 billion has been spent on restrictions that haven't worked. That's £500 billion that could have been spent on the NHS to get things right. And you claim to look at the evidence?

 

[sjpowermac]

If a comparison is made, it ought to be a valid comparison. Can you think of a good reason why I shouldn't challenge the population density argument that was made? If population density is being considered as a comparator (and it is only one factor out of many) then we need to look at the cities, surely?


I think the vast majority of people are negatively affected by lockdowns, though they may not realise it until it's too late.

Many people are able to cope, despite being negatively affected, but an alarming number of people are suffering poor mental & physical well-being, including a significant number of younger people, which I am very concerned about. Previously happy kids are becoming depressed. We don't know what the long term effects of lockdowns will be, but we should be worried. Why aren't the pro-lockdown people worried?

Those young people that are not suffering mentally tend to be those who enjoy playing online games, which is great for the short term, but it could be storing up all sorts of issues in the long term. Some parents report that their children don't want to go for a walk any more and it is a struggle to get them to leave the house. I am even aware of cases where children who do not have access to adequate provision for doing school work at home do not want to walk to their school to collect devices that have been made available for them.

It's rare for anyone who is pro-lockdown to recognise the harms caused by lockdowns, especially relating to the negative effects on young people.

Absolutely you should mention population density, it’s entirely reasonable. Unfortunately though we do then get other posters who want to disregard any number of other factors when comparing countries or states.

Regarding Sweden, one thing that I’ve genuinely never understood is why the focus just on population density. Surely the number of people living in each household is the more relevant statistic?

[in Swedenthe most common type of household, around 40 percent, was the single-person household without children, which amounted to around 1.9 million. The second most common household type was cohabiting or married couples living without children, in around 1.1 million households.

Sweden: number of households by type 2022 | Statista

The most common type of household in Sweden in 2022 was the single-person household without children, which amounted to two million.

www.statista.com

Wouldn’t that give them a baked in advantage compared with other countries?

I’m always happy to learn and indeed to revise my view, as indeed I already have done on several occasions and publicly so on these threads.

As an aside, what’s the prevalence in Sweden of people taking a walk with a scotch egg in their pocket? I feel it’s time we were told

 

[yorkie]

Wouldn’t that give them a baked in advantage compared with other countries?

I’m always happy to learn and indeed to revise my view, as indeed I already have done on several occasions and publicly so on these threads.

Maybe but it's skewed towards a lot of younger people living in single person households; again you have to look at where the virus is spreading. Sweden does have a significant immigrant population and you'll probably find, as in the UK, it will be spreading among those groups more readily.

Also bear in mind a lot of deaths occurred in care homes; I understand Sweden is relatively similar to the UK in terms of care home population, and also a lot of the carers that work in care homes are typically going to be living in denser housing than the average person.

It is very difficult to do exact comparisons, but the main point I wanted to make is that the existence of huge swathes of uninhabited countryside surrounding Swedish cities does not make any impact on the spread of the virus within those cities; therefore population density of the country is almost entirely irrelevant.

Really detailed analysis is probably beyond what either of us have the knowledge or tools to do.

 

[nedchester]

OK, whilst you are in change of mind mode, do you accept that viruses will spread regardless of political decision making? Because that is what happens in the real world, and has happened long before we were even a genetic mutation leading to our species (yes, ironic isn't it, we as a species came from the same mutation process we are now terrified of).

As for lockdowns, yes I say stop them now because they don't work. It should be blatantly obvious by know that the best they do is delay. But does that mean leaving the vulnerable to die, no. You skilfully evaded my point about the cost of restrictions, up to (and probably way beyond) £500 billion has been spent on restrictions that haven't worked. That's £500 billion that could have been spent on the NHS to get things right. And you claim to look at the evidence?

Yes, viruses will spread regardless of politics. It's why I am dubious of the Quarantine for the South African variant when it's already here.

However, if you can slow down the spread until an alternative is available then that's got to be the right thing to do. The alternative is the vaccine.

The cost of the lockdowns is eye watering and I am more than concerned about how we will pay for all this accepting though that this is a worldwide issue there could be some interesting economic thinking on this?

 

[scarby]

Sweden has a must lower population density for a start which reduces the spread.

But in Sweden we don't live all nicely spaced out at 25 people per sq/km - most people are concentrated in urban settlements. I can't see how vast areas of forest where no-one lives reduces the spread.

We're all doing it now because scientists have (correctly) informed us that there is literally no good alternative, the government have agreed, and there's now no other option but to quietly get on with it until things get better.

But there are other alternatives/options, as Sweden shows. How is the UK's a "good alternative/option" given the death rate and huge collateral damage?

Would this be the same Sweden that managed to fill 99% of its ICU capacity and where it was touch and go if they would need to call in medics from Norway and Denmark?

http://www.businessinsider.com/sweden-offered-urgent-coronavirus-help-by-neighbours-as-hospitals-fill-2020-12%3famp

When speaking of Sweden you have to overlook things like them having a high proportion of single inhabitant households.

Every article I've read on Business Insider has been "anti-Sweden" and that story was a distortion of the truth. Its available capacity was stretched at that moment but there was more available to be activated if needed. In any case, since that peak, hospitalisations have fallen due to the outbreak falling in line with Farr's Law of epidemics (what goes up must come down).

Most single inhabitants in Sweden don't live like hermits - they socialise both in and outside the home, the latter they can do as bars, cafes and restaurants are open. And the official recommendation to people living on their own is to meet a few close friends (as obviously socialising is a basic human need).

 

[yorkie]

However, if you can slow down the spread until an alternative is available then that's got to be the right thing to do. The alternative is the vaccine.

Agreed; this is exactly what Sweden is doing.

But in Sweden we don't live all nicely spaced out at 25 people per sq/km - most people are concentrated in urban settlements. I can't see how vast areas of forest where no-one lives reduces the spread.

But there are other alternatives/options, as Sweden shows. How is the UK's a "good alternative/option" given the death rate and huge collateral damage?


Every article I've read on Business Insider has been "anti-Sweden" and that story was a distortion of the truth. Its available capacity was stretched at that moment but there was more available to be activated if needed. In any case, since that peak, hospitalisations have fallen due to the outbreak falling in line with Farr's Law of epidemics (what goes up must come down).

Most single inhabitants in Sweden don't live like hermits - they socialise both in and outside the home, the latter they can do as bars, cafes and restaurants are open. And the official recommendation to people living on their own is to meet a few close friends (as obviously socialising is a basic human need).

Agreed; I was so glad I was able to visit Sweden (during the window of opportunity when it was not on the quarantine list) with two other forum members, and verify this for myself.

 

[sjpowermac]

Maybe but it's skewed towards a lot of younger people living in single person households; again you have to look at where the virus is spreading. Sweden does have a significant immigrant population and you'll probably find, as in the UK, it will be spreading among those groups more readily.

Also bear in mind a lot of deaths occurred in care homes; I understand Sweden is relatively similar to the UK in terms of care home population, and also a lot of the carers that work in care homes are typically going to be living in denser housing than the average person.

It is very difficult to do exact comparisons, but the main point I wanted to make is that the existence of huge swathes of uninhabited countryside surrounding Swedish cities does not make any impact on the spread of the virus within those cities; therefore population density of the country is almost entirely irrelevant.

Really detailed analysis is probably beyond what either of us have the knowledge or tools to do.

Many thanks indeed for your very honest reply. Would it be reasonable then to say that direct comparisons between the U.K. and Sweden are difficult to make?

It’s a genuine question since Sweden has so often been quoted as a shining example. I have to be honest and say I would much prefer the ‘sipping lattes in the park whilst unconcerned’ option!

But in Sweden we don't live all nicely spaced out at 25 people per sq/km - most people are concentrated in urban settlements. I can't see how vast areas of forest where no-one lives reduces the spread.


But there are other alternatives/options, as Sweden shows. How is the UK's a "good alternative/option" given the death rate and huge collateral damage?


Every article I've read on Business Insider has been "anti-Sweden" and that story was a distortion of the truth. Its available capacity was stretched at that moment but there was more available to be activated if needed. In any case, since that peak, hospitalisations have fallen due to the outbreak falling in line with Farr's Law of epidemics (what goes up must come down).

Most single inhabitants in Sweden don't live like hermits - they socialise both in and outside the home, the latter they can do as bars, cafes and restaurants are open. And the official recommendation to people living on their own is to meet a few close friends (as obviously socialising is a basic human need).

Earlier in the year you mentioned that most people in Sweden were going about their business unconcerned by the virus. Did that change at all as the second wave hit? Genuine question and just curious.

 

[yorksrob]

Sipping lattes in the park will have the same effect on transmission regardless of how densely a country is populated, household composition etc...

Therefore if it isn't causing a greater problem in Sweden, there's no reason not to do it here.

Sipping lattes in the park is just one of many probably minimal risk activities that are pointlessly discouraged under lockdown.

 

[DB]

Would it be reasonable then to say that direct comparisons between the U.K. and Sweden are difficult to make?

Comparisons between lockdown and no lockdown are not difficult to make though as there are enough examples of both to show that there is no overall benefit.

 

[Кряква]

Would it be reasonable then to say that direct comparisons between the U.K. and Sweden are difficult to make?

That depends on the error margin that you're willing to tolerate.

In general, we need to be mindful of the fact that epidemiology is very much an "orders of magnitude" science. We're not engineering bridges here, something as simple as whether a small village or major city gets hit first has enormous implications on the final health outcomes regardless of strategy.

I would go as far as to say that if Country A has twice the rates of Country B that this is close enough to be considered within margin of error (not of testing, but as an outcome that could be reasonably targeted).

 

[sjpowermac]

Sipping lattes in the park will have the same effect on transmission regardless of how densely a country is populated, household composition etc...

Therefore if it isn't causing a greater problem in Sweden, there's no reason not to do it here.

Sipping lattes in the park is just one of many probably minimal risk activities that are pointlessly discouraged under lockdown.

Completely agreed. As an aside, I sometimes catch the train to work and had some interesting responses recently when I posted a picture online. It would have to be quite some virus for me to have been a super spreader standing on an empty platform

 

[yorkie]

Many thanks indeed for your very honest reply. Would it be reasonable then to say that direct comparisons between the U.K. and Sweden are difficult to make?

Yes; it is always difficult for direct comparisons to be made with any country.

However we can look at other countries to see what measures did or didn't work for them; likewise if anyone (e.g. Prof Ferguson) creates a model to predict infections then the model can be applied (by altering the relevant parameters, as appropriate) to another country and indeed this was done for Sweden and the conclusion was that the model was flawed.

Based on the research I have made, certain measures appear to have a much bigger impact on reducing the spread than others. Full lockdowns have disproportionately negative effects without being much more effective than a more measured approach, such as closing the places where spread is more likely to occur.

For example I have been playing football at every opportunity between September and December with around 60 other people in total (around 12 to 18 on each occasion) as well as regularly going for walks with up to 5 other people throughout the 6 months or so that this was allowed, and none of these outdoor activities was linked with spread of the virus and yet these are now inexplicably banned.

I think some other countries have done things that have been shocking (e.g. Spain) while others have been sensible (e.g. Sweden) and I think we can learn from other countries, but the most challenging part of any comparison is when looking at death rates, as this is going to be so different between each country for so many reasons.

Anyone making comparisons needs to do so with care; one of the laziest comparisons is where people lump Sweden in with "other Nordic countries" with no understanding of how cities in Sweden differ so vastly from those in most other Nordic countries.

It’s a genuine question since Sweden has so often been quoted as a shining example. I have to be honest and say I would much prefer the ‘sipping lattes in the park whilst unconcerned’ option!

I would say that Sweden is a good example of taking it seriously but without going too far, thus protecting physical and mental wellbeing and avoiding too much harm to the economy.

I wouldn't say that Sweden and the people of Sweden are unconcerned but they are not so disproportionately concerned about Covid that other issues get ignored, which is the case with the UK strategy.

Completely agreed. As an aside, I sometimes catch the train to work and had some interesting responses recently when I posted a picture online. It would have to be quite some virus for me to have been a super spreader standing on an empty platform

Indeed; what bugs me with a lot of the UK restrictions - and where this differs to Sweden's approach - is that a lot of what we do is based on authoritarianism rather than any valid consideration of spread of the virus.

There is a lot of demonisation of public transport in the UK, which does not exist in Sweden.

 

[DB]

Completely agreed. As an aside, I sometimes catch the train to work and had some interesting responses recently when I posted a picture online. It would have to be quite some virus for me to have been a super spreader standing on an empty platform

That is the level of hysteria we have now - it has gone beyond any logic for some people.

 

[sjpowermac]

Comparisons between lockdown and no lockdown are not difficult to make though as there are enough examples of both to show that there is no overall benefit.

There were many posts where Sweden was portrayed as being similar to the U.K. I was merely trying to find out if household occupancy is something that’s relevant.

I make no representation as to the effectiveness of lockdowns or otherwise.

 

[yorkie]

That is the level of hysteria we have now - it has gone beyond any logic for some people.

Exactly. It appears that in the UK there is a culture of if anyone takes a photo outdoors, they seem to have to justify what they were doing.

This is exists partly because of hysteria, misunderstandings and a campaign of scaring people, and also partly due to the imposition of draconian laws which makes it illegal for us to be out of our homes without a ''reasonable excuse''; taking photos is not in itself a reasonable excuse so we have to have another reason to be out, but while doing so we are able to take photos. This results in people questioning others as to their valid reason, which is not a healthy situation to be in.

I therefore would much rather we were in a Tier 3 situation where at least we would not have people constantly demanding to know why we are not inside our homes!

There were many posts where Sweden was portrayed as being similar to the U.K. I was merely trying to find out if household occupancy is something that’s relevant.

I make no representation as to the effectiveness of lockdowns or otherwise.

I'd say that Swedish cities are not that dissimilar to UK cities in the grand scheme of things.

 

[sjpowermac]

That is the level of hysteria we have now - it has gone beyond any logic for some people.

Indeed so. At last, we agree on something! The picture was of one of those rare occasions where a 68 runs for more than an hour without devastating the network

 

[Yew]

Absolutely you should mention population density, it’s entirely reasonable. Unfortunately though we do then get other posters who want to disregard any number of other factors when comparing countries or states.

Of course we should, but equally we need to consider this in more detail; for example if we added a million square miles of empty nothingness to the UK, where nobody went or lived; it would effect our population density, but wouldn't make any appreciable effect on transmission. Therefore we need to also weight for where people actually live, rather than looking at coarse values as if they are the be all and end all.

 

[scarby]

Earlier in the year you mentioned that most people in Sweden were going about their business unconcerned by the virus. Did that change at all as the second wave hit? Genuine question and just curious.

Of course, it’s a good question.

Last April it was very quiet in shops and bars, etc. People were scared and uncertain.

Once it became clear that for most people they weren’t going to die or end up in hospital, and at the same time the outbreak diminished, people largely went back to normal while mostly following social distancing recommendations.

Since then I would say it’s broadly stayed the same. That is almost certainly why the authorities felt compelled to introduce harder restrictions in the late autumn.

Note that while people do “go about their business” most are reasonably good at following recommendations.

 

[Cdd89]

However, if you can slow down the spread until an alternative is available then that's got to be the right thing to do. The alternative is the vaccine.

Here’s the thing: there are two types of restrictions being used in the U.K. right now.

The former are on businesses, restricting activities, stopping large gatherings and so on. I may not personally agree with them but I accept there is a time and a place for them and that reasonable minds may differ.

The latter are trying to control individuals’ basic freedoms. I cannot view it as acceptable to tell healthy people that they cannot leave the house or else. That is as fundamental as freedoms get.

People make out like the second category is common but it’s actually not - a lot of places do not have a “stay at home” mandate like we do, and instead simply try to remove the reasons why people would leave home. There is reason why the constitutions of many counties forbid it.

Normally with the law, “everything is legal except (a list of things you can’t do)”. But currently we are in a situation where “everything is illegal except”. However wide those “excepts” may be, that is frankly a dangerous place to be. And many of those “excepts” are not concrete and provable things, and are certainly not evident to an outside observer.

So even if you are OK with that, how is it to be enforced? The obvious answer is you need random police questioning and judgments about the excuse provided for being out of the house - with all the usual police biases at play, and in the knowledge the next police officer you encounter could be a power-mad authoritarian.

Even if you are OK with businesses being closed and activities being restricted, I hope you’ll reconsider the “stay at home” aspect. It’s fine for that to be guidance, but make it law (and make the police enforce the law) and you end up with a police state. I’m amazed anyone wants that, for what is at best a minimal benefit compared to countries that didn’t make that fundamental right illegal.

 

[island]

Absolutely. My bank branch in the town has slimmed its hours down to almost a bare minimum. Now okay there *may* well be logistical issues why this is necessary, who knows. But then they are closing branches in the area claiming footfall has evaporated. Well of course footfall has evaporated when no one can get in the flaming place.

In branch banking, it is quite a mixed bag. Many branches are rather old buildings and the staff areas are not conducive to social distancing. In addition, anti-fraud processes such as double-counting of cash can take considerably longer whilst observing CovidSecure rules.

In other cases, changes to service can be driven by limits on staff availability. This can take the form of unavailability of childcare which might have bridged the gaps for an hour or two morning and evening, meaning the staff member can now only do a 9:30-3:30 day whilst the kids are at school. That means the bank only opens (at best) 10am-3pm, allowing for time spent cashing up.

In still other cases, staff on self-isolation, rules on “pods” prohibiting branches from sharing staff, difficulties recruiting and training new staff, Spanish practices, and the availability of suitable protective equipment in the branches have contributed.

But yes, it could just be cost-cutting due to (real or perceived) reduced demand. The bank I worked at at the time, Metro Bank, cut its hours by more than 50% at the peak of the lockdown last year, going from 8-8 Monday to Friday, 8-6 Saturday and 11-5 Sunday to 10-4 Monday to Friday. But that was predominantly to be able to run the branch on a single shift.

So are you saying no lockdowns or restrictions and let it rip?

I am very tired of this locktivist argument that easing restrictions to a proportionate level is “letting it rip”. The selection of words is deliberate and aimed at moving the argument from the rational, which locktivists cannot win, to the emotional, which they can.

 

[sjpowermac]

Of course we should, but equally we need to consider this in more detail; for example if we added a million square miles of empty nothingness to the UK, where nobody went or lived; it would effect our population density, but wouldn't make any appreciable effect on transmission. Therefore we need to also weight for where people actually live, rather than looking at coarse values as if they are the be all and end all.

Which was exactly my point about looking at how many people live in each household, and which appeared to have been accepted as a valid point.

Of course, it’s a good question.

Last April it was very quiet in shops and bars, etc. People were scared and uncertain.

Once it became clear that for most people they weren’t going to die or end up in hospital, and at the same time the outbreak diminished, people largely went back to normal while mostly following social distancing recommendations.

Since then I would say it’s broadly stayed the same. That is almost certainly why the authorities felt compelled to introduce harder restrictions in the late autumn.

Note that while people do “go about their business” most are reasonably good at following recommendations.

Many thanks for the reply. I would say that in my own personal experience (others may have different) the U.K. has been broadly similar.

Yes, our restrictions until the summer resulted in many places being closed, but once the coffee shops and restaurants reopened they appeared to be well supported.

Unlike the impression that you might have gained from some of the threads, there were no mask vigilantes waiting around each corner!

The press seem to indicate that in Sweden public opinion has turned against the ‘light touch’ approach. Whilst it’s difficult for an individual to say in general, have you noticed any of this yourself?

 

[greyman42]

I've not seen any stats, but I wonder whether there is a notable difference in view between those who can work at home / are furloughed, and those whose job means that some or all of the time they are having to attend a workplace?

Or those who have already lost their jobs.

I’m less sure about furlough (whilst people loved it when it first came in, I get the feeling some are feeling the 80% as well as worrying for the future), however I can categorically say that the work from homes in my town are absolutely relishing it. Facebook is absolutely oozing with people who can be seen banging on with the same old stuff about how workplaces are a death-trap and how we must lock down until this is eliminated.

Yet many of these people take very little notice of lockdown rules and will take even less notice as the weather gets better. For example; Bournemouth beach.

Absolutely. My bank branch in the town has slimmed its hours down to almost a bare minimum. Now okay there *may* well be logistical issues why this is necessary, who knows. But then they are closing branches in the area claiming footfall has evaporated. Well of course footfall has evaporated when no one can get in the flaming place.

I recently switched banks because of poor service and let them know this. If others do then banks may think twice. I appreciate that some people may have limited options.

There is absolutely a balance to be made between the Covid virus itself and other factors like mental health and economic effects but it is a exactly that.

As far as i can see no balance is being made.

 

[Mag_seven]

I am very tired of this locktivist argument that easing restrictions to a proportionate level is “letting it rip”. The selection of words is deliberate and aimed at moving the argument from the rational, which locktivists cannot win, to the emotional, which they can.

Yet the loctivists are quite happy to let mental health issues and delayed cancer referrals etc "let rip".

 

[bramling]

Exactly. It appears that in the UK there is a culture of if anyone takes a photo outdoors, they seem to have to justify what they were doing.

This is exists partly because of hysteria, misunderstandings and a campaign of scaring people, and also partly due to the imposition of draconian laws which makes it illegal for us to be out of our homes without a ''reasonable excuse''; taking photos is not in itself a reasonable excuse so we have to have another reason to be out, but while doing so we are able to take photos. This results in people questioning others as to their valid reason, which is not a healthy situation to be in.

I therefore would much rather we were in a Tier 3 situation where at least we would not have people constantly demanding to know why we are not inside our homes!

This is going to be one of the issues going forward, people taking an unhealthy interest in what others are doing. Living in that sort of society is not healthy.

It’s ironic that some people claim to be so terrified of “the virus”, yet are more than happy to approach others closely to question their behaviour. Like so many elements of this, nefarious agendas mixed with a dose of hypocrisy.

 

[nedchester]

Yet the loctivists are quite happy to let mental health issues and delayed cancer referrals etc "let rip".

But are they? I am not happy about the lockdown but don't see there is much alternative at this current time. The reality is that we have to deal with Covid, Cancers and Mental Health issues. At certain time in recent weeks it has been difficult to contain all three (actually there's more than three). The problem with Covid is that it presents itself for immediate treatment unlike cancer which doesn't (sadly of course if you leave it too long the consequences are fatal) and mental health.

I seem to be getting the impression, rightly or wrongly, that we shouldn't have a lockdown and deal with Covid patients as they come. The problem with that is that almost certainly there would be a massive increase in Covid cases making it more difficult for the NHS and Mental Health services to cope.

Oh and in case people think I am happy to dismiss the other issue I am currently dealing with a close relative who has suffered difficulties as a direct result of lockdown.

I know for certain that when Covid is history the effects from this time will last for decades. I am also sure that there will be studies of what is or is not the best way to deal with a pandemic for next time it happens (and it will)

 

[Кряква]

But are they? I am not happy about the lockdown but don't see there is much alternative at this current time. The reality is that we have to deal with Covid, Cancers and Mental Health issues. At certain time in recent weeks it has been difficult to contain all three (actually there's more than three). The problem with Covid is that it presents itself for immediate treatment unlike cancer which doesn't (sadly of course if you leave it too long the consequences are fatal) and mental health.

I seem to be getting the impression, rightly or wrongly, that we shouldn't have a lockdown and deal with Covid patients as they come. The problem with that is that almost certainly there would be a massive increase in Covid cases making it more difficult for the NHS and Mental Health services to cope.

Oh and in case people think I am happy to dismiss the other issue I am currently dealing with a close relative who has suffered difficulties as a direct result of lockdown.

I know for certain that when Covid is history the effects from this time will last for decades. I am also sure that there will be studies of what is or is not the best way to deal with a pandemic for next time it happens (and it will)

Why not just let me take care of my mental health, as I allow you to take care of your physical health?

 

[yorkie]

But are they?

Many are.

If I recall correctly you want some opening up from mid March, is that correct? If so that puts you firmly at odds with many of the pro-lockdown brigade who want the lockdown to be even tougher and/or last much longer than that; as things stand you'll therefore be switching sides in 5 or 6 weeks time...

 

[nedchester]

Many are.

If I recall correctly you want some opening up from mid March, is that correct? If so that puts you firmly at odds with many of the pro-lockdown brigade who want the lockdown to be even tougher and/or last much longer than that; as things stand you'll therefore be switching sides in 5 or 6 weeks time...

Yes, opening up from mid-March if the current progress with vaccination continues. I am certainly NOT part of the pro-lockdown brigade, don't want it tougher or last longer. I just feel that at certain times there is little other alternative.

Maybe I'm unique in not sitting in one camp or another but seeing the middle ground that has to be tread for this.

 

[DB]

I seem to be getting the impression, rightly or wrongly, that we shouldn't have a lockdown and deal with Covid patients as they come. The problem with that is that almost certainly there would be a massive increase in Covid cases making it more difficult for the NHS and Mental Health services to cope.

As has been pointed out here, with stats, there is no evidence that lockdowns actually make any difference. You are still pushing the argument that lockdown = fewer cases, which just isn't supported by the evidence.

Less intrusive, targeted measures would likely be no less effective while not causing the massive damage which these lockdowns have done and are doing.

 

[yorkie]

Yes, opening up from mid-March if the current progress with vaccination continues. I am certainly NOT part of the pro-lockdown brigade, don't want it tougher or last longer. I just feel that at certain times there is little other alternative.

Maybe I'm unique in not sitting in one camp or another but seeing the middle ground that has to be tread for this.

I actually think I'm in the middle camp of wanting proportionate reasonable restrictions rather than a full lockdown; looking beyond the UK that accounts for what appears to be the majority of countries.

The harsher the restrictions, the fewer benefits (in terms of reduced cases) but the greater the harms to society.

Anyway I look forward to being in agreement with you in a few weeks time