Lockdown effects now killing/harming more people than Covid

[MikeWM]

The country, and the WHO, had a perfectly acceptable template for any outbreak - it was the total opposite of the actions taken, years of planning and research were discarded in a moment. So the debate, imo, is the next time, we should use the plan which had been in place for years and most importantly would have been far less damaging.

Absolutely so. And instead the things we did, rather mysteriously, decide to do (almost every country, simultaneously) were things that had been considered as part of those plans and rejected as both ineffective and damaging. No evidence was ever presented as to why the measures previously decided upon were now a bad thing to do, or the measures previously rejected were now a good thing to do. (Because there wasn't any such evidence to present).

Until there is widespread agreement about this then the next time a similar thing happens - and we all agree that there will be a next time - then we are very likely to make all the same terrible mistakes again. That cannot be allowed to happen.

All we on the 'lockdown sceptic' side are asking is for is to *actually* 'follow the science' and reject measures that were previously rejected for failing in theory, and we now clearly see they fail in practice too. But for that we are told - even now, by one of the main newspapers in the country - that we are aiding the 'paranoid pretence of the libertarian right'. That's why discussions like this are very necessary, and probably will continue to be necessary for some considerable time to come.

I think we also need to have realistic expectations as a population. Expecting the government to be able to somehow 'control' a respiratory virus is downright foolhardy; our ancestors knew better. A disease like this being something politicians 'need' to deal with is a very modern idea, and a very poor one. Try to look back at the political debates over the Spanish flu, the Asian flu or the Hong Kong flu, and actually you'll have great trouble, as they were barely mentioned as political issues at all. (For example, compare the Hansards from the time and see how little attention they get, it is terribly hard to find anything at all).

We shouldn't be demanding that the government save us from a respiratory virus, because to be blunt they can't. Equally they should be honest with us about that and tell us so, and instead try to get on top of problems they can affect and should be addressing.

 

[Eyersey468]

Absolutely so. And instead the things we did, rather mysteriously, decide to do (almost every country, simultaneously) were things that had been considered as part of those plans and rejected as both ineffective and damaging. No evidence was ever presented as to why the measures previously decided upon were now a bad thing to do, or the measures previously rejected were now a good thing to do. (Because there wasn't any such evidence to present).

Until there is widespread agreement about this then the next time a similar thing happens - and we all agree that there will be a next time - then we are very likely to make all the same terrible mistakes again. That cannot be allowed to happen.

All we on the 'lockdown sceptic' side are asking is for is to *actually* 'follow the science' and reject measures that were previously rejected for failing in theory, and we now clearly see they fail in practice too. But for that we are told - even now, by one of the main newspapers in the country - that we are aiding the 'paranoid pretence of the libertarian right'. That's why discussions like this are very necessary, and probably will continue to be necessary for some considerable time to come.

I think we also need to have realistic expectations as a population. Expecting the government to be able to somehow 'control' a respiratory virus is downright foolhardy; our ancestors knew better. A disease like this being something politicians 'need' to deal with is a very modern idea, and a very poor one. Try to look back at the political debates over the Spanish flu, the Asian flu or the Hong Kong flu, and actually you'll have great trouble, as they were barely mentioned as political issues at all. (For example, compare the Hansards from the time and see how little attention they get, it is terribly hard to find anything at all).

We shouldn't be demanding that the government save us from a respiratory virus, because to be blunt they can't. Equally they should be honest with us about that and tell us so, and instead try to get on top of problems they can affect and should be addressing.

I agree with all of this

 

[DerekC]

Because there may well be some truth to it? Part of critical thinking, which large elements of the population seem to completely lack, is considering what hidden or underlying motives might be behind something.

To give an unrelated example, it’s often stated that political parties ensure they look after the grey vote, and we know that is because older people tend to be more likely to get out and vote.

It certainly isn’t unreasonable to consider what vested interests key players might have had, either in terms of their political / social views, or their own vested monetary or business interests. In fact, we’d be remiss not to, especially given how far-reaching the consequences of all this have been, and how rushed everything was at the time. I don’t think anyone would argue with the point that there was very little scrutiny at the time, so some retrospective scrutiny certainly isn’t a bad thing.

Seems pretty reasonable to me.

Maybe, but as an engineer I have to ascertain the facts and diagnose the problem before coming up with a plan to fix it, let alone try to work out the motives of the people who caused it in the first place. The problem is that we seem to be dividing ourselves into tribes with opposite opinions on whether what was done was "right" or "wrong" overall. In common with everything else the least bit complicated, some aspects will have been right, some will have been the best that could be done at the time, some will have been good in some respects but counterproductive in others, some will have had major adverse consequences. What is needed is a proper analysis of the whole thing.

Oh yes, I forgot - we are having one, led by Baroness Heather Hackett. Now there's a good subject for a thread - following it from terms of reference (now published) to final report (the inquiry website seems silent as to when that will be).

The country, and the WHO, had a perfectly acceptable template for any outbreak - it was the total opposite of the actions taken, years of planning and research were discarded in a moment. So the debate, imo, is the next time, we should use the plan which had been in place for years and most importantly would have been far less damaging.

Every year there is a a respiratory virus outbreak, with high number of deaths, with no action taken (quite correctly in my opinion), the discussions should be to ensure lockdowns and restrictions never happen again for a virus with such a minimal IFR. Even for viruses such as Ebola, with considerable higher IFR, there were processes in place to ensure only those infected were isolated, healthy people were not locked down.

It will be interesting to see what comes out of the Hackett Inquiry (see above). Module 1 is about preparedness.

 

[kez19]

I have always wanted to avoid the left v right politics of the media, but I do think the media's almost worshipping of SAGE was to get at the Tories - the reason being the restrictions and the heavy had of government controlling peoples lives is the antithesis of a Tory "small" government narrative.

Yet the irony even for the media perspective they too broke rules at the time or on the other it was ok for one but not us.

ie Kay Burley Beth Rigby partied possibly with cake (suspended), but back on TV

Piers Morgan jetting off at Christmas 2020(?), I may have this one wrong but I’m sure no one was allowed but he went, it seems even the rules in general seeped through as it was taking us the public as mugs whilst those in media/politics were able to do as they please.

 

[Stephen42]

It could do that in private without its members making announcements to the press every five minutes.

SAGE minutes are the agreed consensus, preventing members making announcements to the media mean those who disagree with the consensus either have to not participate or not have any way of representing their views. Agree that the structure and scope of the advice could be improved, but simply banning media comments isn't the answer. Including every dissenting voice may make the advice harder to act upon.

Read the SAGE minutes which have been published, those who say they have no power are wrong, they were driving the narrative. It was not the PM who came up with the "death" figures, it was various members of SAGE. They may have "advised" the government, I would suggest it was more a case of them saying "we are the experts, this is going to happen, are you really going to not follow our advice". SAGE should never have existed, Neil Ferguson should never have been involved (his modelling had always been wrong), no decision should ever have been made without a cost and risk analysis, Hancock should never have been allowed near the health department, I could go on!

The decisions made were wrong from the very beginning and the damage was just compounded as time went on, too many people were (are) enjoying being in the spotlight and the majority of them will never hold up their hands and admit they over reacted.

The IFR was know very early on, it was totally ignored. Even as time went on, not once did they think of saying "ok it was never as bad as we anticipated", instead more restrictions were instigated including the ludicrous mask mandate, the dystopian mandatory vaccines and passports, and the constant printing of money which has bankrupted the country. The government would never have come up with all the plans had it not been for SAGE.

SAGE existed before the pandemic and is mentioned in the previous pandemic plans. While the modelling was of varying quality, a fair amount of the criticism has also been of variable quality. Given the IFR changes both over time and depending on the population there isn't a single number, the numbers used doesn't seem to be the issue with the initial models.

Whilst I agree with you in so far as we should be having a constructive debate, it’s difficult when certain people won’t accept that they got it (or indeed anything) wrong. I understand why they can’t, but it’s not helpful at all.

In regard to the thread title, it’s simply what the evidence shows. Yes it’s a “loaded” statement but it’s also an accurate one.

The numbers are about the excess deaths related to the pandemic response, it's a mix of factors of which lockdowns are one. Policy changes such as increased infection control measures in hospitals and remote appointments would have contributed but they may have happened under the normal response given the increased vulnerability of many in those environments. The NHS staffing crisis constrains the amount of activity possible (workforce vacancies were high even before the pandemic) and covid increases the amount of activity required.

The prior pandemic plans involved accepting a high number of deaths to try to keep life as normal as possible. For example planning exercises on dealing with the excess mortality involved consideration of mass burials to cope. The 'escalation phase' includes "Hospitals can only provide emergency services" with public messaging of "Explanation of triage systems to align demand and capacity" which would be more extreme with higher case numbers. The 'recovery phase' in particular is appropriate here:

Health and social care services may experience persistent secondary effects for some time, with increased demand for continuing care from:
• Patients whose existing illnesses have been exacerbated by influenza.
• Those who may continue to suffer potential medium or long-term health complications.
• A backlog of work resulting from the postponement of treatment for less urgent conditions.
• Possible increased demand for services through post-pandemic seasonal influenza.

The reintroduction of “business as usual“ also needs to recognise that there may be reduced access to skilled staff and their experience. Many staff will have been working under acute pressure for prolonged periods and are likely to require rest and continuing support. Facilities, essential supplies, and medicines may also be depleted. Re-supply difficulties might persist and critical physical assets are likely to be in need of backlog maintenance, refurbishment or replacement.

Pandemics require difficult choices (again from the prior pandemic strategy), obviously lockdowns had negative effects, but following the prior pandemic plans wouldn't eliminate the non-pandemic excess deaths and possibly not even reduce them.

 

[Hans]

"Following the prior pandemic plans would not have eliminated the non pandemic excess deaths and possibly not reduce them" - I totally disagree with that statement, the hospitals were empty during lockdown, the majority of health provision, both GP's and hospitals was stopped. The, predominantly elderly, who were removed from hospitals to care homes, those people who died in the care homes and/or from not being treated in hospitals would most certainly not have died if the lockdowns had not taken place. The hospitals were nearly empty for over 2 years. In my opinion, following the pre covid pandemic plans would have resulted in less deaths. In addition, all those deaths notified as covid, were not actually covid deaths they were deaths from other causes, the people just happened to test positive for a coronavirus. Remember initially deaths were counted as being from covid if a positive test was received 60 days or less before death. It was only changed to 28 days after lobbying from some Tory MP's.

The hospitals would have been no more busy than a normal winter respiratory virus season, less staff would have been off work as they would not be testing continuously and isolating with a "deadly virus with no symptoms".

 

[Eyersey468]

I still haven't seen a proper explanation from the authorities why we threw away existing pandemic plans, I don't suppose they ever will answer that

 

[Busaholic]

I still haven't seen a proper explanation from the authorities why we threw away existing pandemic plans, I don't suppose they ever will answer that

Because it enabled a lot of what were once called spivs and wide boys with curious links to Tory politicians and donors to make riches beyond the dreams of Croesus himself? Not a penny would have gone to any of them directly, of course, no sirree. Wrongdoing? A preposterous idea, you should be horsewhipped for even suggesting it!!

 

[yorksrob]

I just think that they were drawn in by what other countries were doing, and what the media was egging on.

If you think back to the week before the first lockdown, the Government seemed to be persuing a lighter touch version of social distancing. Yes, there was a big flaw in that they were telling people not to use businesses and not compensating them.

Ultimately, Sweden had the guts to follow their existing pandemic planning, and frankly they haven't done badly by comparison.

 

[HullRailMan]

I still haven't seen a proper explanation from the authorities why we threw away existing pandemic plans, I don't suppose they ever will answer that

Exactly this. However, don’t be fooled by those who simply default to blaming ‘Tory corruption’. As has already been pointed out, the most restriction friendly parts of the UK are run by our left leaning friends. Perhaps it was an opportunity to profit for some, and a grab for state control by others. Either way I can tell from my day job that there are still plenty of folks out there who are still literally terrified to venture far from home because they believe they will die from a deadly virus. The over use and weaponising of fear has been the most sickening part of this whole sordid episode.

If you're looking for impartiality it certainly won't be found on GB News.

Yes, you’ll find presenters with opinions on GB News, but you’ll also hear from voices on all sides of the debate. That’s certainly something you don’t get on the BBC, Sky etc. where there is most definitely an ‘acceptable’ narrative put forward.

 

[Bikeman78]

Yet another thread about Covid where the title tells you what sort of views will be expressed. We should be having a constructive debate about what do do next time (because there will be a next time), not talking about "government having caved in to the left", "SAGE having dictated the agenda" and that people who thought (and still think) that lockdown was a necessary evil "can never be forgiven". Why do we have to treat the whole thing with this level of divisiveness?

My plan will be the same as this time round: get on with life. If it kills me, so be it. Something gets us all in the end. There's no point trying to hide from a virus, it will get to everyone sooner or later.

 

[Stephen42]

"Following the prior pandemic plans would not have eliminated the non pandemic excess deaths and possibly not reduce them" - I totally disagree with that statement, the hospitals were empty during lockdown, the majority of health provision, both GP's and hospitals was stopped. The, predominantly elderly, who were removed from hospitals to care homes, those people who died in the care homes and/or from not being treated in hospitals would most certainly not have died if the lockdowns had not taken place. The hospitals were nearly empty for over 2 years. In my opinion, following the pre covid pandemic plans would have resulted in less deaths. In addition, all those deaths notified as covid, were not actually covid deaths they were deaths from other causes, the people just happened to test positive for a coronavirus. Remember initially deaths were counted as being from covid if a positive test was received 60 days or less before death. It was only changed to 28 days after lobbying from some Tory MP's.

The hospitals would have been no more busy than a normal winter respiratory virus season, less staff would have been off work as they would not be testing continuously and isolating with a "deadly virus with no symptoms".

On what basis are claiming that hospitals were empty for 2 years? The data on bed occupancy disagrees with any reasonable definition of nearly empty. Again that's conflating lockdown with policy decisions driven by capacity constraints and lack of available data on pandemic trends during the initial peak. The prior pandemic plans did contain paragraphs of similar measures based on capacity constraints:

• Maximising the use of capacity remains the responsibility of local health organisations. In severe circumstances, it will not be possible to continue “business as usual” activities and an escalating series of actions to reduce non-essential activity will be required in order to prevent service failure.
• In more severe circumstances, it may be necessary to prioritise access to some services in an ethically appropriate way. The provision of the best available alternative care in situations of extreme demand will be an important part of the response, as will professional support and close discussion with families.

Initially deaths were counted by two mechanisms, one of deaths with a positive covid test and the other from ONS death certificate records. ONS death certifications include the casual chain and contributory conditions, there is no time limit on that (or a requirement for a positive test for those who couldn't be tested).

The death with positive covid test measure was designed to be more timely by omitting the need for the death to have been registered. Initially it didn't have a time limit, partially due to complexities in measurement and the WHO not having guidance for the appropriate time frame. The 28 day/60 day measures started being reported on the same date and the 28 day was always preferred.

That hospitals would have been no more busy than a normal winter respiratory virus season is also not supported by data. Critical care admissions for pneumonia with confirmed covid show a huge disparity between a standard year and periods within 2020 and early 2021. It's only after Omicron where total levels fall back to roughly the same as the pre-pandemic years.

 

[bramling]

Maybe, but as an engineer I have to ascertain the facts and diagnose the problem before coming up with a plan to fix it, let alone try to work out the motives of the people who caused it in the first place.

But politics isn’t engineering, is it? Even if “the science” was producing a completely unequivocal opinion (which it wasn’t), it would still be for politicians to make judgement calls. As a general rule we don’t elect politicians based on their engineering or scientific expertise, perhaps if we did we might have a better calibre in there. In fact, making people laugh seems to be a pretty good qualification nowadays, sadly.

I do agree with the point about tribes though. Some, especially elements of the harder left, have sought to play this in support of their own political ideology, which brings us back to the subject of vested or hidden interests and motives. I’ve no doubt whatsoever that Sturgeon was hoping to play politics with it (“we could have eliminated Covid in Scotland if it wasn’t for the pesky English / Westminster Tories, now remember this when we manage to get our next independence referendum”), though this fell by the wayside when Scotland tended to fare *worse* than England!

As an aside, the ability to see vested and hidden interests in others is something which tends to increase as people get older, simply through acquiring more life experience as years pass, though better education will undoubtedly give a head start. Why do we think politicians like Sturgeon target their message towards young people?

 

[nw1]

Many GPs don't seem to want to see patients any more and patients either no longer feel welcome to visit GPs or (in some cases) have been scared away or it's just been made too difficult for them.

This really is disgraceful (and agrees with my experience). Are they still paranoid of Covid or is it something else, e.g. not being given enough financial support by the government?

 

[DustyBin]

The numbers are about the excess deaths related to the pandemic response, it's a mix of factors of which lockdowns are one.

I strongly suspect that lockdowns are the most significant factor. The unintended consequences are far reaching and will persist for some time yet.

It’s worth pointing out that the definition of “lockdown” in this context is a little unclear. Perhaps “lockdowns and other restrictions” would be a better description (and would capture some of the NHS policy changes you refer to below).

Policy changes such as increased infection control measures in hospitals and remote appointments would have contributed but they may have happened under the normal response given the increased vulnerability of many in those environments. The NHS staffing crisis constrains the amount of activity possible (workforce vacancies were high even before the pandemic) and covid increases the amount of activity required.

There are two key points here in my opinion.

Firstly, hospitals largely failed to prevent the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 among patients. They were either attempting the impossible, or got it wrong (probably a bit of both) so there are lessons to be learned.

Secondly, not all departments in all hospitals were overwhelmed, or even particularly busy during each wave of infections.

I think we need to see a cost-benefit analysis in regard to these policy changes. I’m not convinced they did much to protect the vulnerable but they certainly put a large number of the non-vulnerable in harms way.

The prior pandemic plans involved accepting a high number of deaths to try to keep life as normal as possible. For example planning exercises on dealing with the excess mortality involved consideration of mass burials to cope. The 'escalation phase' includes "Hospitals can only provide emergency services" with public messaging of "Explanation of triage systems to align demand and capacity" which would be more extreme with higher case numbers. The 'recovery phase' in particular is appropriate here:

Forgive me for stating the obvious, but we accepted a high number of deaths. We also abandoned normality so there’s a good argument that we got the worst of both worlds. Lockdown advocates often claim that it would have been so much worse without them, but can’t substantiate their claim. In fact the evidence we have suggests otherwise. There was also of course the option of targeted measures; it didn’t necessarily have to be all or nothing.

What was the IFR of the hypothetical pandemic on which these plans were based? I don’t know the answer but I’ll hazard a guess that it was higher than that of covid. I also suspect that it wasn’t so discriminatory, which would have made the original response even more appropriate to the actual situation in which we found ourselves.

Pandemics require difficult choices (again from the prior pandemic strategy), obviously lockdowns had negative effects, but following the prior pandemic plans wouldn't eliminate the non-pandemic excess deaths and possibly not even reduce them.

The choices are difficult but we made the wrong ones for a variety of reasons.

I don’t think anybody is claiming that had we followed the prior plan there would be no non-pandemic excess deaths, but I don’t believe we’d be seeing the current levels had we not been through the second and third lockdowns in particular.

 

[nw1]

Perhaps the narrative is collapsing. Perhaps not. Perhaps it is being 'allowed' to now that we have vast numbers of other crises to keep the fear going in the general population.

Either way The Guardian has a reliably terrible take on the situation - an editorial no less, so the 'official view' of the paper:

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...-guardian-view-on-rishi-sunak-a-claim-too-far

I am no fan of Sunak in all honesty (though he's definitely the better of the two possibilities to replace Johnson), but I think his "Eat Out to Help Out" initiative was one of his better ideas. It helped the hospitality economy a little bit during a lull. Speaking as a fervent opponent of the Tories, I think it is unfair to attack Sunak over this and claim that it was somehow a significant cause of Covid numbers then rising again. There are plenty of things to attack Sunak about should you desire, but this is not one of them.

It's a shame this Guardian piece is still pushing a pro-lockdown line. The effects of lockdown were arguably one of the causes of the current economic crisis: not the only cause (I won't mention the B-word) but certainly one of them. As a left-leaning paper it ought to be realising this; there are many good left-wing reasons for opposing over-long and over-harsh lockdowns and the authoritarianism that accompanied them. It's a mystery to me why so many people on the so-called left were pursuing the lockdown line.

Many of us are horrified by Truss in particular, and want a left-leaning government in, and it doesn't make a left-leaning paper look good to refuse to argue that lockdown had very significant problems.

 

[DustyBin]

I am no fan of Sunak in all honesty (though he's definitely the better of the two possibilities to replace Johnson), but I think his "Eat Out to Help Out" initiative was one of his better ideas. It helped the hospitality economy a little bit during a lull. Speaking as a fervent opponent of the Tories, I think it is unfair to attack Sunak over this and claim that it was somehow a significant cause of Covid numbers then rising again. There are plenty of things to attack Sunak about should you desire, but this is not one of them.

It's a shame this Guardian piece is still pushing a pro-lockdown line. The effects of lockdown were arguably one of the causes of the current economic crisis: not the only cause (I won't mention the B-word) but certainly one of them. As a left-leaning paper it ought to be realising this; there are many good left-wing reasons for opposing over-long and over-harsh lockdowns and the authoritarianism that accompanied them. It's a mystery to me why so many people on the so-called left were pursuing the lockdown line.

Many of us are horrified by Truss in particular, and want a left-leaning government in, and it doesn't make a left-leaning paper look good to refuse to argue that lockdown had very significant problems.

Some of the left wing lockdown advocates wanted to “end capitalism” and to hell with the consequences for the rest of us. I think others are simply authoritarian and see it as the government’s duty to interfere in our everyday lives (even if it’s a Tory government).

I agree with you about eat out to help out, it was a much needed boost for an industry which had been decimated by Covid restrictions.

I also agree with you in regard to Truss, even though I’m pretty right leaning. I fear she may be a complete nutter!

 

[bramling]

Some of the left wing lockdown advocates wanted to “end capitalism” and to hell with the consequences for the rest of us. I think others are simply authoritarian and see it as the government’s duty to interfere in our everyday lives (even if it’s a Tory government).

I agree with you about eat out to help out, it was a much needed boost for an industry which had been decimated by Covid restrictions.

I also agree with you in regard to Truss, even though I’m pretty right leaning. I fear she may be a complete nutter!

I can’t say Truss fills me with enthusiasm, nor Sunak for that matter. If I were a Conservative member I’d probably be voting for Truss over Sunak, albeit with a very deep breath indeed.

As has been said on here many times, we have a serious problem with lack of leadership talent in this country, which is how we ended up with Johnson, and the current pair of poor replacements. I do think Johnson had to go come what may though, whatever one thinks of Truss she will have to try very hard to sink lower than Johnson in terms of ethical standards.

 

[MikeWM]

There are plenty of things to attack Sunak about should you desire, but this is not one of them.

I'm no fan of Sunak in particular, but to be fair to him there were a number of 'rumours' at a number of times over the last two-and-a-half years that he wasn't a fan of all the lockdowns and other restrictions. I seem to recall discussion over him not wanting to wear a mask at some event or other way back in the summer of 2020, for example.

Many of us are horrified by Truss in particular, and want a left-leaning government in, and it doesn't make a left-leaning paper look good to refuse to argue that lockdown had very significant problems.

I can't, and won't, support anyone who is still supportive of restrictions, which I suspect covers most of the 'left', and the Labour party in particular. They may not now call for further restrictions over Covid - I'm getting the feeling that boat may have finally sailed, at least in this country, as there are all sorts of other unpleasant things to deal with now - but we also need to think about what will happen next time there is some potential pandemic to worry about, and what the response to that will be. Because it won't be long until that happens.

One other thing I would add, and I'm not especially proud of it but it is true nevertheless, is that after the experience of the last two-and-a-half years I'm inclined to be significantly more selfish with my votes than before. In the past I've been happy to vote for parties that I believed would deliver a better society for others, even at my own expense (especially financial), hence my votes for Labour in 2017 and 2019. But after what we've seen recently, and in particular having experienced been part of a group that was continually marginalised, intimidated and ridiculed for a year or more by the entire establishment, from the Queen downwards - for what appears now to have been a very sensible decision - the top priority for my votes going forward is whether the person represents a party that's likely to leave me alone to get on with my life and make my own decisions about basic stuff. All other concerns are a pale second now to me, I'm sorry to say.

(All that being said, I live in a very safe Tory seat, so my vote makes no difference either way!)

 

[Eyersey468]

I won't support anyone that supports restrictions either, I agree we do have to be careful the next time there is a pandemic. To be honest I won't be voting for any of the main political parties at the next election, I don't feel any of them deserve to be in power based on the last 2 1/2 years, so my vote will be independent.

 

[nw1]

I'm no fan of Sunak in particular, but to be fair to him there were a number of 'rumours' at a number of times over the last two-and-a-half years that he wasn't a fan of all the lockdowns and other restrictions. I seem to recall discussion over him not wanting to wear a mask at some event or other way back in the summer of 2020, for example.



I can't, and won't, support anyone who is still supportive of restrictions, which I suspect covers most of the 'left', and the Labour party in particular. They may not now call for further restrictions over Covid - I'm getting the feeling that boat may have finally sailed, at least in this country, as there are all sorts of other unpleasant things to deal with now - but we also need to think about what will happen next time there is some potential pandemic to worry about, and what the response to that will be. Because it won't be long until that happens.

Will it "not be long"? The last notable pandemic was in 1968 with the Hong Kong flu, so 1968 to 2019 is 51 years. True, there was one in 1958 before that, but perhaps that was just bad luck; before that the Spanish flu was 1918, 40 years previously. It's really quite possible that most people over 40, for instance, will not experience another notable pandemic, bad enough for authorities to bring in restrictions, in their lifetimes.

One other thing I would add, and I'm not especially proud of it but it is true nevertheless, is that after the experience of the last two-and-a-half years I'm inclined to be significantly more selfish with my votes than before. In the past I've been happy to vote for parties that I believed would deliver a better society for others, even at my own expense (especially financial), hence my votes for Labour in 2017 and 2019. But after what we've seen recently, and in particular having experienced been part of a group that was continually marginalised, intimidated and ridiculed for a year or more by the entire establishment, from the Queen downwards - for what appears now to have been a very sensible decision - the top priority for my votes going forward is whether the person represents a party that's likely to leave me alone to get on with my life and make my own decisions about basic stuff. All other concerns are a pale second now to me, I'm sorry to say.

(All that being said, I live in a very safe Tory seat, so my vote makes no difference either way!)

I'd say I vote based on a mixture of moral/ethical concerns and what's best for me personally. The Tory Party would never get my vote under either criterion. And certainly for a likely 2024 election, when all threat of Covid restrictions should have long passed, I will be using a whole range of non-Covid issues to influence my vote, all of which the Tories have taken a particularly bad line over. Hence I will certainly vote (tactically, due to my constituency profile) for a Labour government, even though I do think they were too supportive of restrictions in the latter stages of Covid in particular. And don't get me started on the dire Liz Truss, who reminds me of a bad Thatcher tribute act with a dashing of Johnson to boot, who as well as hardening the anti-EU line of the Johnson government, seems to me to be implying we are all lazy and unfavourably comparing British with Chinese workers. Someone I want out of power at the first available opportunity.

The Tories have plenty of form on authoritarianism. For example Section 28, the poll tax (and attendant prosecutions), Brexit (and the authoritarian restrictions on the freedom to live where you like), and recent developments such as the Policing and Elections Bills. (I will admit that the Major and Cameron governments were not so authoritarian, though). Priti Patel in particular seems to me to be a very hardline authoritarian, and she was with Covid too.

Anyway, that's my anti-Tory rant over

 

[DustyBin]

The Tories have plenty of form on authoritarianism. For example Section 28, the poll tax (and attendant prosecutions), Brexit (and the authoritarian restrictions on the freedom to live where you like), and recent developments such as the Policing and Elections Bills. (I will admit that the Major and Cameron governments were not so authoritarian, though). Priti Patel in particular seems to me to be a very hardline authoritarian, and she was with Covid too.

Anyway, that's my anti-Tory rant over

At the risk of venturing too off topic, you don’t really believe that do you? All we’ve done is revert back to a normal immigration/emigration process, similar to the rest of the (non-EU) world. You may not like it which is fine, but it’s not really an example of authoritarianism.

 

[nw1]

At the risk of venturing too off topic, you don’t really believe that do you? All we’ve done is revert back to a normal immigration/emigration process, similar to the rest of the (non-EU) world. You may not like it which is fine, but it’s not really an example of authoritarianism.

Having lived the vast majority of my lifetime in the period between 1973 and 2019 I'm afraid I do (and I consider it authoritarianism as it is removing freedoms which existed in that time period, especially as 1973 is a long time ago and many of us cannot remember the era prior to then). Also, whatever one's views on immigration are, I would argue that restrictions on immigration (from low-security-risk countries, both in and out of the EU) are fundamentally incompatible with libertarianism. But I will stop there as it is indeed going OT.

 

[Eyersey468]

Were any restrictions brought in for the Hong Kong flu in 1968?

 

[nw1]

Were any restrictions brought in for the Hong Kong flu in 1968?

I don't think so, no - though it was before my time so relying on second hand info.

While Hong Kong flu was not, from what I understand, quite as severe as Covid it was still significant, and it is interesting to note the gulf in response between the two pandemics which does not appear to match the difference in their severity.

I have heard various theories to explain this: one being that WWII was a relatively recent memory so a flu pandemic seemed a less horrific event compared to the mass suffering of that war; and another that overly-authoritarian measures were less acceptable according to the societal norms of the West in the late 20th century.

 

[Eyersey468]

I don't think so, no - though it was before my time so relying on second hand info.

While Hong Kong flu was not, from what I understand, quite as severe as Covid it was still significant, and it is interesting to note the gulf in response between the two pandemics which does not appear to match the difference in their severity.

I have heard various theories to explain this: one being that WWII was a relatively recent memory so a flu pandemic seemed a less horrific event compared to the mass suffering of that war; and another that overly-authoritarian measures were less acceptable according to the societal norms of the West in the late 20th century.

Thanks, it was before my time too so I wasn't sure.

 

[nw1]

Thanks, it was before my time too so I wasn't sure.

An interesting measure of "acceptability of strong measures in the late 60s versus the 21st century" could be obtained, perhaps, by comparing the foot-and-mouth outbreaks of 1967 and 2001. The latter led to mass footpath closures, not just through cattle and sheep farms but places well away from them - including woodlands in suburban areas on the edge of cities with not a cow or sheep in sight. So I would argue (and believed at the time) that the 2001 footpath closures went well beyond what was actually required.

It would be interesting to note what, if any, restrictions on the public applied in the foot-and-mouth crisis of 1967. I would guess that footpath closures were restricted to open countryside in cattle- and sheep-farming areas, with other paths (e.g through woodland, across heaths) open, but obviously, not being around in the 1960s, I am not sure.

 

[Eyersey468]

An interesting measure of "acceptability of strong measures in the late 60s versus the 21st century" could be obtained, perhaps, by comparing the foot-and-mouth outbreaks of 1967 and 2001. The latter led to mass footpath closures, not just through cattle and sheep farms but places well away from them - including woodlands in suburban areas on the edge of cities with not a cow or sheep in sight. So I would argue (and believed at the time) that the 2001 footpath closures went well beyond what was actually required.

It would be interesting to note what, if any, restrictions on the public applied in the foot-and-mouth crisis of 1967. I would guess that footpath closures were restricted to open countryside in cattle- and sheep-farming areas, with other paths (e.g through woodland, across heaths) open, but obviously, not being around in the 1960s, I am not sure.

To be honest I hadn't known there was a foot and mouth outbreak in 1967, I agree a comparison would be interesting

 

[Razorblades]

To be honest I hadn't known there was a foot and mouth outbreak in 1967, I agree a comparison would be interesting

The British round of what's now the World Rally Championship (the RAC Rally, basically) was cancelled due to the 1967 outbreak, for fear of contestants transmitting it across the UK on their tyres.

 

[Hans]

To be honest I hadn't known there was a foot and mouth outbreak in 1967, I agree a comparison would be interesting

At least in 1967 there was not Neil Ferguson to produce his pie in the sky modelling doom and gloom, he got it very very wrong for foot and mouth, destroying many lives not only livestock. The same doom and gloom modelling which he also got so very wrong for Avian Flu, BSE, SARS, Swine Flu and the icing on the cake, covid.