Lockdown effects now killing/harming more people than Covid

[adc82140]

In the 1960s there was no 24 hour rolling news and no social media. So no hyperbole and attention seeking.

 

[duncanp]

The COVID Bedwetter Daily Mail has a piece today about bird flu, and the fact that it "...could be the next pandemic...." and it is "...already spreading in Britain...".

All a lot of scaremongering nonsense, but the most interesting quote from the article is by Keith Neal, emeritus professor in the epidemiology of infectious diseases at the University of Nottingham in which he says that the biggest threat to public health this winter is flu and that:-

"....Our immune systems are thought to have been severely weakened over the past two-and-a-half years of lockdowns and limited social interactions...."

Er, wasn't the purpose of lockdown and social distancing to "...keep people safe..."?

If the various COVID measures have weakened everyones immune system to the extent that they are now more vulnerable to existing respiratory viruses, then what exactly was the purpose of the measures in the first place?

 

[43096]

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.

Let's be honest, Ferguson is at best utterly incompetent, at worst highly dangerous.

 

[Hans]

The COVID Bedwetter Daily Mail has a piece today about bird flu, and the fact that it "...could be the next pandemic...." and it is "...already spreading in Britain...".

All a lot of scaremongering nonsense, but the most interesting quote from the article is by Keith Neal, emeritus professor in the epidemiology of infectious diseases at the University of Nottingham in which he says that the biggest threat to public health this winter is flu and that:-



Er, wasn't the purpose of lockdown and social distancing to "...keep people safe..."?

If the various COVID measures have weakened everyones immune system to the extent that they are now more vulnerable to existing respiratory viruses, then what exactly was the purpose of the measures in the first place?

Irrespective of whether many disagree, I would say the constant conveyor belt of vaccines have also weakened peoples own immunity, so many of them have "covid" multiple times or other illnesses following a jab, when those unvaccinated do not seem to either have had covid or have it multiple times.

 

[Eyersey468]

The COVID Bedwetter Daily Mail has a piece today about bird flu, and the fact that it "...could be the next pandemic...." and it is "...already spreading in Britain...".

All a lot of scaremongering nonsense, but the most interesting quote from the article is by Keith Neal, emeritus professor in the epidemiology of infectious diseases at the University of Nottingham in which he says that the biggest threat to public health this winter is flu and that:-



Er, wasn't the purpose of lockdown and social distancing to "...keep people safe..."?

If the various COVID measures have weakened everyones immune system to the extent that they are now more vulnerable to existing respiratory viruses, then what exactly was the purpose of the measures in the first place?

Exactly

 

[kez19]

The COVID Bedwetter Daily Mail has a piece today about bird flu, and the fact that it "...could be the next pandemic...." and it is "...already spreading in Britain...".

All a lot of scaremongering nonsense, but the most interesting quote from the article is by Keith Neal, emeritus professor in the epidemiology of infectious diseases at the University of Nottingham in which he says that the biggest threat to public health this winter is flu and that:-



Er, wasn't the purpose of lockdown and social distancing to "...keep people safe..."?

If the various COVID measures have weakened everyones immune system to the extent that they are now more vulnerable to existing respiratory viruses, then what exactly was the purpose of the measures in the first place?

Again, let’s throw the dice back, why during this interview in The Daily Mail why did they not go back and ask him that question ie distancing measures/lockdowns? It’s just lazy journalism or the media are purposely avoiding to ask? As I say there is more to come out of this but media trying to portray themselves as saints will come crashing down around themselves.

 

[Stephen42]

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).

I'd say healthcare capacity is the most significant factor. While not the same as excess deaths, the elective care backlog was 4.4m going into the pandemic and latest is now 6.6m, but with pre-pandemic trends it would be 5.2m. No matter what approach you take to handling covid if the healthcare system struggles to cope in normal times during a pandemic it will always be much worse.

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.

It's hard to know how much transmission was and wasn't stopped, suspected healthcare acquired infections grew substantially when hospitals were under pressure with high covid numbers and not a linear growth indicating a detioration. I suspect once red wards are near capacity, finding space or converting wards is tricky meaning others around them get exposed making the problem steadily worse. The answer is either have more capacity before pandemic or a more steady number of covid patients. The previous pandemic plan wouldn't have helped with that. Dropping those measures entirely would have meant that transmission started from low levels.

What counts as overwhelmed or particularly busy? What were the limiting factors for doing more activity?

Cost-benefit analyses are hard to do when both benefits and costs are difficult to quantify even retrospectively, it would be even harder to attempt them in advance. The vaccines there was no strong evidence for the precise reduction in severe illness or deaths before the decision was made to roll them out so any cost-benefit analysis would be near useless yet are the most valuable intervention in the pandemic, it's now observable in retrospect as the benefits/harms are to individuals who can be compared at population level alongside financial cost. In contrast the cost/benefits of other measures happen at the population level and comparisons are between different populations who aren't easily comparable.

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.

By high deaths in the prior pandemic plans I meant much larger than UK covid deaths, one publicly available exercise scenario had 450k deaths. What was missing in the exercises was a hospitalisation rate and thus no consideration of how far the "access prioritisation" would need to go - possibly a factor in the departure from that plan as well as questions of public acceptance of that high a death rate.

With the observed first peak UK IFR adjusted for age to reach simple equilibrium would be around 375k. The IFR possibly too high from care homes influences but healthcare outcomes would have detiorated with higher peak cases and care home population is relatively small so seems a reasonable starting point. The CFR (case not infection fatality rate) was higher in the publicly available exercise at 1.5% but had lower reproduction rate which would have reduced total infections leading to the 450k above.

 

[scarby]

All a lot of scaremongering nonsense, but the most interesting quote from the article is by Keith Neal, emeritus professor in the epidemiology of infectious diseases at the University of Nottingham in which he says that the biggest threat to public health this winter is flu and that:-

Er, wasn't the purpose of lockdown and social distancing to "...keep people safe..."?

If the various COVID measures have weakened everyones immune system to the extent that they are now more vulnerable to existing respiratory viruses, then what exactly was the purpose of the measures in the first place?

There's a saying: "Playing it safe is the most dangerous thing you can do."

 

[Enthusiast]

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

No they were not. Not only that, it scarcely got a mention in Parliament. People knew there was "a lot of 'flu about" and some people - particularly the elderly and immuno-compromised - took their own precautions. But no restrictions were imposed, no businesses forcibly closed, no ridiculous "guidance" issued, no face coverings, no unprecedented legal restrictions on people's lives. I think there was some political involvement with the procurement and distribution of vaccine, but I think that was about it. There were no daily figures published, no warnings of death if you went out. It was simply a non-event as far as most people were concerned, just something that was around but that was all. As far as I can recall, there was no debate over whether there should be restrictions or not. The question of restrictions simply did not arise - as they never had in any previous pandemic.

 

[Eyersey468]

No they were not. Not only that, it scarcely got a mention in Parliament. People knew there was "a lot of 'flu about" and some people - particularly the elderly and immuno-compromised - took their own precautions. But no restrictions were imposed, no businesses forcibly closed, no ridiculous "guidance" issued, no face coverings, no unprecedented legal restrictions on people's lives. I think there was some political involvement with the procurement and distribution of vaccine, but I think that was about it. There were no daily figures published, no warnings of death if you went out. It was simply a non-event as far as most people were concerned, just something that was around but that was all. As far as I can recall, there was no debate over whether there should be restrictions or not. The question of restrictions simply did not arise - as they never had in any previous pandemic.

Thank you

 

[MikeWM]

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.

Apologies for the delay in response, I was away for a couple of days and trying not to think too much about the many woes of the modern world

I partly agree, but for example if the idea that we lockdown quickly and hard when something that *might* be problematic comes along becomes the norm, as many are trying to make it, then we could find ourselves with lockdowns and/or restrictions all over the place. In just the last 20 years we had SARS-1, MERS, swine flu, at least 2 bird flu scares (with another one being whipped up at the moment), etc. etc.

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.

I should be considerably more clearer that my concern is wider than just Covid restrictions, and when I say 'leave me alone' I'm really referring to the whole range of civil liberties issues, of which Covid restrictions manifested themselves as a very extreme example. I'd certainly agree that the Tories have pushed through some truly alarming legislation recently, and the media have been far too busy wittering on about Covid (and monkeypox and so forth) to draw sufficient attention to most of that. (And you're entirely right about Patel, who also should never have been back in government at all after what she did to be fired by May, never mind given one of the great offices of state).

My concern there, however, is that I don't expect Labour to perform any better, and again not just on covid or other pandemic restrictions. I say that as someone who was very concerned about civil liberties issues 15 or so years ago when Labour were last in power, indeed the last-but-one time I resigned from the Labour party was over exactly that. ID cards and 90 days detention-without-charge were the most notable issues there, but far from the only ones. And while Labour have opposed the occasional part of the recent deeply authoritarian bills the Tories have pushed through, they haven't opposed anywhere near enough of them. Take the wretched Online 'Safety' Bill, for example - the only objection they appear to have to that appalling collection of wildest dreams of the authoritarians, is to complain that it doesn't go far enough!

As such, I've no idea where I can go politically. I guess I'll just have to take each election as it comes and see who I find least appalling and if I can bear to vote for them. I've spoiled 3 of the last 4 ballot papers I've received and I feel I may well have to go on doing that.

(I would disagree with Brexit being authoritarian, in and of itself, however. I'd note that the parliamentarians with probably the best record on civil liberties were Tony Benn and his followers, including Jeremy Corbyn, but they were also pretty fundamentally opposed to remaining in the EU. And, despite my having (unenthusiastically) voted remain in 2016, the reaction of most of our European cousins to covid, being even more extreme and crazy than ours, has persuaded me that Brexit was probably a fairly good idea too. Their governments no longer look like ones I want us to emulate or to be influenced by.)

 

[nw1]

Apologies for the delay in response, I was away for a couple of days and trying not to think too much about the many woes of the modern world

I partly agree, but for example if the idea that we lockdown quickly and hard when something that *might* be problematic comes along becomes the norm, as many are trying to make it, then we could find ourselves with lockdowns and/or restrictions all over the place. In just the last 20 years we had SARS-1, MERS, swine flu, at least 2 bird flu scares (with another one being whipped up at the moment), etc. etc.

That is a bit worrying but on the other hand, hopefully politicians now realise the economic damage caused by over-harsh and over-prolonged lockdowns and will not be tempted to implement another one when something considerably less severe than the notable pandemics of the past 100 years comes along.

We didn't have a "monkeydown", at least. We should be thankful for that.

I should be considerably more clearer that my concern is wider than just Covid restrictions, and when I say 'leave me alone' I'm really referring to the whole range of civil liberties issues, of which Covid restrictions manifested themselves as a very extreme example. I'd certainly agree that the Tories have pushed through some truly alarming legislation recently, and the media have been far too busy wittering on about Covid (and monkeypox and so forth) to draw sufficient attention to most of that. (And you're entirely right about Patel, who also should never have been back in government at all after what she did to be fired by May, never mind given one of the great offices of state).

My concern there, however, is that I don't expect Labour to perform any better, and again not just on covid or other pandemic restrictions. I say that as someone who was very concerned about civil liberties issues 15 or so years ago when Labour were last in power, indeed the last-but-one time I resigned from the Labour party was over exactly that. ID cards and 90 days detention-without-charge were the most notable issues there, but far from the only ones. And while Labour have opposed the occasional part of the recent deeply authoritarian bills the Tories have pushed through, they haven't opposed anywhere near enough of them. Take the wretched Online 'Safety' Bill, for example - the only objection they appear to have to that appalling collection of wildest dreams of the authoritarians, is to complain that it doesn't go far enough!

As such, I've no idea where I can go politically. I guess I'll just have to take each election as it comes and see who I find least appalling and if I can bear to vote for them. I've spoiled 3 of the last 4 ballot papers I've received and I feel I may well have to go on doing that.

I see where you're coming from and I do remember some slightly-authoritarian things under the last Labour government. However the Tories are no better, and in my remembered lifetime (Thatcher onwards, I don't recall anything before that) the Tories have done significantly more, overall, to erode civil liberties than Labour have.

But if we do assume that both parties have equal form on authoritarianism, then for me personally, other factors come into play. Labour seem to be more concerned about those less-well-off in society and seem to be less prejudiced in general. They do not sound off about benefits claimants and immigrants every five seconds. They want to improve our relations with our continental neighbours, not worsen them. So, for these other reasons, it would have to be Labour over the Tories, any day, for me.

(I would disagree with Brexit being authoritarian, in and of itself, however.

In and of itself, that's a fair point. If there was a Brexit without restrictions on freedom of movement, it would not be authoritarian. The Tories have specifically chosen to implement an authoritarian flavour of Brexit, when they did not have to. That was purely their decision; they could have honoured the referendum result with something which caused considerably less state interference with people's lives and people's personal freedoms.

 

[yorksrob]

Modern government seems to be overwhelmingly concerned about the liberty of big business while being under-concerned by the liberty of its citizens.

 

[nw1]

Modern government seems to be overwhelmingly concerned about the liberty of big business while being under-concerned by the liberty of its citizens.

I would agree with that.

The defining characteristic of the late 2010s and early 2020s seem to be a laissez-faire attitude towards multinational corporations, who can doubtless get away with anything (while I have no proof of this, and it's just conjecture, I would not be in the least surprised if energy companies are trying to exploit, and profiteer from, the situation) but increasingly harsh restrictions on civil liberties and personal freedoms. With a political memory stretching back to the 1980s, this is definitely the harshest and most grim political era I remember personally; and while I was not around in the 60s and don't really remember the 70s, I'd venture that we'd have to go back to post-war austerity to find a worse period.

Laissez-faire capitalism was pretty prevalent from the 1980s to the mid-2010s, and that had many problems, but personal freedom and liberty was also more valued (with some exceptions, one notable one being Section 28) in this era.

 

[yorksrob]

I would agree with that.

The defining characteristic of the late 2010s and early 2020s seem to be a laissez-faire attitude towards multinational corporations, who can doubtless get away with anything (while I have no proof of this, and it's just conjecture, I would not be in the least surprised if energy companies are trying to exploit, and profiteer from, the situation) but increasingly harsh restrictions on civil liberties and personal freedoms. With a political memory stretching back to the 1980s, this is definitely the harshest and most grim political era I remember personally; and while I was not around in the 60s and don't really remember the 70s, I'd venture that we'd have to go back to post-war austerity to find a worse period.

Laissez-faire capitalism was pretty prevalent from the 1980s to the mid-2010s, and that had many problems, but personal freedom and liberty was also more valued (with some exceptions, one notable one being Section 28) in this era.

If the fail to reform the energy market at source, it will be proof enough of the first part.

 

[Eyersey468]

I'm afraid I don't trust any of the politicians not to implement a lockdown or restrictions the next time something threatening comes along. The precedent has been set.

 

[KevinTurvey]

The attached video is an interview with a director of ITV news/Sky News from a few months ago. It would seem, from the horses mouth, that media at the time was co-erced to only push one side of the story, not ask any questions, and ignore everything else that did not fit in with the Covid agenda for fear of losing their broadcasting licenses. I find this very disturbing, although its hardly surprising.

 

[MikeWM]

That is a bit worrying but on the other hand, hopefully politicians now realise the economic damage caused by over-harsh and over-prolonged lockdowns and will not be tempted to implement another one when something considerably less severe than the notable pandemics of the past 100 years comes along.

I would agree with 'hopefully', but I'm not convinced in the slightest at this point. I suppose the case for lockdowns does appear to be in trouble right at the moment, but we've had a lot of these 'narrative crumbling' moments and they haven't amounted to much yet. Plus note the general attempt to blame Putin for our current economic woes - though admittedly not many people seem to be falling for that one.

We didn't have a "monkeydown", at least. We should be thankful for that.

Indeed!

I see where you're coming from and I do remember some slightly-authoritarian things under the last Labour government. However the Tories are no better, and in my remembered lifetime (Thatcher onwards, I don't recall anything before that) the Tories have done significantly more, overall, to erode civil liberties than Labour have.

Thatcher actually had a pretty mixed record on civil liberties - yes, the 1986 Public Order Act has serious issues, but she also gave us the very important and much-needed 1983 PACE Act, for example. (Obviously other things Thatcher did were rather more contentious, and civil liberties are no use if the law isn't respected, but legislation-wise, that era wasn't so bad).

In many respects the rot set in under Major, of all people. The 1994 Criminal Justice Act, which among other things removed the right to silence, was the start of many of our problems.

But if we do assume that both parties have equal form on authoritarianism, then for me personally, other factors come into play. Labour seem to be more concerned about those less-well-off in society and seem to be less prejudiced in general. They do not sound off about benefits claimants and immigrants every five seconds. They want to improve our relations with our continental neighbours, not worsen them. So, for these other reasons, it would have to be Labour over the Tories, any day, for me.

Three years ago, I'd have agreed. But I do recall the end of the 'New' Labour government, and they were going on about benefits claimants and immigrants rather a lot actually. Many of the cruel reforms to benefits started under that government (though yes, Cameron then made it worse still). And I have no confidence whatever that the current front-bench wouldn't do more of the same. But it is rather hard to tell what Labour would do in power anyway at this point - all we really know so far is that Keir Starmer has decided to renege on pretty much every one of the '10 principles' he apparently stood for when standing for leader, which is hardly helpful.

As an aside, and a vague attempt to get back on topic , I note we don't hear much about 'benefit scroungers' anymore, even from Tories, and I fear that is the result of a total change in the mindset of government. Previously being dependent on the state was made to seem shameful and a sign of failure. But now, for whatever reason (insert conspiracy theory of choice here), governments all around the world appear to want their citizens to depend totally on their government for pretty much everything.

In and of itself, that's a fair point. If there was a Brexit without restrictions on freedom of movement, it would not be authoritarian. The Tories have specifically chosen to implement an authoritarian flavour of Brexit, when they did not have to. That was purely their decision; they could have honoured the referendum result with something which caused considerably less state interference with people's lives and people's personal freedoms.

I think we'll have to agree to differ on this, I still don't see anything authoritarian per se in any form of Brexit, its what you do with it that matters.

 

[Enthusiast]

If there was a Brexit without restrictions on freedom of movement, it would not be authoritarian. The Tories have specifically chosen to implement an authoritarian flavour of Brexit, when they did not have to. That was purely their decision; they could have honoured the referendum result with something which caused considerably less state interference with people's lives and people's personal freedoms.

If there was a "Brexit" that retained freedom of movement into the UK it would not have been Brexit. One of the fundamental pillars of the EU is free movement of people, goods and capital. "Normal" (i.e. non-EU) nations do not provide virtually unfettered access to 450m people from 27 other nations.

Of course you could argue that it is not the UK that is denying you that freedom but the EU that is being authoritarian. The UK allows you to up sticks and live wherever you like. it is the EU preventing you from doing so.

 

[takno]

If there was a "Brexit" that retained freedom of movement into the UK it would not have been Brexit. One of the fundamental pillars of the EU is free movement of people, goods and capital. "Normal" (i.e. non-EU) nations do not provide virtually unfettered access to 450m people from 27 other nations.

Of course you could argue that it is not the UK that is denying you that freedom but the EU that is being authoritarian. The UK allows you to up sticks and live wherever you like. it is the EU preventing you from doing so.

Norway and Switzerland participate in the free movement of people, and ongoing single market membership was touted by many Brexiteers as the best and most likely outcome. I don't really see why anybody should respect your moving the goalposts on this

 

[Enthusiast]

My goalposts remained firmly in place. Leaving the EU meant the return to normal behaviour for the UK. There are around 180-odd sovereign nations and only the 27 EU members plus a small number it has persuaded to remain in orbit around it (three it has been unable to persuade to join plus the microstate of Liechtenstein) subscribe to the sort of unfettered free movement the EU promotes. There were many versions of so-called Brexit bandied around during the referendum campaign. None that involved retaining either free movement or membership of the Single Market/Customs Union really had a chance of coming to pass. As I said in another thread, people who cast their referendum vote based on what politicians told them should really know better and only have themselves to blame if things don't turn out quite as they were led to believe.

 

[Fragezeichnen]

In other words, "We won, so we can we do we we like. It doesn't matter that we lied and cheated in order to do. If you believed anything we said, it's your own stupid fault, suckers.".

Wow. Everyone knows the success of the Leave campaign was built on deceit on a massive scale, but I've rarely heard any supporter of Brexit be quite so brazen about stating it.

 

[bramling]

In other words, "We won, so we can we do we we like. It doesn't matter that we lied and cheated in order to do. If you believed anything we said, it's your own stupid fault, suckers.".

Wow. Everyone knows the success of the Leave campaign was built on deceit on a massive scale, but I've rarely heard any supporter of Brexit be quite so brazen about stating it.

Every voter was an adult of the age deemed to be sufficiently mature and responsible to cast a valid vote, and there was ample opportunity for scrutiny at the time. Irrespective of one’s view on Brexit, implying that people made the wrong choice is a very slippery slope to be going down.

I remember on the day after there were some pretty unpleasant tweets coming out from the usual suspects that the result was “a mistake, which can be corrected”. I’m not sure why such people stay here to be honest, when they might feel more at home somewhere like Russia or Iraq under Saddam when there was only one option on the ballot paper.

 

[nw1]

My goalposts remained firmly in place. Leaving the EU meant the return to normal behaviour for the UK.

For 1972 or before. Which for most of us is before our time...

If there was a "Brexit" that retained freedom of movement into the UK it would not have been Brexit.

This argument is not valid, but I won't pursue it here.

Of course you could argue that it is not the UK that is denying you that freedom but the EU that is being authoritarian. The UK allows you to up sticks and live wherever you like. it is the EU preventing you from doing so.

Except the UK government started it, with their authoritarian restrictions on immigration from EU countries. So in my view, and bringing it back away from Brexit onto the general discussion of libertarianism versus authoritarianism, with that, Section 28, poll tax prosecutions, and all the rest, the Tories are clearly the most authoritarian of the two.

 

[Bikeman78]

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.

We now live in a health and safety obsessed world. I don't think the rowing boats on Roath Park lake have been used since summer 2019. First Covid, then some sort of poisonous algae and now I believe bird flu is the latest reason. I wasn't planning to drink the water and birds get much closer on the footpath than they do in the water.

 

[nw1]

We now live in a health and safety obsessed world. I don't think the rowing boats on Roath Park lake have been used since summer 2019. First Covid, then some sort of poisonous algae and now I believe bird flu is the latest reason. I wasn't planning to drink the water and birds get much closer on the footpath than they do in the water.

Blanket entry bans on areas of Forestry Commission land when work might (or more likely, might not) be taking place in the general area are one of my pet hates. Usually "No access on Monday to Friday" or even worse "No access" full stop. Not just "no access when people are working", but plain "no access". At all times.

So it's technically forbidden to walk around at say 7pm on a Monday-Friday when all work stopped a couple of hours ago (not that you would actually get caught in practice though...)

Or, if a bridge is down, a footpath can be completely closed. Never mind that reasonably fit people could safely ford the shallow stream or even jump it.

Would much prefer the "enter at own risk, you can't sue us if you get injured" approach but that seems to be increasingly unfashionable.

Of course it doesn't work the other way. Close to me is an area of FC (?) land which provided some nice walks during the (to bring it back on topic) lockdown. At some point during the first 7 months of 2021 they did some forestry work, and many of these paths became blocked and unusable. No particularly rapid effort was made to make it good - the paths were blocked in August and still blocked in early December. Haven't been there this year, yet, though, so not sure what the situation is right now.

 

[Enthusiast]

In other words, "We won, so we can we do we we like. It doesn't matter that we lied and cheated in order to do. If you believed anything we said, it's your own stupid fault, suckers.".

There were no winners. The country was asked what it wanted and it replied. As I keep saying, in this and other threads, if people are gullible enough to believe a word that politicians tell them, then more fool them. I didn't believe what I was told by either side. I voted according to what I wanted (which was for the UK to leave the EU). No manner of lies or half truths had any influence on that decision. I'm sorry if some people were taken in, but we must all live and learn.

For 1972 or before. Which for most of us is before our time...

Well let's not say "return" to normal behaviour. Let's say "begin to behave normally" then pre-1972 is not an issue. It is not normal for any sovereign nation to be subject to laws which have supremacy over their own, where disputes about those laws are determined in a foreign court. It is not normal for any sovereign nation to have no control over who legally lives and works within its borders (and to suggest the UK somehow had a get out clause from this is fanciful). It is not normal for a nation to be unable to conclude trade deals which suit it without seeking the concurrence of 27 other nations (whom they might not suit). I could go on, but much of what the EU imposes on its members is not normal (when compared to the over 150-odd nations in the world).

Except the UK government started it, with their authoritarian restrictions on immigration from EU countries.

There is nothing "authoritarian" about controlling who is allowed to settle within a country's borders. It what just about every other non-EU country across the world does (hence my use of the term "normal"). I agree wholeheartedly that the government was exceptionally authoritarian with the Covid measures it introduced. But if you are suggesting that such action was purely a "Tory" thing and that a government of any other persuasion would have acted differently, I believe you are very much mistaken. On the contrary, it is very likely that had a Labour government been in office we would still be suffering restrictions now. But to compare confining people to their homes unless they have a "reasonable excuse" to leave it with wanting to decide who does and does not settle here, is like comparing eggs with pineapples.

 

[Jonny]

Irrespective of whether many disagree, I would say the constant conveyor belt of vaccines have also weakened peoples own immunity, so many of them have "covid" multiple times or other illnesses following a jab, when those unvaccinated do not seem to either have had covid or have it multiple times.

You may well be right, my sister (3 doses) had a bad case of it recently and although I was in close proximity (and several other people who could have infected me for that matter) and unvaccinated, didn't at least seem to catch it (I felt well for the whole exposure period so I never bothered with a test). I may have had it in the first wave of 2020 with the natural immunity though.

 

[yorksrob]

Well, I've had the conveyor belt of vaccines, and I've also mixed with the population normally where possible (travelling on trains and sitting in offices)

Funnily enough, I've been getting sniffles and colds since everyone else has started mixing. I tested one and it was covid - a medium strength cold in my experience. Thank goodness for the vaccines that it was a moment of curiosity and interest, rather than one of fear.

 

[nw1]

Funnily enough, I've been getting sniffles and colds since everyone else has started mixing. I tested one and it was covid - a medium strength cold in my experience. Thank goodness for the vaccines that it was a moment of curiosity and interest, rather than one of fear.

Interesting that since Covid I've had only two "proper" cold-like illnesses (with mild fever, enough to feel too rough to go into work), and one of those was definitely actual Covid. The other one was in March 2020 so may have been, but I didn't have a cough and my temperature was below the threshold quoted at the time so maybe not.

However I seem to have had an extraordinarily high number of very mild colds. The type where you feel a bit tired and your head feels heavy, but you don't really feel ill as such, and would probably not take time off work. Just this year I have had 5 such things in January, March going into April, late May, mid-July (for less than a day!) and late August. The last two were particularly mild and really no more than heavy head and slight dizziness.

Maybe these were Omicron BA-1, 2, 3, 4 and 5, respectively, and I've had it 5 times since the start of the year (in addition to last November). More likely though, I'd guess that due to Covid I'm more sensitive to detecting extremely mild cold-like symptoms than previously, and such symptoms I would have completely ignored and put down to work stress, or similar, in previous years. Would be interesting to hear if others have made similar observations.