Remaining Effects of Covid

[Hadders]

I am a bit different to the last few posters. During lockdown, which I disagreed with anyway, I made damned sure I had my one or two outside walks each day. When we could use the trains again I made sure I did, empty carriages and all that, having to take my own packed lunch as cafes were closed, but I made a point of having my usual London walks as if nothing had happened. I never feared catching covid (and still haven't) but I certainly feared what the government was doing to us. I have never liked Zoom, our church had Zoom services that I reluctantly joined but didn't really enjoy them. I avoided most of my club's Zoom meetings. I far prefer person to person meetings though admit at my age I don't enjoy going out on dark evenings.

I agree with all of this.

During lockdown I was lucky to be able to keeop getting out and about, both for work and for exercise. I'm very glad I did because it kept me sane. I'm also a school governors and our meetings all moved online - I nearly gave it up because it was so frustrating not being able to meet in person. I also follow Northampton Saints rugby club and go to every match - home or away. I obviously couldn't do this during lockdown but every match was televised. Sounds great but after the first couple of matches I switched off, it's difficult to explain but it's not the same as being there in person.

I think the issue is you have to make the effort to do an activity. Once you get out of the habit, which understandably happened to many during lockdown, it's very difficult to get back into the habit again. This is the root cause of what has happened.

 

[Peter Sarf]

The article is quite clear in that it talks about the effects of lockdowns and other restrictions, not the virus itself. And as a 50-something myself I fully recognise what it talks about, that is the effect on people's mental wellbeing that these measures had. Many of us here warned about the effect not only of lockdowns, but making people feel literally guilty for being alive and mouth-breathers. Its no wonder so many people felt awful, being locked into their boxes and told they would kill everyone they saw. We were reduced to little more than lab rats by the likes of the experts at SAGE, they had so much fun prodding and pocking our psychologies to see what they could get away with, full in the knowledge that the virus would spread regardless. And then when we were taken away, along came grave warnings of "long" covid and killer new variants just around the corner.

Experts have spent the last 3 years trying to justify all the myriad of weird and wonderful restrictions because I suspect deep down they are worried that one day someone will look in their direction and question if what they helped promote did more damage than good. I firmly believe they have, and that it is now time to face up it with honest and open debate on the matter. This article goes some way to doing that, but as I say falls sadly short of the mark in talking about it being damage to mental wellbeing. Perhaps a bit of a hangover from their role in the fear making.

My take is that SAGE originally underestimated the risk/effects of the Covid pandemic. Then around 15/03/2020 the figures from hospitals showed a rapidly rising larger peak ahead of the curve SAGE were clinging to. Number 10 were consequently in denial also. I have no doubt that the possibility is that there was then an over reaction (surprised it was sustained for so long). But the effect on the hospitals early 2020 was what could not be ignored.

What price surplus deaths of older/frailer people due to an overloaded A&E ?.
People who, if helped to survive their first encounter (with ventilators etc), would in all likely-hood survive subsequent infections of Covid with little need for medical help. So would join the immune herd.

Was it worth paying that price ?.
Was the effect on people of all the restrictions worth the saving of lives ?.
Its a difficult question but honestly I don't know the answer.

I had it bad for six days, worst illness I have ever had in my 63 years, but nowhere near death (Dec 2020 - Jan 2021). Maybe a few lasting effects.
My partner ended up with long Covid and is still not right almost three years later. She lost three people she knew.

But Covid has been a huge issue one way or another.

 

[Bantamzen]

My take is that SAGE originally underestimated the risk/effects of the Covid pandemic. Then around 15/03/2020 the figures from hospitals showed a rapidly rising larger peak ahead of the curve SAGE were clinging to. Number 10 were consequently in denial also. I have no doubt that the possibility is that there was then an over reaction (surprised it was sustained for so long). But the effect on the hospitals early 2020 was what could not be ignored.

What price surplus deaths of older/frailer people due to an overloaded A&E ?.
People who, if helped to survive their first encounter (with ventilators etc), would in all likely-hood survive subsequent infections of Covid with little need for medical help. So would join the immune herd.

Was it worth paying that price ?.
Was the effect on people of all the restrictions worth the saving of lives ?.
Its a difficult question but honestly I don't know the answer.

I had it bad for six days, worst illness I have ever had in my 63 years, but nowhere near death (Dec 2020 - Jan 2021). Maybe a few lasting effects.
My partner ended up with long Covid and is still not right almost three years later. She lost three people she knew.

But Covid has been a huge issue one way or another.

In 2007 my younger sister died from flu. She was 30 years old, in good health and no underlying conditions. That year the NHS also had a crisis, in fact every single year for as long as I can remember the NHS has a crisis. What does that tell you about the 2020 response? It should tell you that there is a critical problem with the NHS and government, and it will not be solved by locking people in their homes every time a new variant rocks into town.

The response to covid was massively overcooked, just in this country we spent tens of billions trying to "fight the virus" but it still spread. But we also shattered a lot of lives by tanking the economy, and making people fearful to simply go outside. In the early days of the restrictions I witnessed people stepping into main roads without looking because they were trying to get away from someone walking towards them. One person was in fact seconds away from death from doing this, thankfully the driver of the truck saw what was happening and managed to hit the brakes. Had he not the woman who practically leaped into the road on seeing me walking towards her would have had a swift and horrific death. That is not normal, but it is exactly what these experts bread into society. Is that long term effect on an entire country's mental health worth the price? I personally don't think it is.

 

[yorkie]

Now I am watching the Covid enquiry it is amazing how things went. The government was quite bullish and first believed herd immunity was the way.

'Herd immunity ' is a term which no-one can fully agree on what it means; sterilising immunity was never going to happen, and expert virologists were not really listened to when it became clear that the only possible outcome was going to be SARS-CoV-2 becoming the 5th endemic human coronavirus, living with us in a state of endemic equilibrium.

Everyone was destined to be exposed to SARS-CoV-2, and we will continue to be exposed, multiple times throughout our lives.

Was it worth paying that price ?.
Was the effect on people of all the restrictions worth the saving of lives ?.

But is there any evidence that harsh restrictions actually saved lives, and even if they did reduce some COVID deaths, they really have a net benefit overall?

Sweden imposed sensible guidelines and restrictions, never locked down, and yet their outcomes were similar to ours (if not better) in terms of COVID deaths. Obviously they have done better than us in terms of not having the negatives from lockdowns.

 

[Peter Sarf]

'Herd immunity ' is a term which no-one can fully agree on what it means; sterilising immunity was never going to happen, and expert virologists were not really listened to when it became clear that the only possible outcome was going to be SARS-CoV-2 becoming the 5th endemic human coronavirus, living with us in a state of endemic equilibrium.

Everyone was destined to be exposed to SARS-CoV-2, and we will continue to be exposed, multiple times throughout our lives.


But is there any evidence that harsh restrictions actually saved lives, and even if they did reduce some COVID deaths, they really have a net benefit overall?

Sweden imposed sensible guidelines and restrictions, never locked down, and yet their outcomes were similar to ours (if not better) in terms of COVID deaths. Obviously they have done better than us in terms of not having the negatives from lockdowns.

I can only believe there would have been a lot more deaths without precautions. Could put that down to our already creaking NHS.

It is the sort of thing that we cannot redo differently to see what the difference is. We can compare to other countries but then have to take into account how good their health system is, age/health demographic and how people worked/lived (I recall it being said that in Sweden more people live alone).

I remember France sending people to Germany for intensive care (or was it the other way around).

In early 2020 Northern Italy got hit bad early on and the UK governments attitude was that it won't happen to us. Then around mid March we woke up !. I don't recall the rest of Italy being in the headlines. But where I worked we had a lot of lorries running between Northern Italy and us so we were very "interested" in what was happening in Northern Italy.

I would also say that working and commuting as normal but with extra tasks I was warm to the idea of a bit more lockdown !. I certainly liked there being more space on public transport. I think that is something many still want ? - a lasting effect. Other side of the coin is those who were working from home and isolated.

 

[Bantamzen]

I would also say that working and commuting as normal but with extra tasks I was warm to the idea of a bit more lockdown !. I certainly liked there being more space on public transport. I think that is something many still want ? - a lasting effect. Other side of the coin is those who were working from home and isolated.

Given the cost savings being sought on railways, I don't think its a good idea to want to see public transport even quieter. Its not there to be somewhere where you can be alone, its about mass transit. The clue is in the name..

 

[jon81uk]

I was in central London for a meeting on Friday and couldn't help but notice how quiet the West End was at 9am outside Tottenham Court Road station.

Due to the move to hybrid working, Thursday is the new Friday.

 

[Peter Sarf]

Given the cost savings being sought on railways, I don't think its a good idea to want to see public transport even quieter. Its not there to be somewhere where you can be alone, its about mass transit. The clue is in the name..

I know. Its an inevitable downward spiral if we are not careful !. It is taking long enough for commuting rail usage to recover. Given home working is a new feature that got a big foothold during Covid I suspect that is even more pressure on the railways. Same has happened with food delivery services so I suspect waiters have become bicycle riders !. I do think rail cutbacks are a very real risk. As a former commuter I would be very keen to hang on to anything that means I avoid the drudgery and expense of commuting. It really depends on Home Working being outlawed which I think is very unlikely as employers will been keen to save on office costs. So there is a remaining (and lasting) effect of Covid.

Home working means less socialising. I know of people who are very reluctant to go to the office - they are not mixers. They probably need to mix more but never did before Covid. They even stay quiet on zoom (etc) team meetings. I know of someone who is not bothered but works 60% home and 40% office, she is a mixer and goes in every time there is a follow on meal with colleagues from other branches.

I find myself thinking back to days of yore.

Once upon a time we all lived in caves (well maybe) - small groups.

Before the industrial revolution we mostly existed in smaller social groups - villages and many people never left their village from birth to death.

I think I prefer more socialising. Having retired I now want to get out more as there is only so much conversation I can get with her indoors. I do want to avoid the cold weather though. Then again, as we save on heating (circa 17 degC), I find myself considering public places like libraries and the magic coffee cup in Wetherspoons beckons !. I am not a lizard but the other half just does not seem to feel the cold - to the point where I think it is a medical condition. Arguing about the temperature brings me back to offices !. Some wanted it hotter than me but there was always one who wanted it colder especially when they had just walked in !. I don't miss watching all those very predictable arguments - I just changed layers. Bloody humans !........

 

[dk1]

Due to the move to hybrid working, Thursday is the new Friday.

Mondays are getting very busy again.

 

[ainsworth74]

It strikes me that the March lockdown probably was inevitable and, in my view, necessary the condition that hospitals were in shortly afterwards even with the NHS becoming effectively the National Covid Service for a while indicates that doing nothing or taking light touch measures was not really an option. People point to Sweden as never having needed a lockdown and that is true but, of course, Sweden entered the pandemic in a far stronger position by not having a health service which is constantly running at the redline and one bad bout of flu or other illness away from crisis. But, more importantly, by having a healthier population than the UK. What Covid has really exposed (but appears to have gone unremarked) is the absolutely dire state of our the health of our population. If you really wanted to save money, improve the NHS and make us better prepared for the next pandemic you'd be looking at ways of improving people's health.

People also pooh pooh the idea that the NHS was in crisis because "oh there's always a winter crisis" but then it's worth noting that that is typically a uniquely British phenomenon. Other health systems may have the odd bad year but it is the UK and the NHS that have some sort of crisis nearly every year where at least some NHS trusts end up declaring an emergency and cutting back on routine operations and services whilst transferring patients to neighbouring trusts. You can usually muddle your way through this when it's a handful of trusts across the country but when its potentially all of them at nearly the same time? This of course is, as above, linked to the poor general state of health of our population as well as the way that the NHS is always running right on the red line.

However, having said that the March lockdown was, in my opinion, a necessity, I do think that it then carried on for far longer than required and crucially after that initial "oh god we have to do something!" they kept it far stricter and in a more damaging way than was ever really necessary. It would have been perfectly sensible after a few days to get to grips with everything to make it clear that going out for exercise was not only allowed but encouraged, that a few people meeting up outdoors was also fine and to be encouraged, etc. Instead everyone basically encouraged to be as sedentary and as isolated as possible with the physical and mental health consequences that we're still dealing with now and likely will be for years to come.

It strikes me that the Government was slow to react to the coming threat, spending plenty of time dithering, ignoring evidence from how it was playing out elsewhere, believing in some weird "British Exceptionalism" would make us different to those silly Italians, and similar mad wibble. Then having been burned in March was then petrified of their own shadow (perhaps Boris was cowed by his own near death experience?) so kept it going with heavy restrictions rather than easing off after a three or four weeks and transitioning to lighter touch measures ala Sweden.

We then, of course, played hockey cokey for what felt like an interminable time with the utter nonsense that was the "tier system". I'll never get over that mad announcement that London would be going into Tier 1 but made in advance so everyone fled London spreading it everywhere making even more of a mockery of an already silly idea. Or those streets where houses on one side would be in say Tier 2 but the houses on the opposite side of the street were Tier 1 because of the post codes. That's before we get into all the corruption that went on with the various money hoses that got turned on and then sprayed to all sorts of dodgy characters who just happened to Tory friends, donors and family members...

Anyway, I got side tracked, to try and get back to some semblance of a point I do think that the March lockdown was, at least in some form, inevitable. But what happened afterwards I think is far more of a reflection on the utterly inept Government that we had which is completely unequal to the task that confronted them. You can argue that the advice they got wasn't up to task either but, at the end of the day, it was advice and it was up to those who were in charge to make the decisions on the basis of the advice and weigh up all the competing factors that were involved. That is, after all, the entire point of having a Government in the first place. To make decisions that balance those competing factors.

 

[Crossover]

It strikes me that the March lockdown probably was inevitable and, in my view, necessary the condition that hospitals were in shortly afterwards even with the NHS becoming effectively the National Covid Service for a while indicates that doing nothing or taking light touch measures was not really an option. People point to Sweden as never having needed a lockdown and that is true but, of course, Sweden entered the pandemic in a far stronger position by not having a health service which is constantly running at the redline and one bad bout of flu or other illness away from crisis. But, more importantly, by having a healthier population than the UK. What Covid has really exposed (but appears to have gone unremarked) is the absolutely dire state of our the health of our population. If you really wanted to save money, improve the NHS and make us better prepared for the next pandemic you'd be looking at ways of improving people's health.

People also pooh pooh the idea that the NHS was in crisis because "oh there's always a winter crisis" but then it's worth noting that that is typically a uniquely British phenomenon. Other health systems may have the odd bad year but it is the UK and the NHS that have some sort of crisis nearly every year where at least some NHS trusts end up declaring an emergency and cutting back on routine operations and services whilst transferring patients to neighbouring trusts. You can usually muddle your way through this when it's a handful of trusts across the country but when its potentially all of them at nearly the same time? This of course is, as above, linked to the poor general state of health of our population as well as the way that the NHS is always running right on the red line.

However, having said that the March lockdown was, in my opinion, a necessity, I do think that it then carried on for far longer than required and crucially after that initial "oh god we have to do something!" they kept it far stricter and in a more damaging way than was ever really necessary. It would have been perfectly sensible after a few days to get to grips with everything to make it clear that going out for exercise was not only allowed but encouraged, that a few people meeting up outdoors was also fine and to be encouraged, etc. Instead everyone basically encouraged to be as sedentary and as isolated as possible with the physical and mental health consequences that we're still dealing with now and likely will be for years to come.

It strikes me that the Government was slow to react to the coming threat, spending plenty of time dithering, ignoring evidence from how it was playing out elsewhere, believing in some weird "British Exceptionalism" would make us different to those silly Italians, and similar mad wibble. Then having been burned in March was then petrified of their own shadow (perhaps Boris was cowed by his own near death experience?) so kept it going with heavy restrictions rather than easing off after a three or four weeks and transitioning to lighter touch measures ala Sweden.

We then, of course, played hockey cokey for what felt like an interminable time with the utter nonsense that was the "tier system". I'll never get over that mad announcement that London would be going into Tier 1 but made in advance so everyone fled London spreading it everywhere making even more of a mockery of an already silly idea. Or those streets where houses on one side would be in say Tier 2 but the houses on the opposite side of the street were Tier 1 because of the post codes. That's before we get into all the corruption that went on with the various money hoses that got turned on and then sprayed to all sorts of dodgy characters who just happened to Tory friends, donors and family members...

Anyway, I got side tracked, to try and get back to some semblance of a point I do think that the March lockdown was, at least in some form, inevitable. But what happened afterwards I think is far more of a reflection on the utterly inept Government that we had which is completely unequal to the task that confronted them. You can argue that the advice they got wasn't up to task either but, at the end of the day, it was advice and it was up to those who were in charge to make the decisions on the basis of the advice and weigh up all the competing factors that were involved. That is, after all, the entire point of having a Government in the first place. To make decisions that balance those competing factors.

I would tend to agree with you on this - I think probably the early stages were inevitable but it quickly became farcical.

One thing as well was some of the misinformation and how it manifested. I was reading some financial reports recently for a group I am involved with, particularly the secretaries report for the financial year where Covid started to take over proceedings
"<name> had been using his one exercise a day to work in the garden at <premises>"

As we all know, this was never actually "a thing" but shows how twisted the message had become

 

[Peter Sarf]

It strikes me that the March lockdown probably was inevitable and, in my view, necessary the condition that hospitals were in shortly afterwards even with the NHS becoming effectively the National Covid Service for a while indicates that doing nothing or taking light touch measures was not really an option. People point to Sweden as never having needed a lockdown and that is true but, of course, Sweden entered the pandemic in a far stronger position by not having a health service which is constantly running at the redline and one bad bout of flu or other illness away from crisis. But, more importantly, by having a healthier population than the UK. What Covid has really exposed (but appears to have gone unremarked) is the absolutely dire state of our the health of our population. If you really wanted to save money, improve the NHS and make us better prepared for the next pandemic you'd be looking at ways of improving people's health.

This I do believe is true. The Scandinavian countries collect more tax, have a better standard of living/health and the population expect more from their state when they need it. Example - my Father was Danish and in his latter years he got a UK state pension and some private pension. Despite not living in Denmark or paying taxes to Denmark since about 1950 he got the equivalent of UK supplementary benefit to make up his income to what the Danish state deemed acceptable !. We really do things on the cheap in the UK.

Our NHS is continually undermined.

I do see that the health of the UK population is not as good as it could be.

People also pooh pooh the idea that the NHS was in crisis because "oh there's always a winter crisis" but then it's worth noting that that is typically a uniquely British phenomenon. Other health systems may have the odd bad year but it is the UK and the NHS that have some sort of crisis nearly every year where at least some NHS trusts end up declaring an emergency and cutting back on routine operations and services whilst transferring patients to neighbouring trusts. You can usually muddle your way through this when it's a handful of trusts across the country but when its potentially all of them at nearly the same time? This of course is, as above, linked to the poor general state of health of our population as well as the way that the NHS is always running right on the red line.

Yes. We are so used to living on the edge that we don't actually recognise a deterioration.

However, having said that the March lockdown was, in my opinion, a necessity, I do think that it then carried on for far longer than required and crucially after that initial "oh god we have to do something!" they kept it far stricter and in a more damaging way than was ever really necessary. It would have been perfectly sensible after a few days to get to grips with everything to make it clear that going out for exercise was not only allowed but encouraged, that a few people meeting up outdoors was also fine and to be encouraged, etc. Instead everyone basically encouraged to be as sedentary and as isolated as possible with the physical and mental health consequences that we're still dealing with now and likely will be for years to come.

I think there is also cynicism at play. An attitude of "well the masses are not going to stick to it all so we better make the rules stricter than needs be so that on average we get the behaviour we want". The proof of that is very easy to see - it is that those leading us were not sticking to the rules anyway !.

It strikes me that the Government was slow to react to the coming threat, spending plenty of time dithering, ignoring evidence from how it was playing out elsewhere, believing in some weird "British Exceptionalism" would make us different to those silly Italians, and similar mad wibble. Then having been burned in March was then petrified of their own shadow (perhaps Boris was cowed by his own near death experience?) so kept it going with heavy restrictions rather than easing off after a three or four weeks and transitioning to lighter touch measures ala Sweden.

The government were alarming complacent up until about 15/03/202. So obvious from the Covid enquiry - our leaders laughing at the situation in Northern Italy which was actually the wake up call.

It is the typical pendulum. Put something off for as long as possible then go too far too late in reaction. There is also a desire not appear to change course.

We then, of course, played hockey cokey for what felt like an interminable time with the utter nonsense that was the "tier system". I'll never get over that mad announcement that London would be going into Tier 1 but made in advance so everyone fled London spreading it everywhere making even more of a mockery of an already silly idea. Or those streets where houses on one side would be in say Tier 2 but the houses on the opposite side of the street were Tier 1 because of the post codes. That's before we get into all the corruption that went on with the various money hoses that got turned on and then sprayed to all sorts of dodgy characters who just happened to Tory friends, donors and family members...

Lest we forget the tiers. The delay in allowing summer activities until too late in the summer of 2021 !.

At the time of the geographically discriminated tier system I thought perhaps they wanted to speed up the start of the curve in areas not yet hit (you cannot flatten the curve unless you start it earlier). But I think it more likely comes from the fact that those in areas where the NHS was not yet in trouble would resent having to live under restrictions imposed because of the South Easts desires.

Most people are not going to react to a risk until it is very obvious - i.e. to late !.

Anyway, I got side tracked, to try and get back to some semblance of a point I do think that the March lockdown was, at least in some form, inevitable. But what happened afterwards I think is far more of a reflection on the utterly inept Government that we had which is completely unequal to the task that confronted them. You can argue that the advice they got wasn't up to task either but, at the end of the day, it was advice and it was up to those who were in charge to make the decisions on the basis of the advice and weigh up all the competing factors that were involved. That is, after all, the entire point of having a Government in the first place. To make decisions that balance those competing factors.

I think the powers that be were very very scared of altering the response/restrictions. They could not stomach relaxing restrictions then re-introducing them. I think the only criteria they used for relaxing precautions was the roll out of the vaccine. They had become very risk avers once they had woken up from their bullish complacency.

I recall in 2020 (?) that in about October they were talking about restricting the Christmas to New-Year break to allow only 5 days mixing. We would have been going to Cardiff or the family would have been coming to Croydon. At that point I rushed out bought presents and posted all the presents I could before the rules got stricter and/or the post office collapsed. Nearer Christmas they made the restrictions tighter and/or we gave up meeting.

That very break (2020-2021) me and the missus celebrated all alone and both went down badly with Covid !.

 

[Simon75]

But NHS has been badly run for years, and was (and still using) covid as an excuse in not seeing patients.
Look how doctors were seeing patients on the phone for all cases , without seeing them face to face.
I've known people to loose loved ones with cancer, as they wouldn't see or treat them

 

[nw1]

However, having said that the March lockdown was, in my opinion, a necessity, I do think that it then carried on for far longer than required and crucially after that initial "oh god we have to do something!" they kept it far stricter and in a more damaging way than was ever really necessary. It would have been perfectly sensible after a few days to get to grips with everything to make it clear that going out for exercise was not only allowed but encouraged, that a few people meeting up outdoors was also fine and to be encouraged, etc. Instead everyone basically encouraged to be as sedentary and as isolated as possible with the physical and mental health consequences that we're still dealing with now and likely will be for years to come.

I think that's definitely true. I think there was far too much restriction of outdoor exercise, the most famous example of course being those two women (in a bubble) who got into trouble for drinking coffee outside near a lake. Completely unnecessary. Also the apparent ban on going outside more than once per day, and being outside "without a reason"; what was that all about? What harm would you be doing wandering around outside in a quiet area? Absolutely none, but politicians and the police seemed to consider it a cardinal sin. It seemed to be a case of authoritarian control for the sake of it, and had no real reason. There also seemed to be a sense of hair-shirted Cromwellite puritanism, almost as if enjoying yourself, or trying to enjoy yourself, was seen as immoral, and perhaps the police having that kind of attitude drove some of their over-the-top responses to people who basically were trying to enjoy themselves the best they could in the circumstances.

To be fair to Boris (for once, as I'm not his biggest fan) this may not have been his decision; perhaps it was the likes of Hancock and Michael "one hour maximum" Gove, I don't know. The police certainly seemed to be abusing their powers too.

I also think that the first and third lockdowns went on way too long, but (as you perhaps imply below) I do wonder if it was all about saving face. Boris was perceived as being initially too "soft", so they had to over-compensate by being extremely tough later.

Controversially I do also wonder if the world would have reacted in such an extreme way (such as severe restrictions on outdoor exercise) if Covid hadn't broken out first in China, which of course is well known for being run by an extremely authoritarian government. China was the first country, presumably, to impose restrictions, so did everyone else try to out-China China to avoid accusations of being irresponsible?

It strikes me that the Government was slow to react to the coming threat, spending plenty of time dithering, ignoring evidence from how it was playing out elsewhere, believing in some weird "British Exceptionalism" would make us different to those silly Italians, and similar mad wibble. Then having been burned in March was then petrified of their own shadow (perhaps Boris was cowed by his own near death experience?) so kept it going with heavy restrictions rather than easing off after a three or four weeks and transitioning to lighter touch measures ala Sweden.

It's also strange reading back on some of the forums during the Covid period, and some of the really quite extremist authoritarianism displayed by some members of the public. On the expensive hotel quarantine when returning from some countries in early 2021, there were people criticising those returning from abroad as if the mere act of going abroad during Covid was evil, and they deserved the four-figure bill as some kind of punishment. Hard to imagine why some people had that attitude - the UK had plenty of Covid, of course, by that time, so quarantining people returning from abroad was to me utterly unnecessary (and I do wonder whether - and I am just speculating here - there were underhand reasons for the hotel quarantine policy). And of course for many, being able to escape abroad to a country with a more bearable winter climate for a time was extremely good for their mental health.

 

[Enthusiast]

I often use my local Argos store to "Click & Collect" eBay parcels.

Every time I get a text informing me that one is ready for collection I am told:

"Your eBay is ready a Sainsburys Argos. Code AB/XYZ123 & please follow social distancing guidelines"

 

[philosopher]

I think that's definitely true. I think there was far too much restriction of outdoor exercise, the most famous example of course being those two women (in a bubble) who got into trouble for drinking coffee outside near a lake. Completely unnecessary. Also the apparent ban on going outside more than once per day, and being outside "without a reason"; what was that all about? What harm would you be doing wandering around outside in a quiet area? Absolutely none, but politicians and the police seemed to consider it a cardinal sin. It seemed to be a case of authoritarian control for the sake of it, and had no real reason. There also seemed to be a sense of hair-shirted Cromwellite puritanism, almost as if enjoying yourself, or trying to enjoy yourself, was seen as immoral, and perhaps the police having that kind of attitude drove some of their over-the-top responses to people who basically were trying to enjoy themselves the best they could in the circumstances.

There never was actually a ban on going outside more than once a day, providing it was for exercise, or going for a walk lasting more than a hour. The once a day and one hour rule were both guidance, not law. However from the way the media and the government reported it at the time, people would have very much got the impression that it was illegal to spend more than an hour outside or go outside more than once a day. Such strict messaging from the media and government no doubt made the lockdowns a lot harder for many people than they could have been otherwise.

Controversially I do also wonder if the world would have reacted in such an extreme way (such as severe restrictions on outdoor exercise) if Covid hadn't broken out first in China, which of course is well known for being run by an extremely authoritarian government. China was the first country, presumably, to impose restrictions, so did everyone else try to out-China China to avoid accusations of being irresponsible?

Neil Ferguson, the epidemiologist modeller admitted that if China had not locked down, then the rest of the world probably would have not done so either.

Neil Ferguson interview: China changed what was possible

Professor Neil Ferguson has given an extraordinary interview to Tom Whipple at The Times, in which he confirms the degree to which he believes that imitating China’s lockdown policies at the start of 2020 changed the parameters of what Western societies consider acceptable. “I think people’s...

unherd.com

It’s a communist one party state, we said. We couldn’t get away with it in Europe, we thought… and then Italy did it. And we realised we could.

 

[Blindtraveler]

I'm glad that they altered the messaging about spending time outdoors for the big winter lockdown, that was done far better and we're certainly take the advantage of I'm sure

 

[Grecian 1998]

Going out once a day for exercise once a day was guidance in England, but I believe it was law in Wales. Quite how it was to be policed is another matter.

One hour a day however was nowhere near to being guidance - IIRC it was Michael Gove's answer to an on the spot question. That doesn't amount to a legal requirement, but it was surprising how many people seemed to think it did.

Spain I believe banned outdoor exercise altogether although it did allow dog walking. Cue people taking some extremely questionable dogs for walks.

 

[Peter Sarf]

Going out once a day for exercise once a day was guidance in England, but I believe it was law in Wales. Quite how it was to be policed is another matter.

One hour a day however was nowhere near to being guidance - IIRC it was Michael Gove's answer to an on the spot question. That doesn't amount to a legal requirement, but it was surprising how many people seemed to think it did.

Spain I believe banned outdoor exercise altogether although it did allow dog walking. Cue people taking some extremely questionable dogs for walks.

True. I recall Wales' restrictions were different. I seem to recall it was what stymied our Christmass 2020. Something like it appeared we could go to Cardiff from Croydon but they could not come from Cardiff to Croydon. We all just played safe in the end. And us in Croydon went down with Covid regardless !.

I also think China jumped on Covid quite sharp in an endeavour to eradicate it. Pity they did not succeed.

 

[nw1]

Spain I believe banned outdoor exercise altogether although it did allow dog walking. Cue people taking some extremely questionable dogs for walks.

Extraordinarily authoritarian, completely unnecessary, and to be quite frank, cruel and rather abusive.

Few governments cared about people's mental health. Few cared that being locked in your house would almost certainly lead to mental health problems, and might lead to an increased incidence of problems such as obesity and even alcoholism. The "Covid is the only health concern which matters" dogma was employed to a quite ridiculous extent: it's as if the entire world went crazy.

The response to Covid in many countries was far in excess of the actual threat it posed. It's one thing temporarily closing indoor businesses with high actual risk of spreading, but quite another thing criminalising people for walking in the countryside or even in a quiet suburban neighbourhood. No scientific logic at all, you're not going to spread Covid in those sorts of environments. What on earth were these politicians thinking? Was it just ignorance, or a desire to control?

 

[Eyersey468]

Extraordinarily authoritarian, completely unnecessary, and to be quite frank, cruel and rather abusive.

Few governments cared about people's mental health. Few cared that being locked in your house would almost certainly lead to mental health problems, and might lead to an increased incidence of problems such as obesity and even alcoholism. The "Covid is the only health concern which matters" dogma was employed to a quite ridiculous extent: it's as if the entire world went crazy.

The response to Covid in many countries was far in excess of the actual threat it posed. It's one thing temporarily closing indoor businesses with high actual risk of spreading, but quite another thing criminalising people for walking in the countryside or even in a quiet suburban neighbourhood. No scientific logic at all, you're not going to spread Covid in those sorts of environments. What on earth were these politicians thinking? Was it just ignorance, or a desire to control?

Completely agree.

 

[danm14]

Spain I believe banned outdoor exercise altogether although it did allow dog walking. Cue people taking some extremely questionable dogs for walks.

Spain also banned children under 14 from going outside at all for the first six weeks of their first lockdown.

 

[nw1]

Spain also banned children under 14 from going outside at all for the first six weeks of their first lockdown.

Jeez, that is really cruel.

 

[dk1]

Jeez, that is really cruel.

Hard to believe now.

 

[Peter Sarf]

Extraordinarily authoritarian, completely unnecessary, and to be quite frank, cruel and rather abusive.

Few governments cared about people's mental health. Few cared that being locked in your house would almost certainly lead to mental health problems, and might lead to an increased incidence of problems such as obesity and even alcoholism. The "Covid is the only health concern which matters" dogma was employed to a quite ridiculous extent: it's as if the entire world went crazy.

The response to Covid in many countries was far in excess of the actual threat it posed. It's one thing temporarily closing indoor businesses with high actual risk of spreading, but quite another thing criminalising people for walking in the countryside or even in a quiet suburban neighbourhood. No scientific logic at all, you're not going to spread Covid in those sorts of environments. What on earth were these politicians thinking? Was it just ignorance, or a desire to control?

I am pretty sure most over the top restrictions were the result of ignorance and an initial gung-ho attitude leading inevitably to a panic over reaction when what they deemed unbelievable/impossible became alarmingly obvious and so impossible to ignore !.

 

[jumble]

Going out once a day for exercise once a day was guidance in England, but I believe it was law in Wales. Quite how it was to be policed is another matter.

One hour a day however was nowhere near to being guidance - IIRC it was Michael Gove's answer to an on the spot question. That doesn't amount to a legal requirement, but it was surprising how many people seemed to think it did.

Spain I believe banned outdoor exercise altogether although it did allow dog walking. Cue people taking some extremely questionable dogs for walks.

Not only that but I am led to believe that some dogs in Spain got extremely tired because they had a lot of walks each day with different people

 

[dk1]

Not only that but I am led to believe that some dogs in Spain got extremely tired because they had a lot of walks each day with different people

I thought that happened here too.

Being a key worker (in uniform) it was great because I could walk into and around the city centre and sit around eating my lunch without question from the police who were stopping many others. I don’t own a dog.

 

[nw1]

I thought that happened here too.

Being a key worker (in uniform) it was great because I could walk into and around the city centre and sit around eating my lunch without question from the police who were stopping many others. I don’t own a dog.

I walked into the city centre regularly (a couple of miles) during the first lockdown to visit a specialist food and washing products shop, which remained open.

Perhaps that was semi-unacceptable, but nobody stopped me, thankfully. There were actual health-related reasons for doing this. I do remember, however, seeing a police car parked up in the park.

I guess walking purposefully and not stopping anywhere would prevent any possibility of being questioned.

I do wonder also whether it was a good thing redeploying police to check on "illicit" outdoor activity when they could have been dealing,with real, serious crimes.

 

[Mag_seven]

the police who were stopping many others.

Who would have thought that in a modern democracy you could be questioned by the police for being outside. Its really chilling to think how we allowed the state to overstep its bounds in the way it did.

 

[james60059]

The worse thing apart from the mental health aspects of lockdown and restrictions was that overnight it turned many people into pontificating little Hitlers (or Karen's as they've become known). Even in the last week on social media, I seen a photo get posted on one of the groups and within 10 minutes, someone commented "we were in lockdown, why were you out taking photo's of trains?". I'm like seriously

Who would have thought that in a modern democracy you could be questioned by the police for being outside. Its really chilling to think how we allowed the state to overstep its bounds in the way it did.

I remember the police making a statement about increasing patrols around East Midlands Airport because of an increase in plane spotters with extra cargo flights coming in - it was posted like they were proud of it