Reports on effectiveness (or not!) and impacts of lockdown and other measures

[yorkie]

Government: lockdowns hurt minority groups most

After a 15-month long battle, the Government has finally released reports on the effect of Covid restrictions on minority groups. The results make for predictably grim reading. Overall, they describe a catalogue of harms from March to June last year, which disproportionately affected the most...

unherd.com

After a 15-month long battle, the Government has finally released reports on the effect of Covid restrictions on minority groups. The results make for predictably grim reading.

Overall, they describe a catalogue of harms from March to June last year, which disproportionately affected the most vulnerable. The documents state that LGBT+ groups, women (including pregnant women), the poor, young and old, ethnic minorities, and disabled people have all been the most negatively affected by lockdowns and restrictions...

...It remains to be seen whether there was “no alternative” to such restrictions, which ended up having such a negative impact on the vulnerable. As the Covid restrictions were passed via emergency legislation, they were subjected to little parliamentary scrutiny. Perhaps the sheer amount of collateral damage that the government has since tried to hide serves as a reminder of the need to remember the impact of policies, first and foremost, on the most vulnerable.

(The document to which this article refers, from May 2020 which has now been released, can be found at https://assets.publishing.service.g...achment_data/file/1036153/6_May_2020_PSED.pdf )

I suspect if further analysis was done now, the results would be even more damning as we would also see longer term harms caused by lockdown measures, school closures etc.

Make no mistake: lockdown measures and many other restrictions have very disproportionate effects. Yes, some wealthier people are harmed by lockdowns but not to anywhere near the extent that less advantaged people are.

Of course none of this is a surprise, but it is perhaps surprising that the Government had access to this knowledge back in May 2020 and yet schools still did not reopen fully until September 2020, and we had two further lockdowns, including an extended school closure period.

But it's not just a case of blaming the Government; they were egged on by many pro-restriction fanatics including Labour party members and supporters. Indeed Labour often complained the Government did not lock down enough!

It is also shocking that the Labour party continues to call for harsher restrictions, including lockdowns, even now, when they must also be aware of the harms that they cause to groups they purport to represent. I am sure I am not alone in feeling a sense of betrayal by Labour.

 

[Cdd89]

Having read the document, it is notable that some measures have different costs than others. ‘Closure of businesses’, for example, has relatively limited impacts; while ‘stay at home’ has extremely large impacts. Unfortately people supported as many measures as possible (for a “proper lockdown”) without considering the impact of each measure individually.

The document works on the assumption that everyone will follow the law and that it will be enforced perfectly, but this misses impacts related to enforcement. In particular, it doesn’t note that for ‘stay at home’ to be enforced by police, questioning of those not at home is required; and that separate evidence shows police to be likely to profile younger or BAME individuals in conducting this questioning and judging the credibility of responses; as well as the burden of this being higher for those with disabilities leading to anxiety.

By 6 May 2020, when the document was published, this was arguably even worse as the rules were enforced with a nudge and a wink; the privileged could bend them, while those in the above groups (and others) could not. As we saw, by this time this attitude even came from influential politicians of all sides (Conservatives’ garden party, Starmer’s drinks party, Corbyn's dinner party). While comprehensive, the document doesn’t acccount for this because its terms of reference assume perfect compliance.

Ultimately I can’t forgive anyone who supported “stay at home” being part of lockdown legislation while being aware of the implications, though I’d understand strong guidance to minimise contacts. This element caused untold hardship, while having had minimal benefit as compared with business, event and education* closures. Separated from other measures, it is likely to have caused net mortality.

* I believe education closures are likely to have been effective in reducing spread, but still should not have happened, due to the many equalities impacts on children who were not at sufficient risk from Covid and should have had their interests prioritised.

 

[Eyersey468]

This is no surprise to me whatsoever. I had forseen the harm that lockdown causes back in March 2020.

 

[brad465]

When thinking about the harms of lockdowns, I was not expecting this: new NHS figures have revealed thousands needed hospital treatments for a variety of household accidents and some other injuries as a result of behaviour that was caused by being in lockdown, including DIY, visiting playgrounds, pets, etc. Children were most commonly affected, but parents and grandparents have also been victim it seems:

Covid: Thousands needed hospital treatment after lockdown DIY

Among those admitted to hospital were eight people aged over 90 who fell from playground equipment.

www.bbc.co.uk

New NHS figures show that thousands of people injured in household accidents were admitted to English hospitals during Covid-19 lockdowns.
The 2020/21 figures for England were obtained by the PA news agency and found accidents fell in many categories as people spent more time indoors.
But numerous incidents, including eight people over the age of 90 who needed hospital treatment after falling from playground equipment, were recorded.
DIY disasters injured many more.
Data from NHS Digital showed that more than 5,300 people were admitted to hospital after falls from a range of playground attractions such as swings and slides.
While the average age of these adventurers was nine-and-a-half years old, dozens of parents and grandparents were also injured.
Meanwhile, as thousands of people turned their attention to household DIY tasks, more than 5,600 amateur builders required hospital attention after coming into contact with a electric hand tool.

Another 2,700 people sought medical attention after an accident with a non-powered hand tool, such as a hammer or a saw, and 349 were admitted to hospital after tussles with a lawnmower.
Working from home saw everyday household items pose a fresh hazard, with 2,243 people needing attention after coming into contact with hot drinks, food, fats and cooking oils.
And while many people found comfort during lockdowns by adopting pets, 7,386 people were admitted to English hospitals after being bitten or struck by a dog, while 60 others sought assistance after encounters with venomous spiders.
One 90-year-old woman was admitted to hospital after being bitten or struck by a crocodile or alligator.
Despite spending more time at home, the number of people needing assistance after being struck by lighting rose from three cases in 2019/20 to 18 in 2020/21.
The figures are likely to be just the tip of the iceberg, representing only those who were admitted to hospital for their injuries. Many more accidents would have been dealt with by A&E doctors and GPs.
A spokesperson for the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents (RoSPA) said the accidents were a reminder of the breadth of accidents that hospitals deal with on a daily basis.
"In among the stranger entries in the database are some worrying trends that serve to highlight the accident challenges that we face," the spokesperson added.

What this highlights is that it does not matter how careful we are towards a particular hazard/threat, there will always be a level of risk that cannot be avoided. Many were being careful about avoiding covid, but the thought of injuring oneself in a way outlined here was probably not on anyone's mind, either because they were not educated properly on such risks, and/or the beefing up of covid threats made them forget. Of course if they were going into hospital, they were still technically "overwhelming the NHS", something we were told we needed to lockdown for in order to prevent.

Perhaps all we were doing in lockdown was transferring risk from one cause to another, and that beyond a certain level risk cannot be reduced. This is of course on top of record high alcohol deaths, experiences of depression, poverty and other harms that have been reported in 2020.

 

[Mojo]

When thinking about the harms of lockdowns, I was not expecting this: new NHS figures have revealed thousands needed hospital treatments for a variety of household accidents and some other injuries as a result of behaviour that was caused by being in lockdown, including DIY, visiting playgrounds, pets, etc.

I was actually thinking this at the time (April last year) whilst I was up a ladder for a week painting the outside of my house.

My other half actually ended up in A+E just after Easter 2020 after he was painting the fence and got a massive splinter behind his fingernail. 111 advised to go to A+E straight away and offered an appointment. I wasn’t allowed in but apparently it was dead; he was in and out in 45 Min.

 

[Cdd89]

Many were being careful about avoiding covid, but the thought of injuring oneself in a way outlined here was probably not on anyone's mind

Interesting. I think it was thought about, but in the other direction — as I distinctly recall certain sanctimonious people lecturing others for going out of their homes unnecessarily as they might slip on the pavement / have a car accident / … and burden the NHS.

 

[Eyersey468]

Interesting. I think it was thought about, but in the other direction — as I distinctly recall certain sanctimonious people lecturing others for going out of their homes unnecessarily as they might slip on the pavement / have a car accident / … and burden the NHS.

I remember that as well, and those people that were saying it were breaking their own rules with impunity.

 

[Baxenden Bank]

Interesting. I think it was thought about, but in the other direction — as I distinctly recall certain sanctimonious people lecturing others for going out of their homes unnecessarily as they might slip on the pavement / have a car accident / … and burden the NHS.

Exactly.

As though staying at home is 100% safe anyway.

Nevermind DIY accidents, how many people gorged on unhealthy food, didn't exercise, didn't socialise and so gained weight and built up greater future pressures on the NHS through heart / diabetes / mental health type problems.

I remember that as well, and those people that were saying it were breaking their own rules with impunity.

And probably live in large semi/detached houses, with gardens, in a nice quiet suburban or rural location.

@Mojo - A whole week up a ladder - you really ought to come down occasionally, at least to sleep once per day .

When thinking about the harms of lockdowns, I was not expecting this: new NHS figures have revealed thousands needed hospital treatments for a variety of household accidents and some other injuries as a result of behaviour that was caused by being in lockdown, including DIY, visiting playgrounds, pets, etc. Children were most commonly affected, but parents and grandparents have also been victim it seems:

Covid: Thousands needed hospital treatment after lockdown DIY

Among those admitted to hospital were eight people aged over 90 who fell from playground equipment.

www.bbc.co.uk

What this highlights is that it does not matter how careful we are towards a particular hazard/threat, there will always be a level of risk that cannot be avoided. Many were being careful about avoiding covid, but the thought of injuring oneself in a way outlined here was probably not on anyone's mind, either because they were not educated properly on such risks, and/or the beefing up of covid threats made them forget. Of course if they were going into hospital, they were still technically "overwhelming the NHS", something we were told we needed to lockdown for in order to prevent.

Perhaps all we were doing in lockdown was transferring risk from one cause to another, and that beyond a certain level risk cannot be reduced. This is of course on top of record high alcohol deaths, experiences of depression, poverty and other harms that have been reported in 2020.

What the article doesn't state is how that compares with a normal year.

Accidents happen, that's why hospitals have an accidents (and emergencies) department!

 

[yorkie]

Interesting. I think it was thought about, but in the other direction — as I distinctly recall certain sanctimonious people lecturing others for going out of their homes unnecessarily as they might slip on the pavement / have a car accident / … and burden the NHS.

Yes, there were crazy things said during lockdown 1; it was deemed by some people to be unacceptable to do outdoor exercise, hence the big rise in indoor accidents.

https://twitter.com/aruncooke/status/1249373661783642113

I just change my mind on this basically by the hour. I don’t want to be a burden on the NHS by coming off my bike/being hit by a car and needing treatment. At the same time there are so few cars that it actually felt safer the other day. But so many are saying we shouldn’t...

https://twitter.com/johnkhardcastle/status/1249387309323235340

Even worse for me as I’m in a single person household so whoever has to come out to assist is an unnecessary contact. And if that person then goes back to a multi-person household.... for me it’s a no outdoor biking for the foreseeable future

https://twitter.com/jacko2503/status/1246733533760106496

Should I go to the park: NO! Should I go to the beach: NO! Should we go to a local beauty spot: NO! Just because the sun's out is not an excuse to be a prick. Should I stay at home because I will ease the burden on the NHS: YES!

 

[kristiang85]

Yes, there were crazy things said during lockdown 1; it was deemed by some people to be unacceptable to do outdoor exercise, hence the big rise in indoor accidents.

https://twitter.com/aruncooke/status/1249373661783642113

https://twitter.com/johnkhardcastle/status/1249387309323235340

https://twitter.com/jacko2503/status/1246733533760106496

Wow, some of that really stirs up some anger in me. The long term effects of this is going to far outweigh the few (if any) lives saved by people not going outdoors to exercise or just have a mental health break for months on end.

Edit: typo

 

[Baxenden Bank]

Wow, some of that really stirs up some anger in me. The long term effects of this is going to gar outweigh the few (if any) lives saved by people not going outdoors to exercise or just have a mental health break for months on end.

Yes, there were crazy things said during lockdown 1; it was deemed by some people to be unacceptable to do outdoor exercise, hence the big rise in indoor accidents.

https://twitter.com/aruncooke/status/1249373661783642113

https://twitter.com/johnkhardcastle/status/1249387309323235340

https://twitter.com/jacko2503/status/1246733533760106496

The problem is that the messaging (propaganda/hysteria) at the time actively encouraged people to have such thoughts. The 'don't be a granny killer' and 'look him in the eyes' was spouted by government, not Karen on Facebook. There were no responses from those making policy to counter the 'panting cyclists are going to kill the whole village with their disease' type comments. I suspect that, in private, they were quite pleased with such public take-up.

Now I worry that the fear is ingrained into large numbers of people and until COVID is officially declared OVER (spoiler alert - it ain't gonna happen - as you realise) they are going to continue with that mentality of 'fear of the stranger' (pitchforks at the ready, chase them out, catch them, burn them).

I had it in rural areas with Foot and Mouth 20 years ago (and yes, Professor Pantzoff had his hand in that mess-up too). At least that was officially declared 'over' and things were able to return to normal.

 

[brad465]

While the general tide against restrictions might be turning, this rather concerning tweet proves there are some who still think lockdowns are a magic bullet, where the user asks if people would support a 2 week "true" lockdown to end this pandemic, which is full of replies begging for it and/or delighted at the concept and over 33k likes:

https://twitter.com/NidalAllis/status/1478066535172390921

Hard Question: Would you agree to a true lockdown for 2 weeks to end this pandemic?

There are circa a thousand reasons why this is both wrong and unrealistic, but the key ones I can think of are this:

- 2 weeks was clearly not enough for even China or any other country that tried zero covid, and even when they eliminated covid, it still came back, while as covid mutated to be more transmissible, lockdowns were insufficient and zero covid has now been abandoned.
- There are plenty of precedents of saying a lockdown will last for x weeks but then extending it to be y weeks long.
- It is not physically possible to enforce a "true" lockdown, and there's still plenty of legal movement that could be very effective at spreading covid.
- Covid infects animals and they act as reservoirs. Even if all humans were suddenly no longer infected with covid, animals can pass it back into humans.
- They undermine vaccines.
- There are too many costs of lockdowns that have been said many times on here and in this thread, both health and financial costs.

On a normal distribution curve, there are two extremes with very small support on each side, and a middle ground where the overwhelming majority sit. The majority are in a group that will support some measures and vaccines generally but will not support extreme stances on them. On one extreme you've got deniers, anti-vaxxers, etc., but on the other extreme are people like the one in that tweet, demanding zero covid, extreme measures at whatever cost and probably also happy to have a drip attached constantly feeding a vaccine to them if offered it.

 

[Dent]

While the general tide against restrictions might be turning, this rather concerning tweet proves there are some who still think lockdowns are a magic bullet, where the user asks if people would support a 2 week "true" lockdown to end this pandemic, which is full of replies begging for it and/or delighted at the concept and over 33k likes:

https://twitter.com/NidalAllis/status/1478066535172390921

There are circa a thousand reasons why this is both wrong and unrealistic, but the key ones I can think of are this:

- 2 weeks was clearly not enough for even China or any other country that tried zero covid, and even when they eliminated covid, it still came back, while as covid mutated to be more transmissible, lockdowns were insufficient and zero covid has now been abandoned.
- There are plenty of precedents of saying a lockdown will last for x weeks but then extending it to be y weeks long.
- It is not physically possible to enforce a "true" lockdown, and there's still plenty of legal movement that could be very effective at spreading covid.
- Covid infects animals and they act as reservoirs. Even if all humans were suddenly no longer infected with covid, animals can pass it back into humans.
- They undermine vaccines.
- There are too many costs of lockdowns that have been said many times on here and in this thread, both health and financial costs.

On a normal distribution curve, there are two extremes with very small support on each side, and a middle ground where the overwhelming majority sit. The majority are in a group that will support some measures and vaccines generally but will not support extreme stances on them. On one extreme you've got deniers, anti-vaxxers, etc., but on the other extreme are people like the one in that tweet, demanding zero covid, extreme measures at whatever cost and probably also happy to have a drip attached constantly feeding a vaccine to them if offered it.

Whoever wrote that clearly doesn't understand how endemic equilibrium works. Even if it were theoretically possible to stop all transmission for two weeks, doing so would by definition also stop any build up of herd immunity, meaning that it would take two weeks longer to reach endemic equilibrium.

 

[WessexEclectic]

"...the user asks if people would support a 2 week "true" lockdown to end this pandemic..."

But Real Lockdowns have never been tried....

 

[Yew]

While the general tide against restrictions might be turning, this rather concerning tweet proves there are some who still think lockdowns are a magic bullet, where the user asks if people would support a 2 week "true" lockdown to end this pandemic, which is full of replies begging for it and/or delighted at the concept and over 33k likes:

https://twitter.com/NidalAllis/status/1478066535172390921

There are circa a thousand reasons why this is both wrong and unrealistic, but the key ones I can think of are this:

- 2 weeks was clearly not enough for even China or any other country that tried zero covid, and even when they eliminated covid, it still came back, while as covid mutated to be more transmissible, lockdowns were insufficient and zero covid has now been abandoned.
- There are plenty of precedents of saying a lockdown will last for x weeks but then extending it to be y weeks long.
- It is not physically possible to enforce a "true" lockdown, and there's still plenty of legal movement that could be very effective at spreading covid.
- Covid infects animals and they act as reservoirs. Even if all humans were suddenly no longer infected with covid, animals can pass it back into humans.
- They undermine vaccines.
- There are too many costs of lockdowns that have been said many times on here and in this thread, both health and financial costs.

On a normal distribution curve, there are two extremes with very small support on each side, and a middle ground where the overwhelming majority sit. The majority are in a group that will support some measures and vaccines generally but will not support extreme stances on them. On one extreme you've got deniers, anti-vaxxers, etc., but on the other extreme are people like the one in that tweet, demanding zero covid, extreme measures at whatever cost and probably also happy to have a drip attached constantly feeding a vaccine to them if offered it.

I'd be up for that, a two week lockdown in exchange for a guarantee no covid restrictions ever again.


It would't do anything epidemiologically speaking, of course.

 

[J-2739]

I think it was more of a hypothetical question, like some fantasy land reality. If a two week lockdown meant zero restrictions forever, then I would accept it, but that's not how real life works.

 

[DustyBin]

While the general tide against restrictions might be turning, this rather concerning tweet proves there are some who still think lockdowns are a magic bullet, where the user asks if people would support a 2 week "true" lockdown to end this pandemic, which is full of replies begging for it and/or delighted at the concept and over 33k likes:

https://twitter.com/NidalAllis/status/1478066535172390921

There are circa a thousand reasons why this is both wrong and unrealistic, but the key ones I can think of are this:

- 2 weeks was clearly not enough for even China or any other country that tried zero covid, and even when they eliminated covid, it still came back, while as covid mutated to be more transmissible, lockdowns were insufficient and zero covid has now been abandoned.
- There are plenty of precedents of saying a lockdown will last for x weeks but then extending it to be y weeks long.
- It is not physically possible to enforce a "true" lockdown, and there's still plenty of legal movement that could be very effective at spreading covid.
- Covid infects animals and they act as reservoirs. Even if all humans were suddenly no longer infected with covid, animals can pass it back into humans.
- They undermine vaccines.
- There are too many costs of lockdowns that have been said many times on here and in this thread, both health and financial costs.

On a normal distribution curve, there are two extremes with very small support on each side, and a middle ground where the overwhelming majority sit. The majority are in a group that will support some measures and vaccines generally but will not support extreme stances on them. On one extreme you've got deniers, anti-vaxxers, etc., but on the other extreme are people like the one in that tweet, demanding zero covid, extreme measures at whatever cost and probably also happy to have a drip attached constantly feeding a vaccine to them if offered it.

How many deaths as a direct result of said lockdown would be acceptable one wonders?

 

[yorkie]

How many deaths as a direct result of said lockdown would be acceptable one wonders?

Some people seem to take the view that the only relevant deaths are Covid deaths.

In other news...

Lockdowns had little or no impact on COVID-19 deaths, new study shows

Lockdowns in the U.S. and Europe had little or no impact in reducing deaths from COVID-19, according to a new analysis by researchers at Johns Hopkins University.

www.washingtontimes.com

Lockdowns in the U.S. and Europe had little or no impact in reducing deaths from COVID-19, according to a new analysis by researchers at Johns Hopkins University.

The lockdowns during the early phase of the pandemic in 2020 reduced COVID-19 mortality by about 0.2%, said the broad review of multiple scientific studies.

“We find no evidence that lockdowns, school closures, border closures, and limiting gatherings have had a noticeable effect on COVID-19 mortality,” the researchers wrote.

But the research paper said lockdowns did have “devastating effects” on the economy and contributed to numerous social ills.

“They have contributed to reducing economic activity, raising unemployment, reducing schooling, causing political unrest, contributing to domestic violence, and undermining liberal democracy,” the report said.

Those who support lockdowns are also silent about the Netherlands recent lockdown, where cases rose significantly during the lockdown.

The truth is now out about lockdowns; those who called for and/or supported lockdowns should admit 'I was wrong'; I would respect them for that.

 

[Silver Cobra]

As foolish as it is, I had a quick browse on the Sky News website this morning, and spotted this in their live feed:

Lockdowns had 'little to no’ impact on COVID deaths but caused 'devastating effects', study finds

Research has concluded that lockdowns across the world had very little impact on deaths from COVID, but had "devastating effects".

Conducted by economists from Johns Hopkins University's institute of Studies in Applied Economics, the working paper used meta-analysis to look at 18,590 studies, 24 of which ultimately qualified for inclusion.

The research defined lockdowns as "the imposition of at least one compulsory, non-pharmaceutical intervention (NPI)", explaining "NPIs are any government mandate that directly restrict peoples’ possibilities, such as policies that limit internal movement, close schools and businesses, and ban international travel."

The included in analysis were broken down into three categories: lockdown stringency index studies, shelter-in-place order (SIPO) studies, and specific NPI studies.

"An analysis of each of these three groups support the conclusion that lockdowns have had little to no effect on COVID-19 mortality," the working paper concluded.

"More specifically, stringency index studies find that lockdowns in Europe and the United States only reduced COVID-19 mortality by 0.2% on average. SIPOs were also ineffective, only reducing COVID-19 mortality by 2.9% on average. Specific NPI studies also find no broad-based evidence of noticeable effects on COVID-19 mortality.

"While this meta-analysis concludes that lockdowns have had little to no public health effects, they have imposed enormous economic and social costs where they have been adopted. In consequence, lockdown policies are ill-founded and should be rejected as a pandemic policy instrument."

The working paper has attracted criticisms, it should be noted.

Some pointed out it had not been published or peer reviewed, while others have suggested economists are not experts in the field of public health and therefore less qualified to reach conclusions on the impact of COVID restrictions.

(Due to it being in their live feed, I can't link to it unfortunately)

I honestly hope this helps bring a permanent end to the use of lockdowns as a means of tackling future variants of Covid-19 and future pandemics.

 

[yorksrob]

I would like to see SAGE respond to the points raised by this study.

 

[Harpers Tate]

Whilst I would not want to down-play the importance of actual deaths (primarily to the individuals and their families) I'd suggest that government priorities (here and everywhere else) were more focussed on the impact on health services - the number of people requiring hospital care vs. the resource to do so. The same applies in most (or all) countries, I suspect, including those like the USA with its almost entirely private healthcare system.

I see nothing in that headline that analyses, not deaths, but hospital demand. Unless and until they or someone analyses this entire picture, this attention grabbing headline is at best meaningloess and at worst misleading. It's certainly incomplete.

It may be, for example, that the large majority of those who have in fact died would have done so regardless of any intervention. And many of those who did not die would not have died regardless. But of those who did not die - how many more would have been deemed to need a hospital (or, worse an ICU) bed absent restrictions? What might the highest peak demand have been? What actual effect has the (theoretical) slowing of disease spread had, given that as time has gone by, the disease has apparently mutated into a less acute form, thereby "allowing" more people to catch it with less personal impact? Analyse that and we will be closer to understanding the situation properly.

 

[theblackwatch]

What about the effects on its purpose (to prevent the NHS being overwhelmed)?

 

[DustyBin]

Some people seem to take the view that the only relevant deaths are Covid deaths.

Strange but true seemingly!

In other news...

Lockdowns had little or no impact on COVID-19 deaths, new study shows

Lockdowns in the U.S. and Europe had little or no impact in reducing deaths from COVID-19, according to a new analysis by researchers at Johns Hopkins University.

www.washingtontimes.com

Those who support lockdowns are also silent about the Netherlands recent lockdown, where cases rose significantly during the lockdown.

The truth is now out about lockdowns; those who called for and/or supported lockdowns should admit 'I was wrong'; I would respect them for that.

The DM is running the same story this morning, quoting an estimated 0.2% reduction in the Covid mortality rate. The whole strategy (and I use that term loosely) was catastrophic and must never ever be repeated.

 

[Bantamzen]

Whilst I would not want to down-play the importance of actual deaths (primarily to the individuals and their families) I'd suggest that government priorities (here and everywhere else) were more focussed on the impact on health services - the number of people requiring hospital care vs. the resource to do so. The same applies in most (or all) countries, I suspect, including those like the USA with its almost entirely private healthcare system.

I see nothing in that headline that analyses, not deaths, but hospital demand. Unless and until they or someone analyses this entire picture, this attention grabbing headline is at best meaningloess and at worst misleading. It's certainly incomplete.

It may be, for example, that the large majority of those who have in fact died would have done so regardless of any intervention. And many of those who did not die would not have died regardless. But of those who did not die - how many more would have been deemed to need a hospital (or, worse an ICU) bed absent restrictions? What might the highest peak demand have been? What actual effect has the (theoretical) slowing of disease spread had, given that as time has gone by, the disease has apparently mutated into a less acute form, thereby "allowing" more people to catch it with less personal impact? Analyse that and we will be closer to understanding the situation properly.

These are not the only factors though. What about the effect on the general health of the population as a result of lockdowns? Or even more pressing the effect of being effectively being locked out of the healthcare system? Five and a half million people on the NHS waiting list is evidence that lockdowns may have caused more harm than good.

But at the end of the day, in this country at least we have a healthcare system that is paid for by taxpayers and run by government. It is not our responsibility to "save" the NHS, it is the government's responsibility to properly fund & manage it, ensuring that there is sufficient capacity for normal times and pandemics. Covid is far from the first pandemic humanity has seen, and it won't be the last. So if the purpose of lockdowns is simply to protect poor decision making in the past, then they are most certainly not the right way forward. So we should never consider lockdowns for this reason again, especially considering that the hundreds of billions thrown at covid measures in this country could have been better purposed to improving the NHS.

 

[DelayRepay]

Those who support lockdowns are also silent about the Netherlands recent lockdown, where cases rose significantly during the lockdown.

The truth is now out about lockdowns; those who called for and/or supported lockdowns should admit 'I was wrong'; I would respect them for that.

When I supported the first lockdown, it was on the basis that it was a short term measure to deal with an emerging threat that we did not fully understand. But it went on for far too long, and set a precedent for all the restrictions that have followed. So if I had my time again, I would have opposed Lockdown 1 (not that it would have made any difference).

I did not support the next two lockdowns, or the 'semi-lockdowns' in certain areas through the tier systems, or all the other weird and wonderful rules we've been subjected to.

So, 'I was wrong' - mainly for not recognising that it was creating a precedent for rules that would have a big impact on our lives for the following 18 months

 

[DelayRepay]

These are not the only factors though. What about the effect on the general health of the population as a result of lockdowns? Or even more pressing the effect of being effectively being locked out of the healthcare system? Five and a half million people on the NHS waiting list is evidence that lockdowns may have caused more harm than good.

A genuine question - how much of the backlog was caused by the lockdown (I know some was, e.g. GPs more or less shutting up shop), vs how much was caused by the NHS genuinely having to 'clear the decks' in anticipation of a large number of Covid patients?

 

[DustyBin]

When I supported the first lockdown, it was on the basis that it was a short term measure to deal with an emerging threat that we did not fully understand. But it went on for far too long, and set a precedent for all the restrictions that have followed. So if I had my time again, I would have opposed Lockdown 1 (not that it would have made any difference).

I did not support the next two lockdowns, or the 'semi-lockdowns' in certain areas through the tier systems, or all the other weird and wonderful rules we've been subjected to.

So, 'I was wrong' - mainly for not recognising that it was creating a precedent for rules that would have a big impact on our lives for the following 18 months

Actually I’m in the same position. I supported the first lockdown as I simply didn’t know any better at the time, but by the end it was clear that the damage being done outweighed any benefit at which point my stance changed.

 

[DelayRepay]

Actually I’m in the same position. I supported the first lockdown as I simply didn’t know any better at the time, but by the end it was clear that the damage being done outweighed any benefit at which point my stance changed.

I'm glad it's not just me. I suspect we are representative of quite a large proportion of the population. It is notable that there seemed to be very little public support for a lockdown before Christmas when the idea was floated in the media.

 

[Bantamzen]

A genuine question - how much of the backlog was caused by the lockdown (I know some was, e.g. GPs more or less shutting up shop), vs how much was caused by the NHS genuinely having to 'clear the decks' in anticipation of a large number of Covid patients?

Well it seems that as of Jan 2020, there were 4.4 million people on the waiting list. So covid measures may have added over a million more.

Returning NHS waiting times to 18 weeks for routine treatment

In January 2020 there was a backlog of over 1,000,000 patients awaiting elective surgery which needed to be cleared to acheive the 18-week standard. As a result of COVID-19, and without radical intervention, it is unrealistic to expect the 18-week standard to be achieved by 2024.

www.health.org.uk

In January 2020, before large numbers of COVID-19 hospitalisations, a total of 4.4 million patients were on the waiting list – around 730,000 of whom had waited more than 18 weeks.

 

[Yew]

What about the effects on its purpose (to prevent the NHS being overwhelmed)?

I thought that "preventing the NHS being overwhelmed" was also about preventing deaths?