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

[Eyersey468]

Strange but true seemingly!



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.

I agree

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 was against lockdown 1, I had seen from the off that the collateral damage would be horrendous.

 

[DelayRepay]

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.

I agree Covid has contributed to NHS backlogs, but I'm not sure we can directly blame lockdown for the backlog. I think the backlogs are mostly because the NHS basically stopped doing anything other than treat Covid patients for a long while. But they would probably have done this irrespective of lockdowns due to the number of people who were ill.

 

[greyman42]

Some people supported lockdowns simply to allow them to work from home or claim furlough.

 

[DelayRepay]

Some people supported lockdowns simply to allow them to work from home or claim furlough.

I know a lad who thought Lockdown 1 was great - months of paid leave. He changed his mind when furlough ended and he got his P45.

 

[Bantamzen]

I agree Covid has contributed to NHS backlogs, but I'm not sure we can directly blame lockdown for the backlog. I think the backlogs are mostly because the NHS basically stopped doing anything other than treat Covid patients for a long while. But they would probably have done this irrespective of lockdowns due to the number of people who were ill.

I'd argue that the NHS actions were part of the initial lockdown measures, so as such were responsible for the increase.

 

[SurreyCommuter]

This report has also made it's way onto the front page of the Telegraph this morning. Unfortunately I'm not a subscriber so can't post the whole article.



Image shows front page of Daily Telegraph with secondary headline of 'Lockdown prevented only 0.2% of deaths in first wave'.

 

[nedchester]

This report has also made it's way onto the front page of the Telegraph this morning. Unfortunately I'm not a subscriber so can't post the whole article.

View attachment 109695

Image shows front page of Daily Telegraph with secondary headline of 'Lockdown prevented only 0.2% of deaths in first wave'.

Covid lockdown ‘prevented only 0.2pc of deaths in first wave’

 

[scarby]

This just reinforces my view that Sweden got it 'right' with its 'classic pandemic' response, which was widely vilified in sections of the media at the time.

Those measures were, in essence:

- Working from home
- Physical distancing
- Keeping social contacts to a sensible minimum
- Preventing crowding by cancelling mass events and with measures such as table-only service and limits on the number of people in indoor spaces.

We know these measures are very effective in combating the spread of infectious airborne diseases because the winter flu figures absolutely fell off a cliff when they were introduced. Plus, of course, Covid didn't run right through the Swedish population over 2020-21, it was kept at a relatively low level.

Some of the most damaging measures outside Sweden included completely shutting down businesses and preventing people from travelling even over relatively short distances, and of course, confinement measures. As state epidemiologist Anders Tegnell stressed, travelling (or even just going from A to B on foot, etc.) wasn't a serious issue, it was about how you behaved in terms of physical interaction at your destination that was important.

 

[yorksrob]

Yes, I've said in the past that I believe Sweden's approach will be thoroughly vindicated. I'm still of that view.

 

[MikeWM]

Yes, I've said in the past that I believe Sweden's approach will be thoroughly vindicated. I'm still of that view.

Indeed - and happily it appears they're now going to roll back their brief (if baffling) dalliance with 'vaccine passports'.

 

[nedchester]

The impact of lockdowns of lockdowns on children's mental health:

Children's mental health: Record number referred for specialist care https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-60197150

 

[kristiang85]

The impact of lockdowns of lockdowns on children's mental health:

Children's mental health: Record number referred for specialist care https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-60197150

"Some 409,347 under-18s were referred for specialist care for issues such as self-harm and eating disorders between April and October 2021.

That was 77% higher than the same period in 2019."

Absolutely appalling. This should never be allowed to happen again.

 

[Eyersey468]

"Some 409,347 under-18s were referred for specialist care for issues such as self-harm and eating disorders between April and October 2021.

That was 77% higher than the same period in 2019."

Absolutely appalling. This should never be allowed to happen again.

Completely agree, it is no surprise to me whatsoever, if I as a layman could see this coming the authorities must have known

 

[nedchester]

"Some 409,347 under-18s were referred for specialist care for issues such as self-harm and eating disorders between April and October 2021.

That was 77% higher than the same period in 2019."

Absolutely appalling. This should never be allowed to happen again.

Without going into detail I know someone who prior to Covid was highly motivated at school, on course for excellent grades.

Then came the lockdowns and school closures and the same person is now withdrawn, lost motivation and variable attendance. Heart breaking to watch.

 

[35B]

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

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.

Given the consensus on this forum against meta-analyses, I'm surprised to see a meta-analysis given such credibility. Especially when it seems very tightly picked to support a cause that the authors are already on the record as being
aligned to.

 

[yorkie]

Given the consensus on this forum against meta-analyses, I'm surprised to see a meta-analysis given such credibility...

If you are referring to the ludicrous theoretical studies that support mask wearing, quite right they have no credibility.

Especially when it seems very tightly picked to support a cause that the authors are already on the record as being
aligned to.

Are you able to state what parts of the report you disagree with and why?

Do you have any evidence to disagree?

If lockdowns are so effective, how do you explain the recent experience of the Netherlands?

And why did places like the Czech Republic , who did so well suppressing the virus early in 2020 do so badly in the winter of 2020-21?

 

[bramling]

I know a lad who thought Lockdown 1 was great - months of paid leave. He changed his mind when furlough ended and he got his P45.

I’m sure a lot more people won’t be so keen on furlough now we’re suffering the consequences of all that money being released into the economy as a result of QE. Furlough was a significant contributor to it, and in many cases a completely unnecessary one - paying young, fit and healthy people to be away from work for potentially 18 months has to rank as one of the most absurd policy decisions ever made.

In my view the only justifiable reason for a lockdown is to buy time in the face of an emerging threat, and then only if there’s a definitive objective that the time is being bought in order to achieve. I’d say March 2020 met that, just about, though I have to say in hindsight I’d be highly sceptical if we found ourselves even in that position again. The objectives of March 2020 were too vague, and that has allowed it to become far too much of a default policy position, whereas it should be an absolute total last resort for dire emergency only.

 

[Yew]

Given the consensus on this forum against meta-analyses, I'm surprised to see a meta-analysis given such credibility. Especially when it seems very tightly picked to support a cause that the authors are already on the record as being
aligned to.

How do you propose that we make a reasonable randomised control trial? I can come up with ideas for mask wearing, vaccine passports or social distancing. But unless you've got a spare planet earth hanging around, that's two years behind us, I can't think of a practical way of making a high quality trial on the response of whole nations.

 

[yorkie]

Do any pro-lockdown people want to give their views on how this was justified?

Children's mental health: Huge rise in severe cases, BBC analysis reveals

As referrals rise for self-harm and eating disorders rise by 77%, schools see a wave of other less severe issues.

www.bbc.co.uk

There has been a 77% rise in the number of children needing specialist treatment for severe mental health crisis, analysis for the BBC shows.
Head teachers also report a huge rise in less severe mental health issues.

Only those with the most serious mental health problems are referred for specialist care. But schools are reporting a surge in mental health problems below this high threshold, with pupils needing extra support such as counselling.

There is no easy solution to this; some people think you can just invent a load of cash to pay for a huge team of counsellors and that undo the harms that were done, which is completely wrong.

The benefits of lockdowns are unproven (and it is not the job of those of us who oppose lockdowns to prove they are not effective; quite the opposite!) but the harms of lockdown are huge and very visible, with the full extent of the damage unlikely to be visible for many years.

Those who continue to post support of lockdowns and other restrictions (such as denying children almost all fun activities in schools for over a year) don't have my respect because I get to see first hand on a regular basis the harmful effects of lockdown on young people in particular; I consider justifying these appalling acts to be a crime against humanity for which there is, sadly, no punishment.

 

[Eyersey468]

I’m sure a lot more people won’t be so keen on furlough now we’re suffering the consequences of all that money being released into the economy as a result of QE. Furlough was a significant contributor to it, and in many cases a completely unnecessary one - paying young, fit and healthy people to be away from work for potentially 18 months has to rank as one of the most absurd policy decisions ever made.

In my view the only justifiable reason for a lockdown is to buy time in the face of an emerging threat, and then only if there’s a definitive objective that the time is being bought in order to achieve. I’d say March 2020 met that, just about, though I have to say in hindsight I’d be highly sceptical if we found ourselves even in that position again. The objectives of March 2020 were too vague, and that has allowed it to become far too much of a default policy position, whereas it should be an absolute total last resort for dire emergency only.

I agree regarding lockdowns, I have been against them from the beginning. Regarding furlough, it was necessary in March 2020 otherwise millions would have lost their jobs when businesses ran out of money, though I agree it went on too long

Do any pro-lockdown people want to give their views on how this was justified?

Children's mental health: Huge rise in severe cases, BBC analysis reveals

As referrals rise for self-harm and eating disorders rise by 77%, schools see a wave of other less severe issues.

www.bbc.co.uk

There is no easy solution to this; some people think you can just invent a load of cash to pay for a huge team of counsellors and that undo the harms that were done, which is completely wrong.

The benefits of lockdowns are unproven (and it is not the job of those of us who oppose lockdowns to prove they are not effective; quite the opposite!) but the harms of lockdown are huge and very visible, with the full extent of the damage unlikely to be visible for many years.

Those who continue to post support of lockdowns and other restrictions (such as denying children almost all fun activities in schools for over a year) don't have my respect because I get to see first hand on a regular basis the harmful effects of lockdown on young people in particular; I consider justifying these appalling acts to be a crime against humanity for which there is, sadly, no punishment.

I completely agree. My brother has aspergers and the lockdowns and appalling messaging of the last 2 years has set him back years. I am very concerned we may never be able to repair the damage that has been done to him.

 

[yorkie]

If anyone was pro lockdown in March 2020 but since realised their mistake then fair enough but what I cannot accept is the views of people who remain of the opinion that harsh lockdowns, including school closures and other measures, were justified now that we have more information on the harms of lockdown and very little evidence of the effectiveness of lockdowns.

 

[35B]

If you are referring to the ludicrous theoretical studies that support mask wearing, quite right they have no credibility.

Are you able to state what parts of the report you disagree with and why?

Do you have any evidence to disagree?

I do not "agree" or "disagree" with the study; I observe that it is highly selective as to what data it considers, and in a way that should make any reasonable observer suspect bias. That leads me towards the conclusion that if the input cannot be trusted, nor can the output. Or, more bluntly, garbage in, garbage out.

You and others here have made much of your focus on the science, and the scientific arguments against the analyses you refer to above. I respect that, even as I suspect a degree of methodolatry in your arguments. What I don't respect - and full credit to @MikeWM for his comments on another thread about this - is the determination of some to treat a study that agrees with their position as reliable, despite suffering from an extreme case of the same methodological issues that you so heavily criticise elsewhere.

How do you propose that we make a reasonable randomised control trial? I can come up with ideas for mask wearing, vaccine passports or social distancing. But unless you've got a spare planet earth hanging around, that's two years behind us, I can't think of a practical way of making a high quality trial on the response of whole nations.

I think we will always be in the realm of observational research, which I don't have a problem with - the double blind RCT may be the gold standard, but bronze can sometimes be more than good enough. But my issue is not with the methodology, but the willingness of some to argue against research they disagree with on grounds of methodology, but then back other research whose outcomes they agree with despite it being the same type of study they've previously criticised. That starts to sound very like hypocrisy.

If lockdowns are so effective, how do you explain the recent experience of the Netherlands?

And why did places like the Czech Republic , who did so well suppressing the virus early in 2020 do so badly in the winter of 2020-21?

Very good questions, and it'd be good to have some serious research assess them. Without starting from a doctrinaire position about whether "lockdowns" are or are not a good thing, and considering how both the virus and the population changed over the last 2 years. It would also be helpful if the catch-all and loaded term "lockdown" were removed from the discussion, or at least properly defined, so that comparisons could actually be performed meaningfully.

 

[yorkie]

I do not "agree" or "disagree" with the study....

How convenient

I observe that it is highly selective as to what data it considers, and in a way that should make any reasonable observer suspect bias. That leads me towards the conclusion that if the input cannot be trusted, nor can the output. Or, more bluntly, garbage in, garbage out.

Can you provide any evidence of studies you deem trustworthy which justify lockdowns and demonstrate they were effective? As I said earlier, the burden of proof regarding lockdowns should absolutely be to prove they were effective and justified, and not the other way round.

You and others here have made much of your focus on the science, and the scientific arguments against the analyses you refer to above. I respect that, even as I suspect a degree of methodolatry in your arguments. What I don't respect - and full credit to @MikeWM for his comments on another thread about this - is the determination of some to treat a study that agrees with their position as reliable, despite suffering from an extreme case of the same methodological issues that you so heavily criticise elsewhere.

I refer you to @Yew's response above. If we are debating the effectiveness of masks, that is something you can look at scientifically and in real-world studies. But to measure the effectiveness and justification of lockdowns, what 'scientific' approach do you propose exactly?

I think we will always be in the realm of observational research, which I don't have a problem with - the double blind RCT may be the gold standard, but bronze can sometimes be more than good enough. But my issue is not with the methodology, but the willingness of some to argue against research they disagree with on grounds of methodology, but then back other research whose outcomes they agree with despite it being the same type of study they've previously criticised. That starts to sound very like hypocrisy.

I think each study needs to be judged on its own merits rather than be lumped in as "the same type" of study as another study on a completely different subject.

If you object to an aspect of the study, can you provide more detail regarding what exactly you are objecting to? If you have different conclusions, what are they and what is the evidence for them?

Very good questions, and it'd be good to have some serious research assess them. Without starting from a doctrinaire position about whether "lockdowns" are or are not a good thing, and considering how both the virus and the population changed over the last 2 years. It would also be helpful if the catch-all and loaded term "lockdown" were removed from the discussion, or at least properly defined, so that comparisons could actually be performed meaningfully.

The term "lockdown" is a subjective term without a formal definition but I would say that if you are not allowed to leave your home except with a "reasonable excuse" then that qualifies. Of course the greater the list of reasonable excuses are, the less it feels like a lockdown.

 

[35B]

How convenient

Can you provide any evidence of studies you deem trustworthy which justify lockdowns and demonstrate they were effective? As I said earlier, the burden of proof regarding lockdowns should absolutely be to prove they were effective and justified, and not the other way round.

I refer you to @Yew's response above. If we are debating the effectiveness of masks, that is something you can look at scientifically and in real-world studies. But to measure the effectiveness and justification of lockdowns, what 'scientific' approach do you propose exactly?


I think each study needs to be judged on its own merits rather than be lumped in as "the same type" of study as another study on a completely different subject.

If you object to an aspect of the study, can you provide more detail regarding what exactly you are objecting to? If you have different conclusions, what are they and what is the evidence for them?

The term "lockdown" is a subjective term without a formal definition but I would say that if you are not allowed to leave your home except with a "reasonable excuse" then that qualifies. Of course the greater the list of reasonable excuses are, the less it feels like a lockdown.

As you say, "how convenient"! Unfortunately, in that response the mask of science slips, and you show that it's not the science that matters but the conclusion.

I have problems with the JHU study because the method they followed is fundamentally unreliable. It's not about which bit I agree or disagree with, but the basic premise of a meta-analysis that screens out the vast majority of studies to focus on a small number that happen to align to the views of the authors. That's what I said in my previous post, and which should be obvious to anyone - hell, if @MikeWM, whose views are poles apart from mine, can agree with me that the study is problematic, anyone can.

I first came across it when I saw a piece from the Telegraph about it. That alone made me suspicious, in the way that it compared the outcome of lockdown to Ferguson's March 2020 worst case scenario of 500k dead over 5 years if no measures were taken (no timeframe quoted), rather than the 200k over 5 years if restrictions were introduced. If you're doing comparative data, you must assess like against like - publicising a report in that way suggests bad faith about how the comparisons would be made.

More generally, research on the NPIs used against Covid is hellishly difficult. They happened in real time, there were few if any controls to compare individual measures against, and multiple measures were applied. Untangling that cats cradle is always going to be difficult. It's been part of the argument against research that asserts the value of masks, and the same issue appears here. That much research, and even more how it's been publicised, is also highly partisan makes it more difficult - where masks are concerned, both the Danmask study ("proving" masks are not useful) and the Bangladesh study ("proving" that they are) suffer from being both limited in themselves, and then being presented in highly partisan ways that the research itself doesn't support.

That challenge gets harder when we consider how Covid has evolved, becoming more transmissible, first more and then less serious in itself, and all the time (taking Britain as an example) while we have gone from being totally immune naive to highly vaccinated and with a significant reservoir of disease induced immune response. In the face of that, I wouldn't know how to pull together a study that could unpick that lot, or what forms of statistical analysis might allow me to distinguish the impact of those different factors. But, as a layman, it doesn't faze me that a policy of reducing human contact would be effective at reducing the spread and toll of a disease that spreads as we breathe, or that the impact of such reduced contact would vary over the course of the pandemic.

All of which takes me to the conclusion that government policies in March 2020, and again at the end of 2020/beginning of 2021, could be effective, but that the same policies now (as in particularly strong form in the Netherlands) would due to the increased transmissibility of Omicron be ineffective.

All of the above is without beginning to consider the wider impact of anti-Covid policies in other areas, and the trade-offs that they bring in - entirely valid and important considerations, but ones which IMHO should be kept distinct from the basic "did it work" questions.

 

[Yew]

I think we will always be in the realm of observational research, which I don't have a problem with - the double blind RCT may be the gold standard, but bronze can sometimes be more than good enough. But my issue is not with the methodology, but the willingness of some to argue against research they disagree with on grounds of methodology, but then back other research whose outcomes they agree with despite it being the same type of study they've previously criticised. That starts to sound very like hypocrisy.

But we argue against observational mask studies based on their contradiction with Randomised Control Trial results, such as Barasheed et al; which found no effect, but seemed to be swept under the carpet.

 

[MikeWM]

I agree regarding lockdowns, I have been against them from the beginning.

Me too - it seemed incredibly obvious to me that the damage caused (physical, mental, social, economic) would far exceed any good they would do. For a while it felt like it was only me and Peter Hitchens that thought that!

Here's Peter Hitchens from the day before the first lockdown
https://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.c...urbs-on-ancient-liberties-really-the-bes.html

It never, ever does any harm to question decisions which you think are wrong. If they are right, then no harm will be done. They will be able to deal with your questions. If they are, in fact, wrong, you could save everyone a lot of trouble.
And so here I am, asking bluntly – is the closedown of the country the right answer to the coronavirus? I’ll be accused of undermining the NHS and threatening public health and all kinds of other conformist rubbish. But I ask you to join me, because if we have this wrong we have a great deal to lose.

Toby Young started his lockdownsceptics.org site about three weeks into the first lockdown and at that point it was clear that, while very much a minority, at least there were a few of us...


-----

I have problems with the JHU study because the method they followed is fundamentally unreliable. It's not about which bit I agree or disagree with, but the basic premise of a meta-analysis that screens out the vast majority of studies to focus on a small number that happen to align to the views of the authors. That's what I said in my previous post, and which should be obvious to anyone - hell, if @MikeWM, whose views are poles apart from mine, can agree with me that the study is problematic, anyone can.

Frankly, I've yet to see a meta-analysis I've been comfortable with. Perhaps they have some useful role where the terms of the studies were sufficiently similar to one another so the combination of them makes some degree of sense. So far I've not seen a single one of those on Covid matters.

Those that I've looked at for mask efficacy - or otherwise - for example, have all appeared to be really poor. An obvious example, though more a 'review' than a 'meta-analysis', was the Royal Society report on masks in June 2020, which I continue to go on about because it was particularly bad (and was much of the motivation for subsequent policy).

But skimming through this one, it does seem deeply problematic too. They're comparing all sorts of studies that are studying different things in different ways, and trying to 'average' them into headline figures. And much of the paper is trying to explain how they excluded what they did or included what they did, and it all sounds remarkably arbitrary.

It would be far more instructive to look at the individual papers that are referenced in this meta-analysis and see what they actually say (and whether their methodologies are themselves problematic). I'm not going to embark on that right now though!

I'm fairly sure in the distant past I posted a graph of 'lockdown severity' vs deaths, and as I recall there was no correlation whatever - so I'm not necessarily arguing with their conclusions, but the means of getting there isn't legitimate as far as I can tell.

For what it is worth, my opinion has always been that lockdowns probably help 'slow the spread' to some degree, but they also equalise infection risk which, for a virus with a highly stratified risk profile, is perhaps a rather poor idea - so their overall 'benefit' between those two opposing forces is very unclear. And their downsides are so great that I would find it hard to justify them under any circumstances, but certainly not in the case of this virus.

 

[Eyersey468]

@MikeWM the damage they would cause was obvious to me from day 1 but it did feel at one point like I was about the only one to see it

 

[yorkie]

As you say, "how convenient"! Unfortunately, in that response the mask of science slips, and you show that it's not the science that matters but the conclusion.

I have problems with the JHU study because the method they followed is fundamentally unreliable. It's not about which bit I agree or disagree with, but the basic premise of a meta-analysis that screens out the vast majority of studies to focus on a small number that happen to align to the views of the authors. That's what I said in my previous post, and which should be obvious to anyone - hell, if @MikeWM, whose views are poles apart from mine, can agree with me that the study is problematic, anyone can.

I first came across it when I saw a piece from the Telegraph about it. That alone made me suspicious, in the way that it compared the outcome of lockdown to Ferguson's March 2020 worst case scenario of 500k dead over 5 years if no measures were taken (no timeframe quoted), rather than the 200k over 5 years if restrictions were introduced. If you're doing comparative data, you must assess like against like - publicising a report in that way suggests bad faith about how the comparisons would be made.

More generally, research on the NPIs used against Covid is hellishly difficult. They happened in real time, there were few if any controls to compare individual measures against, and multiple measures were applied. Untangling that cats cradle is always going to be difficult. It's been part of the argument against research that asserts the value of masks, and the same issue appears here. That much research, and even more how it's been publicised, is also highly partisan makes it more difficult - where masks are concerned, both the Danmask study ("proving" masks are not useful) and the Bangladesh study ("proving" that they are) suffer from being both limited in themselves, and then being presented in highly partisan ways that the research itself doesn't support.

That challenge gets harder when we consider how Covid has evolved, becoming more transmissible, first more and then less serious in itself, and all the time (taking Britain as an example) while we have gone from being totally immune naive to highly vaccinated and with a significant reservoir of disease induced immune response. In the face of that, I wouldn't know how to pull together a study that could unpick that lot, or what forms of statistical analysis might allow me to distinguish the impact of those different factors. But, as a layman, it doesn't faze me that a policy of reducing human contact would be effective at reducing the spread and toll of a disease that spreads as we breathe, or that the impact of such reduced contact would vary over the course of the pandemic.

All of which takes me to the conclusion that government policies in March 2020, and again at the end of 2020/beginning of 2021, could be effective, but that the same policies now (as in particularly strong form in the Netherlands) would due to the increased transmissibility of Omicron be ineffective.

All of the above is without beginning to consider the wider impact of anti-Covid policies in other areas, and the trade-offs that they bring in - entirely valid and important considerations, but ones which IMHO should be kept distinct from the basic "did it work" questions.

But, after all that huff and puff, can you actually point to any reliable source that backs up lockdowns as being effective?

The onus is on those who are pro lockdown to justify them, not the other way round!

 

[Bayum]

Do any pro-lockdown people want to give their views on how this was justified?

Children's mental health: Huge rise in severe cases, BBC analysis reveals

As referrals rise for self-harm and eating disorders rise by 77%, schools see a wave of other less severe issues.

www.bbc.co.uk

There is no easy solution to this; some people think you can just invent a load of cash to pay for a huge team of counsellors and that undo the harms that were done, which is completely wrong.

What do you propose then? Continue the ever increasing backlog of CAMHS services? Three years ago, they were on an average waiting time of 2.8 years. Mental health support for children is at an all time low. Beds allocated for eating disorders are scarce, let alone the teams trained to support these individuals. Schools are at breaking point with fewer resources and money to provide any additional support over and above what they’re providing already.

 

[yorkie]

What do you propose then?

We should never have closed schools, or at least reopened them ASAP. We should not have implemented the ludicrous "bubble" system and we should not have prevented kids doing fun and healthy things like sports clubs for a year.

Continue the ever increasing backlog of CAMHS services? Three years ago, they were on an average waiting time of 2.8 years.

We've been through this before; I refer you to what I said previously.

Mental health support for children is at an all time low.

Unfortunately the measures which people such as yourself have supported and/or implemented have caused mental wellbeing to be at an all time low; while there should be more "support" the reality is that trying to fix a problem that should never have occurred is not always an easy process.

Beds allocated for eating disorders are scarce, let alone the teams trained to support these individuals.

We should be doing more to identify the root cause of these issues and lockdowns etc have exacerbated these problems massively.

Schools are at breaking point with fewer resources and money to provide any additional support over and above what they’re providing already.

I don't see evidence that schools have "fewer resources" for example loads of laptop/chromebook devices have been provided to schools, and in general schools seem to have better resources these days than they did, but for a long period of time during the pandemic, schools had staff who were not allowed to do many of the activities that they were being paid to do, on the basis of "preventing the spread" of the virus. This resulted in all sorts of problems, for both mental & physical health as well as having an impact developmentally and academically. I remember in the Summer of 2020, when virus levels were very low, kids in my city had no opportunities provided by schools because the local council had instructed them all not to, and all schools had agreed to this.

It was absolute madness and yet people like you supported it; I knew it would have a terrible outcome but we all make mistakes, and I respect that, so it would be great if you could just admit you made a mistake in supporting these measures? If you did, I'd have a lot of respect for you for that.