Should our lockdown have been harsher/stricter?

[takno]

I'd suggest that some of Sweden's issues are still to come. Their death rate is only now on the cusp of falling, and that imbalance with the rest of Europe (including their immediate neighbours) is going to cause financial pressures for some time to come in terms of trade and tourism.

The school closures thing needs a lot more investigation, it increasingly looks like children aren't nearly as high a risk factor as initially thought and if there's one lesson we should take from Sweden, maybe it's that one. But I don't have kids and haven't looked at that too closely.

It's not on the cusp of falling, it's been consistently going down for about 6 weeks. It's possible you're looking at the date-of-report figures, which aren't as positive because they have been assiduously going through deaths over the last few months and ascribing them to Covid where it was appropriate. The deaths by date of death available at https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/09f821667ce64bf7be6f9f87457ed9aa and indeed the excess deaths as reported by the FT paint a much more positive picture.

 

[Yew]

regarding Sweden, a much lower and much more dispersed population than the UK gives the virus less opportunity to spread so you cannot compare it to a country such as the UK with a much higher and much more concentrated population. As for Belarus, the president as good as it said that Covid didn’t exist and given the nature of the government I wouldn‘t trust any figures coming out of that country.

Stockholm

 

[nlogax]

It's not on the cusp of falling, it's been consistently going down for about 6 weeks. It's possible you're looking at the date-of-report figures, which aren't as positive because they have been assiduously going through deaths over the last few months and ascribing them to Covid where it was appropriate. The deaths by date of death available at https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/09f821667ce64bf7be6f9f87457ed9aa and indeed the excess deaths as reported by the FT paint a much more positive picture.

Quite right, thanks for the correction and pointer.

However, the 'new cases per day' rate is quite stubborn. If anything appears to have been going up towards the end of May, not down.

 

[scarby]

The number of hospitalisations and those in intensive care in Sweden has been steadily falling since around the beginning of May. Given the limited restrictions and that people continued to mix, that suggests that the outbreak is basically curbing itself - dying out on its own. One can say that this is the best destination to have arrived at.

Sitting on a train in Sweden right now, the great thing is that there is no hand-wringing over easing restrictions, as there were relatively few in the first place. Later this week all advice against travel around the country is being lifted.

The general mood on the street seems to be that the emergency is over. A lot more people are out now - it feels normal. None of the face mask stuff either, though a handful of people wear them.

 

[MikeWM]

However, the 'new cases per day' rate is quite stubborn. If anything appears to have been going up towards the end of May, not down.

True - however as hospitalisations and deaths are continuing to come down, that presumably points to either more testing going on, or that the virus is getting weaker. Neither of which is bad news.

 

[philosopher]

I think it will be many years before we know whether lockdowns were necessary and if necessary, how harsh they needed to be.

There are some reports I have seen over the last few days that suggest some populations are less susceptible to Covid-19 to begin with. One argument is that in some places a lot of the population is immune due to cross immunity from another Coronavirus. This may be a large factor in why the death rates have varied so much between different countries. If this is the case, then lockdowns would have been less of a factor in differences in the number of deaths between countries.

 

[Domh245]

I think it will be many years before we know whether lockdowns were necessary and if necessary, how harsh they needed to be.

Very much this - this isn't a 'sprint' to eliminate the virus as quickly as possible, it's a marathon to deal with it for as long as is needed - either through vaccination, effective treatment, or it burning itself out

 

[nlogax]

There are some reports I have seen over the last few days that suggest some populations are less susceptible to Covid-19 to begin with.

The neuroscientist Karl Friston - one of the many UK Sage advisors - did indeed raise this possibility for German Covid rates when compared to those of the UK.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...rmany-may-have-more-immunological-dark-matter

Once the pandemic is over, will you be able to use your models to ask which country’s response was best?

That is already happening, as part of our attempts to understand the latent causes of the data. We’ve been comparing the UK and Germany to try to explain the comparatively low fatality rates in Germany. The answers are sometimes counterintuitive. For example, it looks as if the low German fatality rate is not due to their superior testing capacity, but rather to the fact that the average German is less likely to get infected and die than the average Brit. Why? There are various possible explanations, but one that looks increasingly likely is that Germany has more immunological “dark matter” – people who are impervious to infection, perhaps because they are geographically isolated or have some kind of natural resistance. This is like dark matter in the universe: we can’t see it, but we know it must be there to account for what we can see. Knowing it exists is useful for our preparations for any second wave, because it suggests that targeted testing of those at high risk of exposure to Covid-19 might be a better approach than non-selective testing of the whole population.

 

[takno]

Quite right, thanks for the correction and pointer.

However, the 'new cases per day' rate is quite stubborn. If anything appears to have been going up towards the end of May, not down.

Sweden's rate of testing has always been on the low side, which probably wasn't particularly helpful. It has increased somewhat over time, which tends to push the numbers of cases upwards somewhat. It's also likely that they are targeting their testing rather better now.

The problem in general with rate-of-infection numbers is that they are either pretty random, or they they are done as properly randomised but time-consuming studies like the ONS one. The upshot is that you get sudden peaks because the testing found a cluster and followed it through, or you get a rate from 11,000 reasonably-well selected people which is pretty much meaningless because it took over a month to complete and doesn't even prevent a snapshot of how things were, let alone of how they are now.

 

[Scotrail12]

Nay, nay and thrice nay to a stricter lockdown. That would have basically meant that people would have been unable to exercise or get fresh air, two things which are key for the immune system. It seems totally bonkers that the likes of Spain and France didn't permit exercise given that they are first world countries with western values (China obviously a different ballgame). We would potentially have a lot of people suffering from obesity and some who would really struggle being inside for the whole day let alone a month or two of it.

To me, that just strikes as human rights violation and would have definitely been a step too far. I agree with those who say that Spain committed mass child abuse and I believe that there should be an enquiry into that once this is over.

 

[Tetchytyke]

I'm not sure British people are community minded enough for that.

I think that's utter nonsense, to be quite honest. I know Conservatives think there's no such thing as society (TM Margaret Thatcher), but you shouldn't assume everyone will behave as reprehensibly as Cummings or Robert Jenrick.

regarding Sweden, a much lower and much more dispersed population than the UK gives the virus less opportunity to spread

Stockholm has a population density of 4800 people per square km. There are only 25 districts in the UK with a higher density, of which 22 are in London. Malmo has roughly the same density. Urban Sweden is no different to urban Britain.

 

[Tetchytyke]

The neuroscientist Karl Friston - one of the many UK Sage advisors - did indeed raise this possibility for German Covid rates when compared to those of the UK.

One of the key risk factors for Covid complications appears to be diabetes, which makes Germany's stats even more surprising. Their prevalence of diabetes is double that of the UK.

We won't know for years whether lockdown was necessary or even worked. I don't think it was and still don't now, and I still think it was fear-based rather than evidence-based (Neil Ferguson's doom-mongering had a lot to do with it) but it'll take a long time to really know.

 

[Bantamzen]

We won't know for years whether lockdown was necessary or even worked. I don't think it was and still don't now, and I still think it was fear-based rather than evidence-based (Neil Ferguson's doom-mongering had a lot to do with it) but it'll take a long time to really know.

I agree with this. The lockdown-mania seems to have spread out of China and followed the virus around the globe, without much assessment and seemingly completely ignoring the fact that China is still a very authoritarian nation, and one that would have been very keen to absolve itself in any responsibility for the virus escaping its borders. And now a precedent has been set, it will be very hard to undo when the next new virus comes along. My worry is that as society becomes more & more risk adverse still, so pressure will build to have stricter & longer lockdowns, not necessarily because the science backs any of it up (still as you say debateable), but because its a tried method to stop the proles messing up the healthcare systems with trivial issues such as heart attacks and cancers* whilst governments enter flap mode for a few weeks. The public's willingness to comply for a sense of safety has lowered the bar....

(* Please note for context, I am being ironic here)

 

[MikeWM]

I agree with this. The lockdown-mania seems to have spread out of China and followed the virus around the globe, without much assessment and seemingly completely ignoring the fact that China is still a very authoritarian nation, and one that would have been very keen to absolve itself in any responsibility for the virus escaping its borders. And now a precedent has been set, it will be very hard to undo when the next new virus comes along. My worry is that as society becomes more & more risk adverse still, so pressure will build to have stricter & longer lockdowns, not necessarily because the science backs any of it up (still as you say debateable), but because its a tried method to stop the proles messing up the healthcare systems with trivial issues such as heart attacks and cancers* whilst governments enter flap mode for a few weeks. The public's willingness to comply for a sense of safety has lowered the bar....

(* Please note for context, I am being ironic here)

I agree. I think the only way to avoid that is if the fallout from the current lockdown (social, economical, unemployment, public health, civil unrest) is sufficiently severe that no-one would countenance doing something similar ever again. Though I suspect and fear that is actually likely to be the case in the months and years ahead...

It's not a very palatable set of options either way.

 

[gg1]

I'm not sure British people are community minded enough for that.

I think that's utter nonsense, to be quite honest.

Really?

The necessity of a compulsory lockdown was confirmed back in March when in the final weekend before it happened, swarms of selfish morons descended on the UK's coastal resorts. Fast forward 2 months and exactly the same thing happened when it was announced you could travel an unlimited difference for your 'daily exercise'.

 

[Tetchytyke]

swarms of selfish morons descended on the UK's coastal resorts

Did they? Really?

And even if they did, so what? Are there any huge anomalous peaks of cases in UK coastal towns? No? Well then.

And now a precedent has been set, it will be very hard to undo when the next new virus comes along. My worry is that as society becomes more & more risk adverse still, so pressure will build to have stricter & longer lockdowns, not necessarily because the science backs any of it up (still as you say debateable), but because its a tried method to stop the proles

Indeed I'm alarmed just how quickly the British public lapped up house arrest lockdown, and how much relish the Locktivists have taken in pushing for more and more bizarre but draconian rules.

Interesting you mention stopping the proles. You say stopping the proles using healthcare, but you could have just left it at stopping the proles.
A look on the protest thread shows exactly what Locktivism is really all about: a way of shutting down dissent.

 

[gg1]

Did they? Really?

Seriously? Were you not paying attention to the news in late March?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-derbyshire-52002964
https://www.edinburghlive.co.uk/news/edinburgh-news/east-lothian-beaches-busier-bank-17962278
https://www.lep.co.uk/health/corona...uk-limit-spread-coronavirus-2504682#gsc.tab=0
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-51988877
https://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/n...e-boscombe-lulworth-cove-beaches-coronavirus/
https://www.dorsetecho.co.uk/news/1...y-beaches-beauty-spots-thousands-flock-coast/
https://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/north-east-news/please-stay-home-north-east-17962451
https://www.burnham-on-sea.com/news...mid-new-coronavirus-social-distancing-advice/

There are plenty more examples if you google them, it actually took me longer to insert the links into this post than it did to find them.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Were you not paying attention to the news in late March?

I saw lots of clickbaity articles with quotes from local NIMBYs and curtain-twitchers that their towns were "mobbed", and precious little evidence to show that any of it was true.

Until recently I lived in Tynemouth. This, I can assure you, is not a "crowded beach", no matter how hysterical the Chronicle's reporting is:

https://i2-prod.chroniclelive.co.uk/incoming/article17962592.ece/ALTERNATES/s615b/0_JS209442336.jpg

 

[Djgr]

I saw lots of clickbaity articles with quotes from local NIMBYs and curtain-twitchers that their towns were "mobbed", and precious little evidence to show that any of it was true.

Until recently I lived in Tynemouth. This, I can assure you, is not a "crowded beach", no matter how hysterical the Chronicle's reporting is:

https://i2-prod.chroniclelive.co.uk/incoming/article17962592.ece/ALTERNATES/s615b/0_JS209442336.jpg

And don't forget it is very difficult to become infected outside, so all this Daily Mail guff probably irrelevant

 

[gg1]

I saw lots of clickbaity articles with quotes from local NIMBYs and curtain-twitchers that their towns were "mobbed", and precious little evidence to show that any of it was true.

Until recently I lived in Tynemouth. This, I can assure you, is not a "crowded beach", no matter how hysterical the Chronicle's reporting is:

https://i2-prod.chroniclelive.co.uk/incoming/article17962592.ece/ALTERNATES/s615b/0_JS209442336.jpg

It's still an awful lot more than you'd either expect or hope to see when we are in pandemic

Here's another, from Snowdonia this time: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-51994504 "Snowdonia National Park Authority said its area "experienced its busiest ever visitor day in living memory"

Don't forget this was in March, not exactly peak season.

And don't forget it is very difficult to become infected outside, so all this Daily Mail guff probably irrelevant

Not as likely but still a definite possibility if you're in close proximity to an infected person.

Also controlling the spread of infection wasn't the sole reason for stopping unnecessary travel: Less traffic = less road traffic accidents = less pressure on the NHS.

 

[Bikeman78]

The number of hospitalisations and those in intensive care in Sweden has been steadily falling since around the beginning of May. Given the limited restrictions and that people continued to mix, that suggests that the outbreak is basically curbing itself - dying out on its own. One can say that this is the best destination to have arrived at.

Sitting on a train in Sweden right now, the great thing is that there is no hand-wringing over easing restrictions, as there were relatively few in the first place. Later this week all advice against travel around the country is being lifted.

The general mood on the street seems to be that the emergency is over. A lot more people are out now - it feels normal. None of the face mask stuff either, though a handful of people wear them.

This was exactly what I was thinking the other day. There won't be any worries in Sweden about lifting lockdown because there wasn't one. I take it that hospitals around Stockholm weren't overwhelmed?

 

[scarby]

This was exactly what I was thinking the other day. There won't be any worries in Sweden about lifting lockdown because there wasn't one. I take it that hospitals around Stockholm weren't overwhelmed?

No. They have actually dismantled an emergency ward set up at Alvsjö conference centre that was never used.

 

[Tetchytyke]

It's still an awful lot more than you'd either expect or hope to see when we are in pandemic

Here's another, from Snowdonia this time: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-51994504 "Snowdonia National Park Authority said its area "experienced its busiest ever visitor day in living memory"

Don't forget this was in March, not exactly peak season.

But again, no evidence from the authority other than "what I reckon" from their spokesperson. Interesting to hear "if people don't stay at home we'll lockdown" barely a couple of days before the lockdown was imposed. It's almost like lockdown was already planned and they were getting their excuses in early.

Of course lockdown distorted everything. Everyone knew it was coming, so people went out for one last walk or one last pint with their mates while they still could. Without lockdown, people wouldn't have gone out in the same way. It's circular Locktivist logic: tell everyone going out is banned from tomorrow, encourage everyone to go out for one last time, then explain we needed strict lockdown laws because people were "selfish" for wanting to see a friend one last time.

The Swedish response was far more sensible.

 

[scarby]

The Swedish Public Health Authority's approach was built on two foundations:

1. How can we best deal with this while taking into consideration everybody's health and general well-being? As that is what we are responsible for.

2. What will be the wider consequences of how we respond now in 1, 5, even 20 years? Not just in March-May 2020.

 

[Bikeman78]

Nay, nay and thrice nay to a stricter lockdown. That would have basically meant that people would have been unable to exercise or get fresh air, two things which are key for the immune system.

I've always been quite active. I spent several years in a grubby boarding school and much of my leisure time since then travelling around in grubby trains. I almost never get ill. Since lockdown I've done much less exercise and hardly been anywhere or seen anyone. It will be interesting to see what happens when I start mixing with people again.

 

[Huntergreed]

A stricter lockdown would have lead to considerably worse economic damage, and many more deaths due to other causes such as cancers and suicide, and it wouldn’t have been necessary.

The function of the lockdown was to not overwhelm the NHS through the peak of the pandemic, and this has clearly been achieved. The government then decided to, rightfully extend the lockdown further to lower the case number, this has clearly been achieved. What I’m no longer completely sure of is the current purpose of the lockdown. The cases are much lower than the NHS is able to deal with, transmission is falling, we’ve had 0 deaths in Scotland over the last 2 days, and yet it’s still “necessary for public health”, and it feels that one of two things must be happening behind the black door of 10 Downing Street:

1 - The government themselves are massively overestimating the risk of this virus and using an approach which would be more suited to a virus with a death rate closer to 5-10% in the general population. In that case of course we should be taking every possible precaution to protect the population, but the fact stands that for the vast majority, this poses little if no threat to life. It also seems pointless remaining in a considerably more strict lockdown than the rest of Europe when a considerable number of our deaths are in care homes or come from outbreaks within hospitals, as this is not caused by spread in the community.

2 - The government know full well the risk is minimal and are afraid to admit they are now going “over the top” with precautions. This is entirely possible and I wouldn’t put it past them sadly. The damage this is doing to the economy and mental well-being across the population is extremely significant and the only reason I could think for them not taking it as seriously as it demands is that they are afraid to “Take the blame” so by playing things up they can blame the public for any “outbreaks” and by announcing daily deaths “with” Covid are falling everyday, they’ll maintain public trust from the majority of people who have completely overestimated the risks of the virus through fear.

 

[43066]

No, not with hindsight. Other countries did it at the time (New Zealand, Denmark, etc.) mainly after the warning signs from Italy. We just ploughed on regardless.

Meanwhile, Sweden has all but admitted it got it wrong. The 'State Epidemiologist' said as much last week.

Sweden Admits Light Lockdown Was Wrong Approach To Fighting Coronavirus

Per capita, the Scandinavian country has the 7th highest Covid-19 death toll in the world.

m.huffingtonpost.co.uk

Coronavirus: Sweden's Tegnell admits too many died

Anders Tegnell says more should have been done early on to stem coronavirus in Sweden.

www.bbc.co.uk

Well, that isn’t true. If you read the BBC quote (did you read it?!):

Dr Tegnell, who is Sweden's state epidemiologist and in charge of the country's response to Covid-19, told BBC News in April that the high death toll was mainly because homes for the elderly had been unable to keep the disease out, although he emphasised that "does not disqualify our strategy as a whole".

So Sweden’s major error wasn’t their lack of lockdown, it was their failure to prevent the virus from gaining a foothold in care homes. Exactly the same as in the UK, where care home deaths from the virus now account for >50% of the fatalities.

 

[greyman42]

One of the key risk factors for Covid complications appears to be diabetes, which makes Germany's stats even more surprising. Their prevalence of diabetes is double that of the UK.

Obesity also appears to be an aggravating factor which would account for the USA and the UK.

 

[ValleyLines142]

To me, that just strikes as human rights violation and would have definitely been a step too far. I agree with those who say that Spain committed mass child abuse and I believe that there should be an enquiry into that once this is over.

I cannot agree with this any more - absolutely spot on.

Those who advocate that a harsher/stricter lockdown should have taken place clearly have no understanding of the bigger picture of COVID-19. There have been many suicides as a result of the lockdown and mental health problems would have rocketed through the roof.

What Spain and Italy did by enforcing a zero going outdoors policy is imprisonment of their own citizens and I would also be interested, and would even advocate, for a full enquiry myself. There is no way we as a nation would have put up with that in the UK; there would have been protests after protests and would have lead to mass anti-social behaviour.

Is there even any evidence that Spain's strict lockdown actually reduced the number of COVID diagnoses?

 

[philosopher]

I agree with this. The lockdown-mania seems to have spread out of China and followed the virus around the globe, without much assessment and seemingly completely ignoring the fact that China is still a very authoritarian nation, and one that would have been very keen to absolve itself in any responsibility for the virus escaping its borders.....
(* Please note for context, I am being ironic here)

My theory is that if this virus had not started in China, then lockdowns would either have not occurred or would have been restricted to a few authoritarian nations. Sure countries may have closed schools, banned mass gatherings and encouraged people to work from home and some countries may have shut entertainment places. However forcing people to stay at home would have been seen as a step too far for democratic nations. The reason I think most countries went down the lockdown route is because China had no qualms instigating one and it subsequently proved to be very effective in getting the outbreak under control in Wuhan. Therefore politicians and the public in the rest of the world saw that as the way to control the outbreak.