Lockdown arguments miss a crucial point

There are various discussions/arguments on social media about the need for and effectiveness of the lockdowns we have had. 
With a few exceptions, they run along expected self-interest lines.

Those who support lockdowns come into one or more of these categories:

1. those who have lost someone close to them from Covid;

2. those in a vulnerable category themselves and are fearful;

3.  those who have a secure income (pension or high job security) such that lockdowns have no effect on their ability to pay mortgages/rent etc;

4. those who unquestioningly accept the government and media narrative and believe they are being selfless or good citizens by supporting lockdowns

Those against lockdowns are:

1. those who know no-one that has died or even hospitalized from Covid;

2.  those who neither themselves nor a family member are in a vulnerable category;

3.  those who have lost their job or business, or fear they will and hence are highly stressed about paying mortgages/rents etc;

4. those who believe the adverse consequences of lockdowns are causing more harm overall than Covid itself;

As I said, the first three points are largely understandable natural reactions.

Point 4 is the topic of real interest to me, however, I think a crucial point is being missed:

WE HAVE HAD NO LOCKDOWNS!!

The Chinese had a lockdown of Wuhan Province. In that, the army were on the streets distributing basic food & water supplies but more importantly ensuring that, with a few exceptions, no-one set foot outside their doors!

In the UK, TENS OF MILLIONS of people have continued, at least to some extent, to mingle with others.

Our society could not function without the NHS, Ambulance & Police, for example.
Also, food producers, distributors and retailers.
Also, workers that keep our electricity, gas and water supplies maintained.  
Also, teachers for in-class teaching of these key worker’s children. 
And I’m sure I’ve missed some.

In addition, we were ALL allowed to go to the food shops whenever we liked (no checks were made) in which there was, in reality, almost zero social distancing.

So, along with the evidence on the usefulness of masks being mixed at best, the reality in the UK is that we’ve never had a real lockdown or frankly, anything even close.

There has been massive and continuous mingling which in turn means we've created a lot of economic, non-covid medical, social and educational stress & damage that could not possibly achieve anything more than a partial slowing-down of Covid spread, at best.

There’s been a lot of wishful thinking behind most of the restrictions we’ve been subjected to, including our partial-lockdowns, with very little evidence of their effectiveness,  but the government had to be seen to be doing something.

As with all respiratory viruses, most of the increases and decreases in Covid deaths can be explained by the simple changing of the seasons.
In winter, respiratory viruses affect far more people than in the summer; thus a second wave was inevitable.

Due to the reality of continuous mingling, there is no direct evidence that the pretend-lockdowns have made more than a marginal difference.
  
For example, in this study, https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2020-opinion-coronavirus-europe-lockdown-excess-deaths-recession/ it found no correlation between the strictness of lockdown measures and the spread of the virus. It also notes that the countries with the most severe restrictions are suffering the most economically which will play out over the next few years – no surprise there.

So why then has the Government and its medical/scientific advisers taken the steps they have and continued with them, rather than any alternative policies?

Well, I don’t think we need to look too much further than initial panic followed by a pragmatic retreat into political & reputational expediency.
 
They simply weren’t prepared to do what Sweden did, (i.e. almost nothing).
  
If taking that route had resulted in far higher numbers of deaths per thousand than other European countries who had taken more drastic action, that would have been the end of Johnson’s government for sure. 

'Murderous complacency' would have been the cry.

Much safer politically to adopt similar policies to almost everyone else in Europe, whatever the final outcome.
In essence, safety in numbers or political camouflage.

The BEST DECISION the Government made was to go it alone on acquiring vaccinations rather than go in with the EU scheme. This is why we are so far ahead on vaccinations.
Even Germany gave up and went it alone recently as the EU centralised system was quite literally not delivering the goods.

What we don't know is how long they stay effective for, if you can still catch Covid after vaccination and/or if you can still pass it on to others.
The current mass vaccination programme IS the long-term clinical trial that there wasn't time to do.

The WORST DECISION the Government made is more difficult but 
I think there are two tied for first place, and they were both made in the summer months.
  
The first was to rely solely on rushed vaccines being available in time for winter and not using the summer to create and train a Volunteer Medical Service that could staff the Nightingale hospitals from November/December onwards thus taking pressure off the main NHS which always struggles in winter, even without Covid;

[Putting as many Covid patients into the Nightingale Hospitals as possible from November would also have reduced the in-hospital catching of Covid by non-Covid patients which the NHS estimates at between 15-20% of Covid cases].

The second error was not to make any attempt to make special provision for the winter such that the most vulnerable, say aged 80+ and those with certain existing conditions, could be shielded along with their carers within defined bubbles, allowing everyone else (and therefore the economy) to carry on largely as normal.

These lacks of foresight made a winter lockdown, whether effective or otherwise, a political necessity as hospitals filled-up.

What we can't yet know is whether the negative impacts from these various partial lockdowns will be seen by history as having done more damage overall than the Covid virus itself. 

However, that the Government have done no such cost/benefit analysis, or if they have, not published it, is very poor indeed and probably tells its own story.

We do have one such analysis from Bristol University suggesting that the adverse effects of lockdowns will mean the equivalent of 560,000 extra deaths. And that was based solely on the economic repercussions, not the non-Covid medical, societal and educational repercussions as well.

Still, it's the done thing to just accept what we're being told by the Government backed-up by generally supportive opposition Parties and a totally compliant media.

The only question the Government is being asked by these institutions that should be holding it to account is, 'why aren't you locking down harder and arresting or fining anyone not complying?' 

Even the most obvious and reasonable questions about the effectiveness of certain policies and the amount of longer term damage as a result of them, are simply not allowed it seems.

So much for our democracy! SIGH!!

Life isn’t simple, in fact it can be darned complicated!

Deciding national policies that affect nearly 70 million people is REALLY complicated.
Which means that getting it perfectly right is essentially impossible and will almost never involve simplistic solutions. Any decision made by Government has a myriad of knock-on effects, many unforeseen (at least by the decision makers).

We have to be able to hold multiple ideas in our heads and find a path through them that doesn’t involve simply believing what it suits us to believe, and then pretending that it's ok for any opposing thought or idea to be ignored or closed-down.

For example, it’s possible to believe that Trump was the President most dangerously unfit for that office ever, while also believing that the self-righteous censorship of woke social justice corporations like Google, Twitter & Facebook, needs to be opposed.
 
It’s possible to believe that Covid is a new and dangerous virus that needs to be tamed and the vulnerable groups shielded, while also believing that the economic, medical and social downsides of these lockdowns will be seen in the future to have done more damage overall than Covid itself.

Things which are portrayed by panicky incompetent politicians and ideological journalists as simplistic, i.e. this thing good, that thing bad, are rarely that simple.
They are not all or nothing, mutually exclusive choices.

We don’t have to pick one or the other and then see who can shout loudest or enforce their view on others in the most draconian way.
We have to deal simultaneously with two, and often more, difficult issues and find a path that maximises the best and avoids the worst outcomes of them all.

We also have to judge whether the imperative needs of today outweigh or are outweighed by the less tangible but equally important needs of tomorrow, or next year, or next decade.
And that can be the hardest judgement of all.

It doesn’t matter whether we are young or old.
Together we are a continuous living conduit between the past and the future and we need to treat each other, as well as previous generations and future generations, with the respect that this realisation demands.
 
Self-righteous ideological warfare will not achieve anything good because those on the side that wins become tyrants and those on the side that loses become slaves.
 
We can do better than that; but we have to want to, and then be bothered to make the effort, because it won’t be easy.

A divergence in socio-political view between two Christians

 

Context

A polite and friendly conversation between two British Christians:

One, a Non-conformist Protestant in their mid-50s; highly educated; top 25% in terms of financial income/assets; two children between 14 and under 23.

The other, a Church of England (C of E) Protestant, also mid-50s; well-educated (but not to the extent of the first) and around the 50% mark in terms of financial income/assets; two children between 14 and under 23.

Many similarities it would therefore seem, yet differing outlooks.

The discussion centred around this statement: ‘young people feel the older generations are selfish because we should all be locked-down together. Only old people go to church and they’re still open whereas Universities and schools are closed.

So, there are two topics here which, although interwoven in the discussion, I will take separately in an attempt not to confuse the issues.

[NB. I am speaking from my knowledge of Christianity in the UK. I make no claims to be speaking for anyone else or to be encompassing any other religions within my views].

1.    Places of Worship should be closed to show support for the secular authorities.

The rather flippant but sadly true first response is that so few people go to church these days that it hardly matters.
Nevertheless, that very fact means that churches are among the safest indoor spaces you can find. No social distancing problems here!
And when you add the fact that most churches are quite draughty due to single-glazed stained-glass windows and ill-fitting old doors, it’s like being outside anyway!
So the probability of people catching or passing on Covid in churches is way below that of being in a supermarket or hospital or care-home or office.

With sensible rules on numbers, social distancing and suitable hand-sanitising etc there is no real medical reason to close churches down.

My second thought is this.
Surely the church’s mission has to be far more than simply falling in line with whatever the secular authorities want.
As the Historian & writer Tom Holland said recently, the Church of England has missed an opportunity to differentiate itself from the secular; to provide spiritual leadership and places of calm & solace in these troubled times. 
He said that by merely parroting the offical Government line, the C of E leadership has become an unimportant sub-department of the Welfare State.

This should come as no surprise.

In terms of our political parties, the C of E leadership’s occasional forays into politics in the media or the House of Lords show them to be, not the Tory party at prayer as they were once described, but the Liberal Democrat Party at prayer.
Left wing but in a rather supercilious, head-in-the-clouds, financially secure, safe and socially conformist way. Conformist in that, whatever, the left of centre secular cause of the moment, they’re for it!
In terms of their outlook on life, they are ‘of the elite’, not ‘of the people’. Tim Farron must be chuffed.

2.    Young people feel that older generations are selfish

Again, my first flippant response is that you couldn’t find a larger irony than young people (especially those of the comfortable middle-classes) accusing others of selfishness.
A more pampered, self-righteous, narcissistic yet fragile generation I doubt there has ever been!
That’s what increasing prosperity does; it increases the size of the middle-classes; that is, it increases the number who feel comfortable, safe and secure, which over time drifts into decadence.
Gratitude & responsibility decreases with security while entitlement & navel-gazing increases.

Secondly, on what basis does any young person look at older people with such disdain?

The young will find that making the right decisions to make the world a better place while working and raising a family is not as easy in the real world as it looks from their cosy bedrooms or Uni digs – both paid for by a combination of mum & dad as well as the taxes of those older folk they scorn.

I think you need to stand on your own two feet and actually contribute something meaningful to society before giving yourself the right to be judgemental of older folk.

We are not separate. We are a continuous fluid link between the past and the future which should be treated with the grace and respect that such an awesome responsibility requires, not with self-righteousness and arrogance.

What do you think?

Covid is real! Government policy is questionable!

 

COVID IS REAL!!

COVID IS SERIOUS!!

Every death matters, whether from Covid or not.

Of course I want the NHS to be able to cope with the winter surge in hospitalisations!

Questioning the specific policies of the Government is NOT Covid denialism or being anti-vaxxer or not caring about the seriously ill or dismissing the NHS staff or any other of the ridiculous strawman mischaracterisations that anyone who dares to ask awkward questions about Government policy are usually accused of.

The NHS always struggles hugely in the winter months and with Covid, yes, special measures were required.

I’ve been saying for months that this should have been organised in the summer by building more Nightingale Hospitals and calling for volunteers from retired doctors/nurses & final year medical and nursing students for autumn training specifically on Covid. A Volunteer Medical Reserve like the TA.
They would then have been on stand-by to staff the Nightingale Hospitals over the winter which were, after all, built for the exact purpose of taking the strain off the main NHS hospitals. 

Instead, seemingly all eggs were put in the vaccine basket that was never going to be ready & tested by the beginning of December. 

Even those vaccines now available take 3 weeks or more after inoculation to become fully effective; and are at best effective for 75% of people on crrent information. We also don't have sufficient data yet to know if vaccinated poeple can still carry & pass the virus on.

How can we know? 

Vaccines developed in 6 months cannot have been tested sufficiently to answer these longer-term questions. 

Simple prima facie safety for most (not all) people is all there has been time to do clinical trials for.
Some people think that so much money has been thrown at the vaccines that it has been possible to condense years of clinical trials into a few months.
Nonsense!
Obviously, clinical trials to evaluate long term effects need to be conducted over the long term; money has nothing to do with it!

The current mass vaccinations are actually the clinical trial to find out these longer term answers.
Fingers crossed that we get the answers we want, eh?

Are the vaccines better than nothing?
Of course they are but ‘nothing’ is a pretty low bar to have to beat isn’t it?
These vaccines may not turn out to be the panacea that many, out of fear & desperation, seem to believe.

Even if the vaccines are highly effective, like flu, Covid will be back each year in differing forms and we will have to live with it well into the future. 

The future. Yes, that’s the problem isn’t it?

I understood the first lockdown.
Owing to the disgraceful behaviour of China, in cahoots with the WHO, trying to play the problem down, we couldn't be sure in March whether we were dealing with the Black Death or something closer to flu in terms of mortality rates.
But with what we know now, that huge swathes of the UK’s economy have been closed down again instead of focussing on shielding as best possible the vulnerable and preparing the Nightingale Hospitals to take Covid patients from the start of December is the issue that ministers, PHE, SAGE & the NHS leadership need to be scrutinised over. 

At some point, the lockdown cure will do more damage than the disease. 
At some point the disbenefits of lockdowns (economic, medical and social) must outweigh any benefits. Many think that point has been and gone!

This can’t be a controversial view as it’s plain common-sense but it’s not being discussed; or at least not by politicians or the mainstream media.

Is the job of Government simply to look at the immediate problem and solve that at whatever price for the future?

Well, if Covid was killing as many people as the Black Death (30-40% of the population) or even the Spanish Flu of 100 years ago (2-3%), perhaps you could make a case for that.
But as the fatality rate is less than 0.2% of the population, surely Government’s job is to make special arrangements for those known to be particularly vulnerable, vaccinate the NHS staff and carers, get as many Covid patients into Nightingale Hospitals as possible, but then to do what’s best for the economic and social well-being of the country, not just right now, but for future years; and yet this doesn’t appear to be be happening.

Lockdowns are NOT what’s best for the economic and social well-being of the country for future years. They are a short-term panic measure that doesn't really work but gives the impression of doing something useful.

All lockdowns can do is slightly delay the spread.
They can't stop the spread because too many people MUST work to keep society functioning.
So, many people have to continue mixing to some extent with others that spread is inevitable, lockdown or not.

Neither proper leadership, nor bravery in the face of pressure, nor transparency & honesty with data are exactly to the fore with this Government.
(In this they are no diffrent to any other).
We are only told the information they think will bolster the case for their chosen policies, not everything we need and are entilted to know.

But since the opposition parties and most of the media companies (both mainstream & social), seem to have fallen into line, the Government have no pressure being put on them to improve either their honesty or transparency, sadly.

And without honesty or transparency, there will be no pressure and therefore no incentive for Government to make better decisions.

The ‘ought’ concept and why it’s dangerous!

 There is always great danger in telling people what they ‘ought’ to believe or ‘ought’ to think or ‘ought’ to say.

Of course, the word ‘ought’ doesn’t have to be used specifically but if the implication of what you’re being told is that you ‘ought’ or ‘ought not’ to do/say/think something, beware!

It may be right, but just beware.

Why?

Well, the ‘ought’ concept is very judgmental and has clear implications that you are bad or ignorant or immoral or uncaring or selfish if you don't.
And who wants to be, or for others to think of you as, bad or ignorant or immoral or selfish or uncaring?

None of us, right?

So, a form of words that mean ‘ought’ or ‘ought not’ is not a suggestion to considera view, but rather an attempt to coerce via shame or ridicule.

Examples of ‘ought’/'ought not'

Fear: You ‘ought’ to be very fearful. If you aren’t, you are ignorant or stupid etc

Intolerance: You ‘ought not’ to tolerate those whose opinions differ from yours. If you do, you are ignorant or immoral etc

Censorship: You ‘ought’ to agree with increasing limitations on freedom of speech. If you don’t, you are ignorant or immoral etc

Social media cancel culture: You ‘ought’ to be quite happy with people’s careers being ruined because they hold legal but unpopular views. If you aren’t, you are ignorant or immoral etc

Don’t be an ‘oughter’!

Think for yourself, ask questions, do your own research and come to your own conclusions; dare to listen to alternative views; and encourage others to do the same.

Indeed, you ‘ought’ to do these things, right?

The Covid repsonse - a question of balance

DISCLAIMER: COVID IS REAL AND IT'S RIGHT TO TAKE IT SERIOUSLY!!!

OK, now that's out the way - it's not SAGE or individual NHS Doctor's job to worry about anything outside their own professional area. For example, it's simply not in their remit to worry about the economy or unemployment or children's (lack of) education and their disastrous effects on families and individuals that will last for years. So, the fact that the NHS press their case hard for major restrictions is both natural and unsurprising.

BUT it IS the Government's job to weigh-up and balance ALL the risks, not just across physical health issues but also mental health and all the non-health issues within society as well.

This is NOT an either/or situation, even though many try to portray it as such; it's a question of balance; and I think the Government is now getting the balance wrong and that this will become clear over the next few years.

I understood it at first as, thanks to the disgraceful collusion between China & the WHO, we knew so little about Covid for months after it first started.
It could have turned out to be another Bubonic plague with 30-40% death rates but after the first lockdown, we had acquired enough knowledge to know that this was not the case.

You will note that for several months now, we've been bombarded not with the number of fatalities but with the number of 'cases'. 
The number of cases tells us nothing useful since it can be put down as a direct result of the increase in testing.

What WOULD be useful is to know the percentage of the population seriously ill or who have died due primarily to Covid (not a secondary cause).
Is that informaiton not available or is it being held back because it doesn't fit the narrative?
What would also be useful to know is, of this percentage, how many were NOT in an obviously vulnerable category. Again the answer will be statistically so small as to not fit the narrative.
So we are only being fed the information that fits the official narrative. Indeed, as happend with The Great Barrington Declaration (see here Great Barrington Declaration), social and mainstream media repress alternative views, even from acknowledged experts.

So where do I think things have gone wrong?
Well, we've known the vulnerable categories for more than 6 months now and, outside of those, we knew that most people who caught Covid either had no symptoms or at worst felt grotty for a few days as they would with a heavy cold or flu.
Yes, there were tragic exceptions but you can't make national policy based on a statistically small number of exceptions.

We knew enough to be able to identify those in the high-risk categories and could have targetted the huge sums of money specifically on helping them and their immediate family or carers to form safe-bubbles so as to live & interact safely, while everyone else took whatever precautions they felt appropriate for themselves but without bringing large swathes of the country to a virtual halt with all the economic, unemployment, mental health and many other knock-on effects it has brought.

Instead, we continue to have a heavy-handed catch-all policy which will, in my view, cause more deaths and suffering over the next few years than Covid itself.

Of course, those whose only job is to contain Covid will identify what they believe to be the safest & surest way to contain it.
Although there are disagreements across experts, the Government’s advisers have decided that full or partial lockdowns and major restricitons on movement and gatherings is the answer.
But even if we only think about health issues, what about non-Covid serious medical conditions; or medical conditions that are less serious but nevertheless very distressing or those that have now become serious because they’ve been side-lined for so long?
Here is just one example of this https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/1338384574968115200?s=20 
And don’t get me started on the adverse affects on mental health or suicides or domestic abuse.

It's the continuing nature of the response focussing almost solely on Covid, and the lack of wider vision to see the damage being done to our people and society in these and many other areas that I have become more concerned about over time.
It has become counter-productive when weighed against all the other societal problems the covid policy response creates or exacerbates.

The 1918-1919 Spanish Flu killed over 225,000 in the UK. One year on from the first suspected UK Covid cases and we are at about 70,000 and in reality less as some who would have died anyway just happened to test positive for covid but that's not what ended their life, yet they were included in the figures - (all the better to scare you with?)
Of course, every death is tragic for the family concerned but Government policy has to be based on an assessment of ALL the risks to our country’s future, both medical and non-medical, not solely on the fear and emotion surrounding Covid fatalities.

The main reason that 12 months on, so many who are NOT in the known vulnerable categories are living in fear of Covid has little to do with its death or serious illness rate;
  
The main reason why so many more are now unemployed and that we have a groaning mountain of debt that will have to be paid back in higher taxes and lower real-terms pay has little to do with Covid's death or serious illness rate;

The main reason why so many individual and civil liberties that we thought inviolable, such as where we can can go, when and with whom, have been removed has little to do with Covid's death or serious illness rate; 

No, it’s down to the Government and their medical/scientific advisers' (fully backed by the Labour opposition & all other Westminster Parties) continuing to insist, aided and abetted by both mainstream and social media companies, that we need to treat Covid as if it’s the Black Death or Spanish Flu revisited, when it clearly isn’t as serious as those.

Covid is highly contagious but NOT highly deadly outside the vulnerable groups.

We should have spent the summer months identifying the vulnerable and their carers &/or families (which is easily done); made special provision for them to form safe bubbles but allowed the rest of the country to make their own decisions on the extent to which they mingle with others or use PPE.

We should have asked for retired Doctors & Nurses to volunteer to be trained on Covid-specific care and ready to work in the Nightingale Hospitals, thereby taking some pressure off the main NHS Hospitals.

As it is, I greatly fear that when the analysis is done in a few years time, it will be clear that the deaths and more widespread suffering caused by the lockdown policy response will be far greater than the number of those dying from Covid.

Short term decisions primarily made to avoid short-term criticism.

SIGH!!!

[At the time of writing this, there is talk of a possible new variant of the virus, so of course, if the facts change, I'll change my view but at the moment, I'm content with this analysis.]

Extremism and why we need to avoid it!

Those who feel that they do very nicely from the UK being in the EU or are fearful that their life may be made worse or are more ‘One-World’ than ‘Nation State’ in their view, are full of doom and gloom; they see their opponents as either stupid or evil or both. 

Those that feel that the way the EU operates is undemocratic and contributes to their life &/or our country’s life in a negative way just want out no matter what the consequences; they see their opponents as either stupid or evil or both. 

Both extremes are wrong as extreme views usually are because life and modern societies are massively complex.

In contrast, extreme views are very simplistic; they lack nuance or issue-specific judgement. Hence, they are often hypocritical and/or contradictory and therefore produce injustices of their own.

Convincing yourself either that a complex problem is in fact simple, or that simplistic unnuanced ideas will properly solve complex problems is just ridiculous; but worse it’s dangerous.

Dangerous because you either don’t change anything at all, including things that need to be changed; or you change too much and throw the baby out with the bathwater.

All or nothing style views/ideologies must be avoided whenever possible and strongly resisted when they arise. 

Of course, it’s much harder to think non-ideologically, open-mindedly, treating each issue on its merit and doing our best to tread a careful path through a maze fraught with dangers, but the alternative, simplistic extreme ideology, always leads to authoritarianism, then dictatorship and gulags/concentration camps and the loss of human rights and individual freedoms.

It would be retreating back into the past where 90% of people were serfs at the beck & call and whim of a small number with all the power; your only freedom is the freedom to do what you're told, on pain of imprisonment, torture or death.

So let’s make the effort not to go down this path, shall we?
Let's strongly resist the extremists, whether they be governments, large corporations or powerful lobby groups and get back to good faith reasonable interactions where we disagree.