The Student Room Group

Lockdown could go on for years

I've heard potentially we could be in lockdown for years on and off. I think I'm going to have a panic attack. What do we actually do if it happens?
I'm scared

Scroll to see replies

Original post by Manouthere
I've heard potentially we could be in lockdown for years on and off. I think I'm going to have a panic attack. What do we actually do if it happens?
I'm scared


I think it would be unreasonable to have any more lockdowns after this year. People are fed up and vaccines will be administered to mostly everyone in the country. I think at that point the damage on peoples mental health and wellbeing would be far more worse than the virus. And over time, people are gonna listen to the rules less and less, especially when it can't be justified to the same extent as it can now. There probably will be restrictions over the next year, but they won't be as bad as they are now so at least that extra bit freedom will help us to keep going.
Hey man, don't worry about it - we haven't even done 1 year yet and the public seem to be getting restless. There comes a point where people will refuse to follow the rules, and that number seems to be growing daily. While I'm not advocating for defying the law, I'm just pointing out that the chance of everyone following these rules for more than a year after this is pretty damn slim. Plus vaccines and that should mean hopefully we get the vulnerable people sorted out and we can slip into normalcy.
I think saying the lockdown will last for years is a bit negative. If you believe in a God then trust that the coronavirus pandemic and lockdown is all in the hands of God, and only God can take it away and God will take it away one day, it isn’t the end of the world yet, theres still bigger things to come at us. Soon everyone will start working, going to job centres and claiming benefits and living their lives again. The pandemic is a punishment and a wake up call to us humans who are sinning way too much and there are way too many murders and stabbings etc so I guess keeping us indoors is stopping some people do that.
Original post by Anonymous
not really surprising that this is going to last for years, it will last for years bare minimum unfortunately, it does suck but there's nothing we can do. I think its just something everyone will have to accept, complaining isn't going to help, maybe that energy of complaining can go into trying to be a bit more grateful because you've got to think years ago people have been in world wars where their family members would go and never return home. Staying at home doesn't do much harm. Also we are in lockdowns, probably will be for our lifetimes now but that doesn’t change the fact we are still growing up so part of growing up is starting to accept things and dealing with it.

I'm not trying to be rude or anything but I am trying to just be truthful. Good luck and do be prepared for these lockdowns to last our lifetime

A lifetime? You must be having a laugh. Next we'll be having lockdowns for colds and flu's
I don’t think it’s going to go on for ‘years’. Be realistic. This isn’t the only pandemic that has happened.

Of course there’s still going to be the virus, but hopefully, with enough people vaccinated, the death rates wouldn’t look bad.
Original post by Anonymous
not really surprising that this is going to last for years, it will last for years bare minimum unfortunately, it does suck but there's nothing we can do. I think its just something everyone will have to accept, complaining isn't going to help, maybe that energy of complaining can go into trying to be a bit more grateful because you've got to think years ago people have been in world wars where their family members would go and never return home. Staying at home doesn't do much harm. Also we are in lockdowns, probably will be for our lifetimes now but that doesn’t change the fact we are still growing up so part of growing up is starting to accept things and dealing with it.

I'm not trying to be rude or anything but I am trying to just be truthful. Good luck and do be prepared for these lockdowns to last our lifetime

Dear Manouthere,

I think that this post by Anonymous is pessimistic (to say the least) in terms of the claims that are made here. It sounds as though this person's post comes across as anxiety provoking, in my opinion, so my advice would be to pay it no thought. It is a perfectly legitimate worry to have, as I myself am worried that this lockdown may go on for years to come. However, it is not helpful for this person to say that we should be 'more grateful' that we aren't in some kind of war, or that we should stop complaining. Our concerns are more important than ever at this current moment in time, and this pandemic is in no way shape or form comparable to any past or present war. In times of war, the public were able to unite together and help in the war effort at home. In this pandemic the 'help' is to stay at home and isolate yourselves from those that our ancestors in previous wars would have banded together with.

Ultimately, my opinion on this is that I sincerely hope that this mindless and perpetual cycle of non-evidence based lockdowns will soon come to an end because the collateral damage done to the economy (will UNAVOIDABLY lead to increased poverty) and our mental health will surely outweigh the lives lost to the pandemic in the long term.

There have been no official mention of lockdowns 'lasting for years' that I myself are aware of. Also it is worth remembering that our prime minister is known for 'easing lockdowns too soon' and we have a chancellor who is more eager than ever to get the economy back up and running again, so I think that they will probably think about easing restrictions and looking at more sustainable ways of dealing with the pandemic. Logically I think we need to be cautious, however, there are other more effective means of dealing with this pandemic than silly lockdowns and mask wearing that are based more on superstition than any 'science'. 'Scientific' models will undoubtedly demonstrate the effectiveness of both, however there are many pitfalls here that ultimately lead to ineptitude of these measures (don't get me started and sorry for the small tangent/rant I will stop here).

I would also like to sympathise with you with regards to any mental health issues you may be currently be experiencing. I have dealt with my own fair share of mental health issues over the past year and have had myself signed off a PhD program I started in January, and I have felt utterly dreadful and hopeless. I started to become more open with people, which was very difficult, as well as seek further support though my institution. I cannot recommend enough the power of speaking to someone, whoever it is, as long as you feel comfortable sharing your experiences. But please seek help if you are struggling and I wish you all the best.
(edited 3 years ago)
Original post by CaptainDuckie
I don’t think it’s going to go on for ‘years’. Be realistic. This isn’t the only pandemic that has happened.

Of course there’s still going to be the virus, but hopefully, with enough people vaccinated, the death rates wouldn’t look bad.

I think OP is being realistic tbh. There has been no mention of a 'rout out of lockdown', therefore, OP's point of view is perfectly reasonable. We can't say for sure that the vaccine will save us all as we are being led to believe i.e. just because a vaccine eradicated smallpox does not mean it will work for covid-19! The issue being discussed here is more to do with government over-enforcement of restrictions, which are clearly having a detrimental effect on our society and which will become much more prevalent in the long term. The optimistic answer to OP's post would be to deal with this worry as something in which you cannot control and to deal with the current situation as it comes, not to predict the many possible outcomes of what we are going through, as it will most likely be something completely different from what you would expect.
The economy will be completely ruined if this lasts for years.
Original post by justanotherguy28
I think OP is being realistic tbh. There has been no mention of a 'rout out of lockdown', therefore, OP's point of view is perfectly reasonable.


What do you mean by ‘mention’ ? With enough people being vaccinated, this should control the virus hence stop it from spreading. I really didn’t come on here to argue.



Original post by justanotherguy28
does not mean it will work for covid-19! The issue being discussed here is more to do with government over-enforcement of restrictions, which are clearly having a detrimental effect on our society and which will become much more prevalent in the long term.


The government over enforcing restrictions had to be done because of the rapid increase from the variant being spread.


Original post by justanotherguy28
The optimistic answer to OP's post would be to deal with this worry as something in which you cannot control and to deal with the current situation as it comes, not to predict the many possible outcomes of what we are going through, as it will most likely be something completely different from what you would expect.


Yes, I agree. But saying it will go on for years isn’t accurate considering the effectiveness of the vaccines.
Original post by CaptainDuckie
What do you mean by ‘mention’ ? With enough people being vaccinated, this should control the virus hence stop it from spreading. I really didn’t come on here to argue.





The government over enforcing restrictions had to be done because of the rapid increase from the variant being spread.




Yes, I agree. But saying it will go on for years isn’t accurate considering the effectiveness of the vaccines.

Okay so firstly, don't argue if it is not your intention. Judging by the overall tone of your response, you are here to argue. Arguing is a positive thing, don't view it so negatively. An argument is an opportunity to discuss and contrast your views with others.

The vaccine is not a route out of lockdown. Although the vaccine is clearly effective, it is not enough to simply rely on a vaccine. The government have said that they will outline what the route out of lockdown is later this month (22nd Feb I believe).

The over enforcing of restrictions is not something I view as helpful in this time. The NHS SHOULD be overwhelmed, because this means that it works. It quite simply is not the case that we need lockdowns to 'ease the burden' because they are not anywhere near as effective as anybody thinks they are, otherwise we would not be in this predicament we are now facing: potential endless cycles of lockdowns.

I never said it will go on for years, I just said that it is a perfectly legitimate point of view, given that we are already in lockdown 3 (or 4? or 5? i've lost count by now). OP clearly is worried and anxious about the future as we all should be and it is very unclear what the government have planned for the future as they have a horrific record throughout this pandemic of being unclear, incoherent, ambiguous and completely U-turning on something they have said just days before like the policy on masks for example.
Original post by justanotherguy28

The NHS SHOULD be overwhelmed, because this means that it works.
.


Incorrect. Hypothetically, they should be overwhelmed but not to the extreme of having no hospital beds, even more increased waiting times, delayed operations, all of these things are inevitable going to cause even more disruption.


Original post by justanotherguy28
that we need lockdowns to 'ease the burden' because they are not anywhere near as effective as anybody thinks they are, otherwise we would not be in this predicament we are now facing: potential endless cycles of lockdowns.


Incorrect. Lockdowns do work, as we can see from this data here:
19E91FED-4A65-4D57-8CD8-810EEF219633.jpg.jpeg

There has been a sharp decrease in deaths and the infection rates are decreasing ever since lockdown has been implemented. So statistically, they are effective in helping the situation and bringing normality. (2) we are only in this predicament because of the action not being took quick enough. The government tried their best to keep everything open which inadvertently caused more disruption.

Original post by justanotherguy28

I never said it will go on for years, I just said that it is a perfectly legitimate point of view, given that we are already in lockdown 3 (or 4? or 5? i've lost count by now). OP clearly is worried and anxious about the future as we all should be and it is very unclear what the government have planned for the future as they have a horrific record throughout this pandemic of being unclear, incoherent, ambiguous and completely U-turning on something they have said just days before like the policy on masks for example.


I agree that there’s been uncertainty. You’re absolutely correct but of course there will be. These are unprecedented times for everybody and it went from 2-3 deaths to thousands. We are in lockdown 3, yes. But this time there are vaccines that will help us defeat this virus. As you’d imagine, the more people that are vaccinated, the more lives saved.
Original post by CaptainDuckie
Incorrect. Hypothetically, they should be overwhelmed but not to the extreme of having no hospital beds, even more increased waiting times, delayed operations, all of these things are inevitable going to cause even more disruption.




Incorrect. Lockdowns do work, as we can see from this data here:
19E91FED-4A65-4D57-8CD8-810EEF219633.jpg.jpeg

There has been a sharp decrease in deaths and the infection rates are decreasing ever since lockdown has been implemented. So statistically, they are effective in helping the situation and bringing normality. (2) we are only in this predicament because of the action not being took quick enough. The government tried their best to keep everything open which inadvertently caused more disruption.



I agree that there’s been uncertainty. You’re absolutely correct but of course there will be. These are unprecedented times for everybody and it went from 2-3 deaths to thousands. We are in lockdown 3, yes. But this time there are vaccines that will help us defeat this virus. As you’d imagine, the more people that are vaccinated, the more lives saved.

Whilst this is true, the things you have mentioned can happen regardless of the NHS being overwhelmed, for example, the early mismanagement of PPE and ventilator procurement, COVID patients being discharged into care homes etc.. all of which could have easily been avoided. It is purported that the NHS is overwhelmed but I think we have more than enough capacity to deal with COVID patients given the vast number of hospitals we have in the UK with their vast number of hospital beds, not to mention the nightingale wards that have been unused. There are many cases of cancer patients not being seen and many cases of other patients with non-covid related illnesses also not being seen due to 'increased pressure on the NHS' - of which there are 2 personal accounts of this in my own family. Again, these are issues which can easily be avoided by managing our NHS hospitals and our logistics in general more efficiently. About 1250 hospitals in the UK and a maximum of approx 4500 patients admitted per day, whilst taking into account those discharged (couldn't find figures for) isn't necessarily overwhelmed.

Okay, I am very (perhaps overly) sceptical over lockdowns and mask use I'll admit. However, this is one interpretation of the data that we are very used to hearing by now and I would hardly call it evidence that lockdowns are effective. At best the lockdown delays transmission, which is not the same as reducing deaths from the virus, given that the NHS is more than capable at dealing with the onset of patients. The least amount of deaths occurred when there were no restrictions at all, which slightly rose in October when the lockdown 2 / the tier system was introduced and inevitably became much worse in the winter. Do you not think that we would have reached this point regardless of lockdown, due to the fact that respiratory diseases are generally worse in the winter months, as we were foretold many times? And now all of a sudden this comes a s a surprise to many people including our own government who were the ones warning us that this virus would be worse in the winter? I don't buy it personally. I think the statistics and the reporting of statistics are dubious, to put it politely and should be bought into question.

The only things that have gone well in response to the pandemic is the rollout of the vaccines and the rapid approval of drugs such as remdesivir and dexamethasone (plus more I cant think off the top of my head) that have shown effectiveness for inhibiting COVID, yet get no mention whatsoever.

My main point is, that the government and media response is so one-sided that they would have you believe that this over-reaching of state control is necessary in the face of this terrible adversary, when in fact there are many other solutions that do not cause as much collateral damage in the long term as the lockdown. Lockdowns and masks are based on more superstition than science and are short term solutions to a long term problem, which just isn't good enough.

Thank you for your response btw.

PLEASE NOTE. I get my data from gov website: https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/deaths

EDIT: sorry, I don't know how to reply to parts of comments.
(edited 3 years ago)
Original post by LordBerkut
Until the government closes borders/has universal quarantine, uses vaccines that definitely work and actually punishes rulebreakers, (rather than just focusing on how much tax money they can loot), we're going to be stuck in this cycle for years. Endless mutations getting in/developing from high infection numbers. I'm sure they will eventually do this in another 100-200 000 deaths time. Negative media coverage will compel them to.

In the meantime you could always move to the Isle on Mann or New Zealand, or just take your chances and enjoy your life to the greatest extent possible, given that you're extremely unlikely to die. (though obfs don't being coughing on the elderly).

Punishing rule-breakers is a abhorrent and it is no way acceptable in our country. I do not see how anybody could endorse such hypocrisy. All of this common-sense nonsense early on in the pandemic by the policy makers who break their own rules! These out-of-control tax-avoiders are the ones who should be punished and brought to justice in court. Our police are too busy fining people for driving in their cars to go for walks less than 5 miles away while Boris happily enjoys his 7-mile journeys. I just don't see the sense in punishing people for things that don't make a difference to the pandemic. The police have better things to do like dealing with things like rising domestic abuse as a result of the pandemic, rising knife crime in London etc. But no, lets focus on shaming the Granny-killers. What a discrace.
Original post by justanotherguy28
Whilst this is true, the things you have mentioned can happen regardless of the NHS being overwhelmed, for example, the early mismanagement of PPE and ventilator procurement, COVID patients being discharged into care homes etc.. all of which could have easily been avoided.


It wouldn’t have been avoided. There was simply too many patients to deal with, which then caused the NHS to be overwhelmed. All those things you outlined happens but all COVID has done has sped up the process of it happening.


Original post by justanotherguy28
NHS is overwhelmed but I think we have more than enough capacity to deal with COVID patients given the vast number of hospitals we have in the UK with their vast number of hospital beds



Incorrect. The NHS did not have enough capacity to deal with COVID patients at all. Hospital patients were to be sent to hotels to free up beds for the cases due to the shortage of beds.

So there certainly isn’t a ‘vast majority’ of hospital beds.

Source: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-the-papers-55641624

“Western hotel chain have started taking in Covid patients from Kings College”

Original post by justanotherguy28


Okay, I am very (perhaps overly) sceptical over lockdowns and mask use I'll admit. However, this is one interpretation of the data that we are very used to hearing by now and I would hardly call it evidence that lockdowns are effective. At best the lockdown delays transmission, which is not the same as reducing deaths from the virus, given that the NHS is more than capable at dealing with the onset of patients. The least amount of deaths occurred when there were no restrictions at all.


You are a pure demonstration of being sceptical. You have scientific evidence over lockdowns being effective and masks improving infection rates and you are literally still questioning if the information is valid or not. If you don’t want to believe it is, then what will you ever believe? If not the scientists, then who? Your own invalidated info?

Lock downs do reduce transmission, I mean, isn’t that what it’s supposed to do in order to decrease death rates? If there was no lockdown, using your logic, there would be faster transmission rates right? So what does that then lead to? More deaths!!!!!! You answered your own question! NHS didn’t have capacity, and still currently don’t. (3) The only reason why the number of deaths were reduced is because the variant didn’t spread as rapid then. It only inflated as soon as the variant spread through south east England which in turn lead to an increase in deaths. Hence why we’re on lockdown.
(edited 3 years ago)
Original post by CaptainDuckie
I agree that there’s been uncertainty. You’re absolutely correct but of course there will be. These are unprecedented times for everybody and it went from 2-3 deaths to thousands. We are in lockdown 3, yes. But this time there are vaccines that will help us defeat this virus. As you’d imagine, the more people that are vaccinated, the more lives saved.


Respiratory viruses are never very dangerous during the summer months, so that graph is correlation and definitely doesn’t prove causation. There could be a million other factors in play. If you look at the death numbers from different countries, there is absolutely no correlation between lockdown, severity of lockdown etc and number of deaths. That also doesn’t take into account the many lives which will be lost from the failure to treat/diagnose other illnesses, suicide, poverty etc which will continue to occur over the next few years.

It’s funny how any positive results in a period are due to lockdowns, yet we are to blame if the death figures do not decrease. Classic gaslighting.

There’s also a huge issue with how deaths are classified, so I wouldn’t trust the death figures from any country. Nobody is really testing for the flu at the minute and I think there has been a 90% drop in flu deaths - it’s a miracle!
Original post by Anonymous
There could be a million other factors in play. If you look at the death numbers from different countries, there is absolutely no correlation between lockdown, severity of lockdown etc and number of deaths. That also doesn’t take into account the many lives which will be lost from the failure to treat/diagnose other illnesses, suicide, poverty etc which will continue to occur over the next few years.


Wait, you say there could a million different factors in play.. that is true, however, we are ultimately interested in only COVID-related deaths and if they did reduce from lockdown or not, right?
Alright, there is pretty clear correlation between death decreasing and lockdown becoming more extensive.

If we actually look at some data, or the one I sent, we can come to a conclusion that death rates do decrease as well as transmission rates. If you want to argue about flu deaths and winter pressures, you are absolutely correct. Of course it will speed it up but that isn’t the point that is made.
(edited 3 years ago)
Original post by CaptainDuckie
It wouldn’t have been avoided. There was simply too many patients to deal with, which then caused the NHS to be overwhelmed. All those things you outlined happens but all COVID has done has sped up the process of it happening.





Incorrect. The NHS did not have enough capacity to deal with COVID patients at all. Hospital patients were to be sent to hotels to free up beds for the cases due to the shortage of beds.

So there certainly isn’t a ‘vast majority’ of hospital beds.

Source: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-the-papers-55641624

“Western hotel chain have started taking in Covid patients from Kings College”



You are a pure demonstration of being sceptical. You have scientific evidence over lockdowns being effective and masks improving infection rates and you are literally still questioning if the information is valid or not. If you don’t want to believe it is, then what will you ever believe? If not the scientists, then who? Your own invalidated info?

Lock downs do reduce transmission, I mean, isn’t that what it’s supposed to do in order to decrease death rates? If there was no lockdown, using your logic, there would be faster transmission rates right? So what does that then lead to? More deaths!!!!!! You answered your own question! NHS didn’t have capacity, and still currently don’t. (3) The only reason why the number of deaths were reduced is because the variant didn’t spread as rapid then. It only inflated as soon as the variant spread through south east England which in turn lead to an increase in deaths. Hence why we’re on lockdown.

I feel you do not read what I have said properly and do not have any evidence and a lack of intuition to counter the points that I am making. Now I see why you did not wish to argue. Telling me that I am incorrect does not mean it is so. It WOULD have been avoided if more care was taken in making vital decisions which were utterly disregarded. Why do you think that it was unavoidable? Your figures for covid deaths differ from the one I quoted from gov.uk and show the deaths to be higher than what they are quoted to be. You have not stated where you obtained these figures.

The hospitals absolutely have enough capacity to deal with covid patients, I have stated this before based on figures relating to how many hospitals in the UK there are, how many beds they have and the number of hospital admissions per day. I have also been told of personal accounts of empty hospital floors from people I know and trust. The number of hospital patients discharged is not stated on the government website, which is not very transparent and very concerning for a (relatively) free country. Citing the usual BBC trollop is not good enough I'm afraid. Regardless, it clearly backs up my point further: the incompetency of the NHS management is the reason they are overwhelmed, not lack of any capacity (e.g. PPE, ventilators, beds etc).

There is no 'scientific' evidence of lockdowns being effective. There have been no scientific experiments conducted on lockdowns or masks to validate their effectiveness, therefore, it is unscientific to claim that it is and effective measure. As I have said, the many covid graphs showing number of deaths can be interpreted in many different ways. Early on there was an enormous misreporting of covid deaths, which was reviewed and resulted in about 5,000 extra deaths being reported. However, this is far smaller than many sceptics believe and it is a problem that is still ongoing - more deaths are still being reported as covid when it is not necessarily the cause of death. Further, the lack of early testing meant that deaths and transmission were underreported. This is because the more you test, the more people have covid. Now we test a lot more people, therefore, you are likely to see an increase in the number of infections and deaths. This all gets very convoluted because you have some things which cause deaths to go under reported and some effects that cause the number of deaths to become overreported and therefore, adding to the uncertainty of the error of the published figures. The bottom line is that the published figures suffer from numerous sources of error that cannot be easily quantified due to a lack of information.

You are very quick to point out that my point of view is invalid, yet you are the one lacking evidence to counter my argument and disprove me. Simply stating that 'the data speaks for itself' is not good enough. Where are your own ideas regarding the data? or do you just regurgitate whatever trollop that you hear from the government, or worse, the BBC? It would seem so.

I said 'at best' lockdowns reduce transmission. This is not the same as reducing deaths. This is because if a virus with a 50% mortality spread to 1000 people in a day compared with the same virus spreading to 1000 people over the course of 10 days, we have the same number of people dead. So yes, at best lockdowns reduced the transmission of the virus and have no overall effect on the number of deaths. Hopefully I worded that in a way you understand. What surprises me most is why it comes as a surprise that a virus mutates. This is what viruses do, they mutate. Some faster than others and this one is pretty fast compared to others, as you would expect. What evidence is there to suggest that the variant in the summer spread slower than the 'new variant'? Using your own logic, it appears that the 'new variant' spreads less quickly in the winter months than the 'summer variant', based on your graph.

EDIT: changed "incompetency of NHS" to "incompetency of NHS management" as this was what was meant.
(edited 3 years ago)
Original post by justanotherguy28
I feel you do not read what I have said properly and do not have any evidence and a lack of intuition to counter the points that I am making.


Oh dear, I would’ve thought this would have been a charitable discussion but it seems it’s going absolutely no where.



Original post by justanotherguy28
It WOULD have been avoided if more care was taken in making vital decisions which were utterly disregarded. Why do you think that it was unavoidable? Your figures for covid deaths differ from the one I quoted from gov.uk and show the deaths to be higher than what they are quoted to be.


The points you make are not true. You literally said lockdowns don’t work, it makes it very hard to take you seriously. Decisions for what(?) the point of the matter is that lockdown was effective, you said it wasn’t? You got proven wrong by data that is found online. Check their official website or simply google search. “Covid death rates figures” that same graph will come up and was even the same one that was used in the briefings.



Original post by justanotherguy28


I have also been told of personal accounts of empty hospital floors from people I know and trust.,


So you’re using what the ‘personal account’ has told you as a reflective of all of the hospitals? Oh dear, okay.


Original post by justanotherguy28
Citing the usual BBC trollop is not good enough I'm afraid. Regardless, it clearly backs up my point further: the incompetency of the NHS is the reason they are overwhelmed, not lack of any capacity (e.g. PPE, ventilators, beds etc).


Citing BBC trollop ? This is what everyone reads from ????? Where do you read from then? Your personal accounts. Incompetency for an unprecedented time, increase in patients and extended pressures? Sure.


Original post by justanotherguy28
IThere is no 'scientific' evidence of lockdowns being effective. There have been no scientific experiments conducted on lockdowns or masks to validate their effectiveness, therefore, it is unscientific to claim that it is and effective measure.


There may no be no evidence but data literally shows a sharp decrease in death rates from lockdown. So we could imply that it’s effective. But if you really want to say that as your point, fair enough, I agree.


Original post by justanotherguy28
Further, the lack of early testing meant that deaths and transmission were underreported. This is because the more you test, the more people have covid. Now we test a lot more people, therefore, you are likely to see an increase in the number of infections and deaths. This all gets very convoluted because you have some things which cause deaths to go under reported and some effects that cause the number of deaths to become overreported and therefore, adding to the uncertainty of the error of the published figures. The bottom line is that the published figures suffer from numerous sources of error that cannot be easily quantified due to a lack of information.



Fair enough. I do know that there are errors but since the data has already been published as true, it’s best we take it as a estimate rather than make an assumption that it’s false. At the end of the day, you aren’t in the position to even do so anyways. Of course there’s always going to be errors in anything you do, hence estimations I presume.

Original post by justanotherguy28



I said 'at best' lockdowns reduce transmission. This is not the same as reducing deaths. This is because if a virus with a 50% mortality spread to 1000 people in a day compared with the same virus spreading to 1000 people over the course of 10 days, we have the same number of people dead. So yes, at best lockdowns reduced the transmission of the virus and have no overall effect on the number of deaths. Hopefully I worded that in a way you understand.


I did understand what you meant, but it really isn’t the case in this situation. We have vaccines that will further decrease that mortality rate, hence why we are locked down to decrease the spread.
Original post by CaptainDuckie
Oh dear, I would’ve thought this would have been a charitable discussion but it seems it’s going absolutely no where.





The points you make are not true. You literally said lockdowns don’t work, it makes it very hard to take you seriously. Decisions for what(?) the point of the matter is that lockdown was effective, you said it wasn’t? You got proven wrong by data that is found online. Check their official website or simply google search. “Covid death rates figures” that same graph will come up and was even the same one that was used in the briefings.





So you’re using what the ‘personal account’ has told you as a reflective of all of the hospitals? Oh dear, okay.




Citing BBC trollop ? This is what everyone reads from ????? Where do you read from then? Your personal accounts. Incompetency for an unprecedented time, increase in patients and extended pressures? Sure.




There may no be no evidence but data literally shows a sharp decrease in death rates from lockdown. So we could imply that it’s effective. But if you really want to say that as your point, fair enough, I agree.




Fair enough. I do know that there are errors but since the data has already been published as true, it’s best we take it as a estimate rather than make an assumption that it’s false. At the end of the day, you aren’t in the position to even do so anyways. Of course there’s always going to be errors in anything you do, hence estimations I presume.



I did understand what you meant, but it really isn’t the case in this situation. We have vaccines that will further decrease that mortality rate, hence why we are locked down to decrease the spread.

Yes, it clearly is going nowhere. You dismiss my views as being untrue with no evidence or explanation as to why this is the case. Interpretation of data is different and it depends on the individual interpreting the data, which means I have a perfectly reasonable point of view with regards to lockdowns not working and the best you can counter with is "go on google", "the data speaks for itself". I have already done this and the data does not speak for itself. I am not dismissing your point of view that lockdowns are effective, I am countering the idea with my own idea that has a lot more thought into it than just a conspiracy I googled or something I have heard before on the news or whatever. What points of mine are 'not true' and why is this the case? If you cannot at least explain why what I have said is not true, then do not claim it to be false. Google is not a credible database for 'evidence', this also applies to posts from journalists such as the BBC who post their point of view, which is not the same as fact, if you did not already know. Just to be clear, there is a lack of credible evidence that can be used to back up either of our points here, which is the whole point of the discussion. If there was credible evidence then idiots like me would be more convinced and we wouldn't be discussing this.

"Decisions for what?" - read my previous post, this has been stated.

What is wrong with a personal account? It is more credible evidence than the usual BBC trollop and 10 times more relatable. In an unprecedented time competency should be of utmost importance, certainly should not be slacking in this department. If competency if those in charge is waning, this could lead to greater loss of life, which has evidently been the case with the incident with care homes. Come on are you serious? The government and other executive bodies should absolutely be scrutinised and held to account for their misdeeds, which are rich and bountiful in this unprecedented time.

"There may no be no evidence but data literally shows a sharp decrease in death rates from lockdown. So we could imply that it’s effective. But if you really want to say that as your point, fair enough, I agree." - No, not necessarily. Read my previous reply and the other reply regarding this. There are many reasons why this is not necessarily the case.

I did not "assume the data was false", it is simply misleading to use data that is fraught with uncertainty to guide government policy and force unnecessary laws that are scientifically dubious and based upon little evidence.

Look, all I'm saying is that a simple re-shift in our priorities to ensuring that we have good logistics in place, no more blunders are made by policy makers, increased beds, PPE and ventilators for hospitals to boost capacity for NHS, better and more efficient management of the NHS, and the folly of perpetual lockdown cycles would not have been needed.

Don't get me started on masks. They are not disposed of as they should be, just worn multiple times before disposal/washing and when they are they are thrown in the bin. This irresponsible behaviour enforced by a short-sighted and ignorant policy means that the virus could potentially spread more, not less. There is a reason that hospitals have disposal procedures for their PPE equipment. Plus the fact that masks weren't even advised by WHO and our own government until they were probably shown a fancy graphical model made by China of someone breathing against a physical barrier. Of course a model shows these things to be effective, but it is not evidence and should not be used to guide or enforce policy. In theory, lockdown and masks are effetive, in theory. This 'evidence' based on the graphic you posted before can be interpreted in many other ways than what you or I purport it to be. All I ask is that you be open minded to other peoples views rather than dismiss it as 'false' and provide no evidence or explanation as to why this is the case.

EDIT: anyway, the original point was that lockdown is becoming unbearable, could last years and that it was causing OP to become very anxious about the future. Perhaps we could discuss more the collateral impact of lockdown with respect to mental health and other issues, instead of going off on tangents about why lockdowns are or aren't effective? I do think you make a good point in some places, and I do respect the points you are making, but this is sometimes clouded by your vehement dismissal of my points and views.
(edited 3 years ago)

Quick Reply

Latest