# Lockdown ending could trigger anxiety for many, say UK charities



## Northerner (Mar 13, 2021)

The lifting of lockdown restrictions and the subsequent return to schools, workplaces and social events could trigger heightened levels of stress and anxiety for many people, UK mental health charities and experts have said.

They say some, particularly those with mental health concerns, will be worried or anxious about the readjustment required by the lifting of lockdown restrictions as set out in the government’s gradual roadmap for reopening England.

Dr Tine Van Bortel, a senior research associate in public health at the University of Cambridge, said: “Lockdown has given people with mental health conditions like anxiety and PTSD permission to stay at home, and knowing that at some point you’ll have to go out again can actually trigger stress and anxiety.”









						Lockdown ending could trigger anxiety for many, say UK charities
					

Fears raised for people with mental health concerns over return to schools and workplaces




					www.theguardian.com


----------



## Ljc (Mar 13, 2021)

I don’t know how this will affect some folks, I guess some will be very worried and some will go partying
Dad and I  well me really as dad us housebound will stay isolating till a couple of weeks after our second jab . Thank fully we are retired .


----------



## nonethewiser (Mar 13, 2021)

Understandable, this pandemic has left mental scars, for many they will remain long after Covid.


----------



## Ivostas66 (Mar 13, 2021)

Well, if kids are anything to go by then yes, this is what is happening! I teach at a very good school with exemplary behaviour. Most students have loved the return and seem to be fine, but this week we have had to exclude a couple of older kids who started a fight (the last reported physical fight at the school was in 2011!), had students answering back and a few swearing at staff. One of the issues is that these are the students who submitted no/ very little work during lockdown and when spoken to said they spent lockdown on social media, games consoles or watching TV. Sadly, their parents have been very uncooperative ("_I don't care if he's started a fight. I don't want him back here for two days, he's been a nightmare at home_", "_I don't know what you want me to do about it, he's 15 now and won't do a thing his Mum or I tell him_" and to the mother of a girl who told a teacher to 'you can shove it up yer f*ing arse Miss' "_What do you want me to do about it, she's your responsibility now she's back at school_!"

Kids need a lot of PSHE and Citizenship work focusing upon mental health, coping strategies and responsibilities. Not sure what we can do about parents though!


----------



## Ljc (Mar 13, 2021)

nonethewiser said:


> Understandable, this pandemic has left mental scars, for many they will remain long after Covid.


Sadly Very true


----------



## mikeyB (Mar 13, 2021)

Many people? Don’t believe it. Most folk are champing at the bit to get back to normal. Most people I know, for sure.

OK, I’ll give you those who have had Covid, or have lost relatives- that’s normal. But the rest of us? Give us a break. It only seems to be in England that folk obsess with stories like this. I’m sure that most folk are more resilient than are given credit for.

We’ve got better things to worry about.The combined effect of Brexit and Covid has increased poverty and food bank use. You can’t cure that with anxiety treatment. That will persist for years, until we get a government that cares more about working people than bankers in their ivory towers.


----------



## Amigo (Mar 13, 2021)

I absolutely believe this northerner and for the long term shielders who have had nearly a full year of this, anxieties have been created, personal confidence eroded and concerns remain about the efficacy of the vaccine, especially amongst those of us who are significantly immune compromised. Doesn’t mean we are not all desperate to get back to normal but it’s taken its toll on many, me included and I’m a tough cookie!


----------



## trophywench (Mar 14, 2021)

Well I went to Tesco a few weeks ago and noticed I had become paranoid about other people being too close - just have not been in any company since Thursday 12th March 2020.  Oh - except *fully* out of doors last September.


----------



## Amity Island (Mar 14, 2021)

Many people have supported the use of lockdowns and restrictions. 

Lockdowns have been the sole cause of the destruction of our country, our livelihoods and our way of life. 

We all know what effect lockdowns and restrictions have had on containing the virus and saving lives. From the day lockdowns were brought in, we can see what affect they had on covid cases and hospital admissions - see graph for March 2020, cases soared shortly after lockdowns were brought in.

Death rates have been no worse in 2020, than just about every single year since records began and only marginally worse than in 2000, I don't remember any panic then? If that fact alone doesn't convince anyone that something isn't right, nothing will. We've had so many deaths counted (tested positive within 28 days) as covid deaths when in reality these deaths have not been caused by covid19. The dire effects of the lockdowns and restrictions have convinced many to get vaccinated just in the hope that we can all get back to normal, when in reality, we should never have been put into this situation to begin with.

3 weeks to "flatten the curve" and nearly 52 weeks later we're still in lockdown...

I just hope and pray that one day, these people will be brought to justice for the crimes against the the people of the country and I hope our children and our children's children will forgive us all for letting this happen.


----------



## Robin (Mar 14, 2021)

The elephant in the room, surely, is the statistics we don’t have, and never can have. We can never have graphs showing the number of cases and deaths that happened with no lockdown. Studying the results of one option that was taken, in isolation, doesn’t really tell us very much.


----------



## Amity Island (Mar 14, 2021)

Robin said:


> The elephant in the room, surely, is the statistics we don’t have, and never can have. We can never have graphs showing the number of cases and deaths that happened with no lockdown. Studying the results of one option that was taken, in isolation, doesn’t really tell us very much.


Hi Robin,

Although what you say is valid....there must _surely_ be a better position to take than that, if the offical line is accurate? A whole pandemic lasting over a year can't surely all be simply discredited with the "elephant in the room"?

Can you find anything to show that large scale outdoor gatherings cause tranmission of the virus? If not, why have we been locked in our homes?









						No Covid-19 outbreaks have been linked to crowded beaches, MPs told | ITV News
					

Government scientific adviser Professor Mark Woolhouse said that to the best of his knowledge, there has never been an outbreak linked to packed seafronts. | ITV National News




					www.itv.com
				




Are you able to find any evidence to show, by refering to data and graphs for uk:

that the average age of death for covid 19 is any different from the average age of death of 82? If not, why have ALL age groups been locked in their homes rather than shielding the elderly and vulnerable?

that the death rates during the "pandemic" were any worse than say in 2000? or any year before that?

that covid19 cases dropped after the lockdown was brought in in March 2020?

that cases haven't been over counted as "covid19" instead of the actual cause of a death?

that making the wearing of masks mandatory (24th July 2020) helped reduce the number of covid19 cases?

Or why with an expected 500,000 deaths, they decided to retain the virus as a High Consequence Infectious Disease?

Can you provide any evidence that "anybody can catch the virus" even those who already have it?, those that are in isolation? or that "anyone can pass it on" even those that don't have the virus?

Or can you provide evidence to show these people didn't say this:

England’s chief medical officer has warned the public wearing face masks will do little to combat the ongoing coronavirus outbreak.

Professor Chris Whitty told Sky News on Wednesday that wearing a face mask had almost no effect on reducing the risk of contracting the illness.

Prof Whitty said: “In terms of wearing a mask, our advice is clear: that wearing a mask if you don’t have an infection reduces the risk almost not at all. So we do not advise that.”
“The only people we do sometimes use masks for are people who have got an infection and that is to help them to stop it spreading around," he added.

Robin the list goes on and on, just too many instances to remember and this is why I have come to the conclusion I have.


----------



## Robin (Mar 14, 2021)

You miss my point. I'm not discrediting your statistics and I’m not commenting on the status quo of having had a lockdown. But all the statistics that you quote, all the statistics that we have, and all the imposed rules you cite, are from the situation that we have been in. Nobody can say what the statistics would have looked like if different decisions on lockdown had been taken. I don’t seem to be able to explain that to you 
 It is my personal view that the death toll would have been higher, with no lockdown, even if we had tried to shield the elderly and vulnerable  ( and it is also my personal view that we wouldn’t have been able to, the elderly and vulnerable have to have interactions with younger carers, providers of food, healthcare etc). You may think differently. But we will never know what the outcome would have been in any other hypothetical case, whether it would have been better, worse, or no different.


----------



## Amity Island (Mar 14, 2021)

Robin said:


> You miss my point. I'm not discrediting your statistics and I’m not commenting on the status quo of having had a lockdown. But all the statistics that you quote, all the statistics that we have, and all the imposed rules you cite, are from the situation that we have been in. Nobody can say what the statistics would have looked like if different decisions on lockdown had been taken. I don’t seem to be able to explain that to you
> It is my personal view that the death toll would have been higher, with no lockdown, even if we had tried to shield the elderly and vulnerable  ( and it is also my personal view that we wouldn’t have been able to, the elderly and vulnerable have to have interactions with younger carers, providers of food, healthcare etc). You may think differently. But we will never know what the outcome would have been in any other hypothetical case, whether it would have been better, worse, or no different.


I do understand what you are saying Robin. What you are saying is you don't want to draw any conculsions from the numerous points I raised because you have nothing to compare then to if we "hadn't locked down".

We can use a known example of when we didn't "lock-down" to see what hapened.

Like the beach fest last year?

No outbreak of cases followed, what conclusions can we draw from that?









						No Covid-19 outbreaks have been linked to crowded beaches, MPs told | ITV News
					

Government scientific adviser Professor Mark Woolhouse said that to the best of his knowledge, there has never been an outbreak linked to packed seafronts. | ITV National News




					www.itv.com


----------



## Robin (Mar 14, 2021)

Amity Island said:


> Like the beach fest last year?
> 
> No outbreak of cases followed, what conclusions can we draw from that?


That the virus doesn’t transmit well outdoors in hot weather. Nothing more.
This thread started out about anxiety at the ending of lockdown. I think we’ve gone so far off topic now, we ought to call a halt.


----------



## Amity Island (Mar 14, 2021)

Robin said:


> That the virus doesn’t transmit well outdoors in hot weather. Nothing more.
> This thread started out about anxiety at the ending of lockdown. I think we’ve gone so far off topic now, we ought to call a halt.


Robin, we haven't gone off thread, we're actually right on topic. The thread is about the anxiety people may suffer because of lockdowns. 

My point is this lifting of lockdowns shouldn't even be happening. We shouldn't have locked down, and all the evidence I have found to date provides no evidence to support the case for lockdowns. 

So in answer to your conclusion, which I wholeheartedly agree with, why then are people locked in their houses 52 weeks after the 3 weeks to "flatten the curve"? 

As I said, I just hope and pray that one day, these people will be brought to justice for the crimes against the the people of the country and I hope our children and our children's children will forgive us all for letting this happen.


----------



## Northerner (Mar 15, 2021)

Amity Island said:


> My point is this lifting of lockdowns shouldn't even be happening. We shouldn't have locked down, and all the evidence I have found to date provides no evidence to support the case for lockdowns.


Without restricting the spread of the virus the hospitals would have become overwhelmed, as has been apparent when they very came close to this in the latest lockdown, due to the huge acceleration in infections in December, partly due to the new variant, and the dreadful mishandling of the Christmas period. Health services in some parts of the world are actually overwhelmed (Brazil, for example) where the virus has not been controlled well. It is a deadly virus, far deadlier than flu and much more transmissible  The only way lockdowns might have been avoided would have been if we had had a highly efficient track, trace and isolate system in place to limit the spread in that way - we didn't even attempt to do this, and in any case we didn't know enough about the virus in the beginning.


----------



## Amity Island (Mar 15, 2021)

Northerner said:


> Without restricting the spread of the virus the hospitals would have become overwhelmed, as has been apparent when they very came close to this in the latest lockdown, due to the huge acceleration in infections in December, partly due to the new variant, and the dreadful mishandling of the Christmas period. Health services in some parts of the world are actually overwhelmed (Brazil, for example) where the virus has not been controlled well. It is a deadly virus, far deadlier than flu and much more transmissible  The only way lockdowns might have been avoided would have been if we had had a highly efficient track, trace and isolate system in place to limit the spread in that way - we didn't even attempt to do this, and in any case we didn't know enough about the virus in the beginning.


Hi Northerner, 

I hear that and that seems to be the reason given. However the evidence suggests every measure that has been taken shows no sign that it worked, be that masks, lockdowns or social distancing. There is nothing there to clearly and convincingly convince anyone that any measures worked.

When did we see the spike in cases? After lockdown, not before the lockdown in the 10 weeks prior when the virus was in the population.

Where was the dip in cases when masks were brought in? There was no dip.

Where are the spike in cases following the huge mass outdoor gatherings? There were none.

Where is the huge increase in death rates for the pandemic compared to all the other preceding years? 

And then we can go into the nightingale hospitals...harrogate closing down after seeing not a single patient! Again another example of where a strategy had failed to show it's purpose.

How many more examples can I give.

I'm sure there are other people besides me looking at all these facts and questioning the effectiveness of the lockdowns etc.

Yes to save the NHS but where is all the other evidence to show that the measures taken had some effect? That the measures succeeded? There must be something else.


----------



## mikeyB (Mar 15, 2021)

The evidence is in this country when cases plummeted during the first lockdown. It always takes time for any such measure to have an effect 

And look at countries like Brazil where no such measures have been imposed. And Australia and New Zealand, where even stricter lockdowns were imposed. More people died in this country from Covid last week than died in New Zealand in a year.

The measures have succeeded, to a degree. The complete failure of the much vaunted English test and trace system having an effect is the “something else” you are looking for. That is the _key_ part of the system that is failing - nothing else works fully unless you have that, as New Zealand shows.


----------



## Amity Island (Mar 15, 2021)

mikeyB said:


> The evidence is in this country when cases plummeted during the first lockdown. It always takes time for any such measure to have an effect


Hi Mikey,

Plummeted??

The evidence shows there were *no* excess deaths _before_ the lockdown, so how could cases or deaths have plummeted when there were so few to start with?

The virus had been in the UK for 3 months prior.

See graph when excess deaths started happening after lockdown on 23rd March 2020.


----------



## Schrodinger (Mar 15, 2021)

I haunt Twitter and a fair few diabetics are being to get anxious about coming out of lock down, me I can't wait to go out and about again, mooching around record shops, sitting in the pub, eating in cafes and watching the world go by.


----------



## everydayupsanddowns (Mar 15, 2021)

Amity Island said:


> Can you find anything to show that large scale outdoor gatherings cause tranmission of the virus? If not, why have we been locked in our homes?



How do you feel about the anniversaries of Athletico Madrid and Cheltenham Gold Cup recently. There have been interviews with people who came down with infections in the days following both events, which are now widely regarded to have been a significant misjudgement. And also, sadly, with family members for whom that Covid resulted in the death of the attendee. 

Personally, I perceived a significant hike in UK cases rising into the second wave soon (following an incubation/transmission period) after the 'eat out to infect out' encouragement for people to get out and about and support the economy, and the lockdown easing. I don't believe this happened in Australia or NZ whose lockdowns stayed locked down. So my perception is very different to yours. I believe the lockdowns (as personally, emotionally, and economically difficult as they are) were vital. But their effectiveness was impaired by easing too early, and communicating too vaguely.


----------



## trophywench (Mar 15, 2021)

... and yet another peak after  the disastrous easing of lockdown during Xmas.  Not a single person wants to see that again hence why the Government has been forced into harsher treatment of people breaking lockdown and harsher language about easing lockdown eg. 'Not in any circumstances sooner than (date)'.

We collectively - including the Anti Lockdown and My life matters more than yours etc brigades along with the compliant folk - have brought this about so I'm not in the business of discovering who to blame for exactly what and even if I was - I still would not be in the position of doling out the punishment.   What punishment !!!!


----------



## Leadinglights (Mar 15, 2021)

In the early days it was not recognised that there was asymptomatic transmission so it was bound to spread as people don't live in isolation, families cannot easily stay apart from each other and distancing in the work place is well nigh impossible. 
My daughter's children have been at school as key worker's kids and each had a week of self isolation in October but first week back with all the children and one has to self isolate this week. We have observed secondary school kids with arms around each other so no social distancing outside of school. 
People rushing off on holiday all crowded together in the airport or on a plane didn't really help either. 
Hard to imagine how we can get back to 'normal'.


----------



## Eddy Edson (Mar 16, 2021)

I boggle a bit that lockdown denialists are still peddling their stuff. 

This is what a brutally strict lockdown accomplished in Victoria over the Oz winter, from July:



It's a neat little experiment because it isn't compicated by new infections arriving from out of jurisdiction - Vic borders were closed tight all through this period.

Stressful and inconvenient for Victorians while it lasted; less stressful than months & months of high infection and death rates. Because it was maintained until cases were at zero, and because borders have been tightly controlled, it hasn't had to be repeated.


----------



## mikeydt1 (Mar 16, 2021)

people cannot live indefinitely in a lock down state whether we like it or not.  we all need to learn to live  with this like we have lived with other viruses and diseases.  flue kills but we go about our business not hiding indoors spraying ourselves silly.  other diseases kill but do we hide indoors?


----------



## Amity Island (Mar 16, 2021)

everydayupsanddowns said:


> How do you feel about the anniversaries of Athletico Madrid and Cheltenham Gold Cup recently.
> 
> I believe the lockdowns (as personally, emotionally, and economically difficult as they are) were vital.


Hi Mike,

Thanks for your reply, always appreciated.

My point is about lockdowns, effectively locking people in their homes when they could instead be outside in the fresh air, walking, seeing nature and the great outdoors (which is a much safer envirnonment) but is also about the damage lockdowns cause. Both @Eddy Edson and @Bruce Stephens have both made posts and discussions on how easily covid can be caught *indoors*, but they 've not made any posts on how easily transmission occurs in the great outdoors, so why lock people in? But it's worse than that. I believe lockdowns have caused many deaths, be it from the intial lockdown, but also via side effects such as missed appointments, unable to get appointments and being scared to attend hospitals. Now they are telling us there is going to be wide spread anxiety when they lift the lockdowns.

The two events you refer to are really good examples of how not to go outside, stood literally shoulder to shoulder, front to back, with strangers from thousands of different households.  Is it any wonder there was transmission? My point is that being outside, even in crowds - provided socially distanced - is much safer than being indoors (lockdowns).

Whether lockdowns show a reduction in cases, please refer to my response to @mikeyB on what was hapening in terms of excess deaths before the first lockdown on 23rd March 2020, there were no noticable excess deaths until _*after*_ they locked down, *THEN* we see the spike in deaths, probably as a result of pre-emptively making bed spaces in hospitals, all the elderly being thrown out of their hospital beds, without time to even pick up their false teeth. Do you draw the same conslusion? That the deaths started happening with the lockdown?


----------



## Amity Island (Mar 16, 2021)

Eddy Edson said:


> I boggle a bit that lockdown denialists are still peddling their stuff.
> 
> This is what a brutally strict lockdown accomplished in Victoria over the Oz winter, from July:
> 
> ...


Eddy,

Not sure what you mean by lockdown denialists, but see my reponse to @mikeyB 

Covid entered the UK in no later than Jan 2020. There are no noticable effects of covid19 (excess deaths) before they locked down. 

Do you agree with that?


----------



## Amity Island (Mar 16, 2021)

mikeydt1 said:


> people cannot live indefinitely in a lock down state whether we like it or not.  we all need to learn to live  with this like we have lived with other viruses and diseases.  flue kills but we go about our business not hiding indoors spraying ourselves silly.  other diseases kill but do we hide indoors?


I agree. Not to mention there were no excess deaths until they locked down on 23rd March 2020.


----------



## mikeyB (Mar 16, 2021)

Yes, that’s because they locked down three weeks too late. Show me a graph for the latest lockdown.

I assume you are not intending to demonstrate that lockdowns increase Covid deaths, because they don’t. Show me all the graphs from countries that haven’t locked down, like Brazil and the US, and the countries that have, like Australia and New Zealand. The UK is a bad example, because the English government ignored advice from scientists, and their own “what if” exercises done previously.


----------



## Eddy Edson (Mar 16, 2021)

Amity Island said:


> Hi Mike,
> 
> Thanks for your reply, always appreciated.
> 
> ...



The main point of "lockdowns" I believe is to reduce the number of contacts people have. Keeping things brutally simple means you keep the compliance monitoring and enforcement problem simple - if somebody is out & about without a "valid" reason, they are not complying. The more exceptions you allow, the harder it is to ensure that people aren't popping into each other's homes or gathering on corners for a good old natter in each others' faces.  Anyway, that was the rationale for strictly limiting outdoors time in Melbourne & briefly in other parts of Oz during "mini lockdowns".

You can find plenty of dicsussions of UK excess mortality by experts including the initial bit, but it's just such an obvious non-issue.  COVID deaths start getting reported as such in volume in the 2nd half of March, around the same time as the first "hard" UK lockdown. There's a lag between infections and fatalities, so obviously those COVID deaths weren't because of the lockdown - the deceased got infected earlier in March, maybe in Feb.


----------



## Bruce Stephens (Mar 16, 2021)

Amity Island said:


> but they 've not made any posts on how easily transmission occurs in the great outdoors, so why lock people in?


Different governments have made different choices about that kind of thing. Compared to many places the UK has never really had a lockdown: we've been allowed out of our houses without that much policing (in a few countries you had to have a form declaring your purpose for leaving). And Scotland has always had much more relaxed advice over outdoors things.

So I think the government has just made an error on this in England.


----------



## Amity Island (Mar 16, 2021)

I can see everyones opinions on lockdown and other issues and I can see why they may reach those conclusions, which may well be right.

But for me, everywhere I've looked, every graph, every event, every measure taken always results in the opposite effect to what I'm sure anyone would expect to see?

Wouldn't you expect to see cases falling with a lockdown?
Wouldn't you expect to see cases falling with mandatory masks?
Wouldn't you expect to see worse death rates than in previous 200 years or more?
Wouldn't you expect huge case increases after a large outdoor beach gathering, given we were prevented from such gatherings to cut cases?

I've provided all the data in my posts above and elsewhere. On that basis, I've drawn the conclusion that the measures haven't worked and thus unnecessary.

Be it:

1. Masks, no noticeable effect
2. After first lockdown deaths increase
3. Given a pandemic, death rates no worse in 2020 than they were in 2000 or any year prior.
4. No noticable excess deaths before a lockdown was brought in.
5. Test and trace, no noticable effect.

And generally, the fact that cases have been high, even with all the measures taken. I can't find anything to suggest anything has really worked for us in the UK.

And what about all the strategies that were not brought in for the "biggest health care crisis of our generation".

1. Free face masks provided by Government, particularly in the beginning when there was nothing else, no other treatments or vaccines available.
2. Hazardous waste disposal bins for used masks.
3. Co-ordinated UK wide responses and strategies.
4. Prevention of foreign travel
5. Early sharp and short lockdown (afterall, UK was very well prepared for a future pandemic)

And what about other things that could have been done before now to save lives, without lockdowns, restrictions or crashing the economy.

1. Banning sale of cigarettes.
2. Banning sale of alcohol.
3. Ending poverty.
4. Improving hygeine to end millions of yearly deaths worldwide from food poisoning.
5. Providing decent care for the elderly.

What's been done about TB? Millions die worldwide each year from TB.


----------



## trophywench (Mar 16, 2021)

What has been done about TB? - as teenagers at school, both my sister and I had to have a BCG test and then depending on the results of that, both had our TB jab.  A letter was sent direct to our parents by the local council and they had to sign a form to give their permission, then the 'School Nurses' came to school on day X  and we were each told what time to attend the room where we joined all our mates in the queue and got the BCG test administered (inner wrist area) and then a few weeks later were examined to see what the results were (that hurt cos the lymph nodes in our armpits had to be felt, hard, by hand, to see what reaction our immune systems had had) and subsequently either jabbed or not depending on what our lymph node reaction was.

There was still more than enough native, white Brits dying of TB in the 50s and 60s to inform the Government to take this out of the ordinary person's control and make it just another fact of all senior school attendees' lives.

No idea whatsoever if/how any of our grandchildren (or their kids) have or will get immunity to TB if this quite normal procedure (to us) does not still take place annually.

It was long said by long-haul public air hostesses that they didn't mind flying to India or Africa but coming back if one person getting on the plane had TB, at least 2 others would also have TB by the time they landed at Heathrow.


----------



## Amity Island (Mar 16, 2021)

trophywench said:


> What has been done about TB?


Hi Jenny,

I was talking worldwide. In terms of the amount of effort to try and save lives compared to the effort made to try and save lives from covid19.



			https://theglobepost.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Tuberculosis-wordwide.jpg


----------



## trophywench (Mar 16, 2021)

Aaaaah - but now you are entering the field of foreign aid, which leads us to whether it may be morally right or wrong to ring fence foreign aid and thereby keep more of the population of X alive when X does not have the resources to support a population greater than Y .....................

Which is NOT the purpose or intention of DUK or this forum!


----------



## Amity Island (Mar 16, 2021)

trophywench said:


> Aaaaah - but now you are entering the field of foreign aid, which leads us to whether it may be morally right or wrong to ring fence foreign aid and thereby keep more of the population of X alive when X does not have the resources to support a population greater than Y .....................
> 
> Which is NOT the purpose or intention of DUK or this forum!


Interesting...but gives an idea of the differences in effort against one disease and another.


----------



## mikeyB (Mar 17, 2021)

trophywench said:


> It was long said by long-haul public air hostesses that they didn't mind flying to India or Africa but coming back if one person getting on the plane had TB, at least 2 others would also have TB by the time they landed at Heathrow.


 Nonsense. TB is actually quite hard to catch. It’s nowhere near as infectious as, say, measles, or even just a cold. That’s why you see it in crowded slums around the world, but never really “out in the wild”. It takes prolonged close contact. And if you are healthy and well fed, it struggles to take hold. Like its cousin, leprosy.

When I was doing a locum GP job in Preston I was asked to see an unwell Bangladeshi young woman. Listening to the back of her chest (the only bit the other women in the house allowed), I heard the textbook classic lung sounds of TB. So off she went to hospital to kick off her year of treatment. The rest of the family tested negative. See? Hard to catch.

I’ve only seen one case of leprosy in this country, not acquired in this country, and on treatment.


----------



## Leadinglights (Mar 17, 2021)

Immunisation policies are different in other countries, my son in law from Pakistan was immunised against chickenpox as a child but still got it from the children when they got it. Scarlet fever was a big thing when I was a kid, I well remember the isolation hospitals.


----------



## trophywench (Mar 17, 2021)

Leadinglights said:


> Immunisation policies are different in other countries, my son in law from Pakistan was immunised against chickenpox as a child but still got it from the children when they got it. Scarlet fever was a big thing when I was a kid, I well remember the isolation hospitals.


Yeah - and little girls having all their hair chopped short.


----------



## Bruce Stephens (Mar 17, 2021)

Amity Island said:


> Interesting...but gives an idea of the differences in effort against one disease and another.


When some of Italy's hospitals (by all accounts rather better equipped than ours) started to collapse under the strain of this new infection last February/March, obviously the Italian government was forced to act. Prior to that I'm sure they could have spent more money on (say) helping to control malaria, but they probably feel much less pressure from their electorate to do that. Similarly when it hit some of ours.

And then it's really not much of a choice: do you let your healthcare system collapse under the strain (and thus become enormously unpopular, at best) or do you do stuff to try and control that. (And sure, make errors while doing that, repeatedly.)

Could Italy (or we) have done different things and avoided some of the restrictive NPIs? Quite likely: an obvious one would be to help people who felt sick to isolate themselves. But the government has barely done anything on that even a year later, and it's still just as important.

The idea of "focused protection" (helping to keep vulnerable people relatively isolated) seems like a good approach until you look at the practicalities. Conveniently we have an idea (though an imperfect one) of who (if infected) is most likely to die (they're groups 1-4 of JCVI's list) and also (about as important) who's most at risk of needing hospital treatment (groups 1-9). Groups 1-9 is _lots_ of people. And even a subset of groups 1-4 (those in care homes) are apparently very hard to keep safe, even if you have significant restrictions outside, so surely it would be a disaster not to have such restrictions.

(I don't intend to defend the government's every action. I disagree with much of their response. But the idea they had some choice in whether to "lock down" last March seems implausible to me.)


----------



## Northerner (Mar 18, 2021)

Bruce Stephens said:


> Groups 1-9 is _lots_ of people


Over half the population, given we have given vaccines to 48% so far, with many more to come  And people are still at risk in the lower categories  In fact, if the transmission isn't suppressed and kept low another variant might put us all at risk again


----------



## mikeyB (Mar 20, 2021)

And all the while we get ourselves vaccinated, nearly every country in Europe is reporting a third wave of infection. If we don’t close our borders, we will almost certainly encounter a new variant. Will the government do that? No. They didn’t in the first wave, thus importing more infection.

Scotland might. Wales might. But England? No. If they do, it will be months too late.

This virus won’t go away, it’s already endemic. I won’t care, I’ve been immunised and I’m confident that the vaccine can be easily fettled to cope.


----------



## mikeydt1 (Mar 20, 2021)

the lockdown for me really doesn't bother me as all i do is go out get essentials then back home and that is all i have done even when Tee was alive.  however saying that i was talking to someone about this lockdown and it was bothering them trouble is i didn't really know what to say.  the strange thing when we got talking we have both taken up playing and learning instruments, me the guitar and the lady a piano.


----------



## Amity Island (Mar 20, 2021)

mikeyB said:


> And all the while we get ourselves vaccinated, nearly every country in Europe is reporting a third wave of infection. If we don’t close our borders, we will almost certainly encounter a new variant. Will the government do that? No. They didn’t in the first wave, thus importing more infection.
> 
> Scotland might. Wales might. But England? No. If they do, it will be months too late.
> 
> This virus won’t go away, it’s already endemic. I won’t care, I’ve been immunised and I’m confident that the vaccine can be easily fettled to cope.


Mikey B, 

You can rest assured, Britain was better prepared for a pandemic than most other countries in the world and now we are leading the way!

Has anyone not come to any other conclusions (rather than them just being hopeless) on why everything is in such a bloody mess?


----------



## Amity Island (Mar 20, 2021)

Bruce Stephens said:


> When some of Italy's hospitals (by all accounts rather better equipped than ours) started to collapse under the strain of this new infection last February/March, obviously the Italian government was forced to act. Prior to that I'm sure they could have spent more money on (say) helping to control malaria, but they probably feel much less pressure from their electorate to do that. Similarly when it hit some of ours.
> 
> And then it's really not much of a choice: do you let your healthcare system collapse under the strain (and thus become enormously unpopular, at best) or do you do stuff to try and control that. (And sure, make errors while doing that, repeatedly.)
> 
> ...


Hi Bruce,

You've completely lost me there. Italy? Malaria?

Where was the pressure to lockdown in the UK? There were no excess deaths until after lockdown on 23rd March 2020 (see graph attached to check for yourself), some 3 months after covid was found in our country and besides, the governement ignored WHO advice from the outset, we could of locked the borders (an advantage of being an island) and possibly avoided the entire events of the whole of the last year.

One has really got to question the motives behind all of this....can't put all this down to them being hopeless. This level of hopelessness would take far too much practice, skill and preparation.


----------



## Amigo (Mar 20, 2021)

I must have heard every conspiratorial, Orwellian and pretty barmpot theory on why Governments across the world (and particularly ours), have ’conspired’ to create and perpetuate this pandemic. No-one can every provide an explanation that makes any sense to me. 
I accept planning mistakes have been made and the procurement process dodgy to incompetent at the beginning...mainly due to panic.

Even with crisis planning, no administration has a tight blueprint for these crises especially when they evolve and mutate keeping ahead of the game. I’m more concerned with the attempts to undermine the recovery and the motives of some in doing so. 

I‘m desperate to be out of shielding and for some normality to be restored. I’ve lost people to Covid (not always elderly or with pre-existing serious illnesses) and seen family and friends suffer. I also run a health site and have supported the affected through it. I’m in a very high risk immunocompromised group that may not even mount a durable response to the vaccine but I’ve had it anyway without ill effect. I’m grateful to those who have made huge sacrifices to protect others like me. This hasn’t felt like a political game to me. It’s been too real and yes, damaging.


----------



## mikeyB (Mar 20, 2021)

Amity Island said:


> Mikey B,
> 
> You can rest assured, Britain was better prepared for a pandemic than most other countries in the world and now we are leading the way!
> 
> Has anyone not come to any other conclusions (rather than them just being hopeless) on why everything is in such a bloody mess?


If Britain was better prepared, how come we didn’t have enough PPE? How come we bought the wrong stuff? How come we had the the highest death rate in Europe?

And I know why everything is such a bloody mess. We have a government which had only one thing on its mind - Brexit, and otherwise incompetent.


----------



## Amity Island (Mar 20, 2021)

mikeyB said:


> If Britain was better prepared, how come we didn’t have enough PPE? How come we bought the wrong stuff? How come we had the the highest death rate in Europe?


My point exactly!


----------



## Amity Island (Mar 20, 2021)

mikeyB said:


> How come we had the the highest death rate in Europe?


It's been the mismanagement of the elderly that caused the excess deaths in the first lockdown, not the virus as many people believe.


----------



## mikeyB (Mar 20, 2021)

The mismanagement of the elderly was discharging folk from hospitals to care homes when they hadn’t been tested for Covid, thus spreading the virus in that enclosed environment. Killing care workers, as well as residents. So it was the virus, as many people believe. What else could it be?


----------



## Amity Island (Mar 20, 2021)

mikeyB said:


> The mismanagement of the elderly was discharging folk from hospitals to care homes when they hadn’t been tested for Covid, thus spreading the virus in that enclosed environment. Killing care workers, as well as residents. So it was the virus, as many people believe. What else could it be?


That is what I am saying, if they hadn't locked down, all those elderly patients wouldn't have been moved. I take your point, though, yes ultimately it was the virus. I'm saying it was moving people that was the driving factor behind the excess deaths hence why it happended at the time of lockdown and not before.

My point is, many people believe it was the pandemic that caused those excess deaths, when in reality it was the mismanagement that was the cause.


----------



## Bruce Stephens (Mar 20, 2021)

Amity Island said:


> That is what I am saying, if they hadn't locked down, all those elderly patients wouldn't have been moved.


They moved the elderly patients because they anticipated needing lots more space in hospitals. Why? Because that was the experience in northern Italy shortly before: one or two of their hospitals were overwhelmed with patients having severe breathing difficulties.


----------



## mikeyB (Mar 22, 2021)

Don’t forget the row when it was discovered that some doctors were judging who was worth saving, putting “Do not resuscitate” notifications on the elderly or those with learning difficulties without any discussion with relatives. Every life is valuable.


----------



## Bruce Stephens (Mar 22, 2021)

mikeyB said:


> Don’t forget the row when it was discovered that some doctors were judging who was worth saving, putting “Do not resuscitate” notifications on the elderly or those with learning difficulties without any discussion with relatives.


Yes, while the motivation was genuine enough (they really did think that getting elderly people out of hospital where that was possible would be good) it surely could have been done better. Helping care homes to quarantine incoming patients, say (given that there wasn't enough testing). And yes, DNRs over the last year or so is quite probably a scandal which'll blow up in the coming months.


----------

