Coronavirus

[Bryn]

He went before lockdown.
If I had a second home, I would have considered doing the same thing pre lockdown.

I suspect that he will be shown to be right about the calamities inflicted by the lockdown, though it is easy to be wise after the event. But we need to learn the lessons fast, try to restore some democratic accountability, get the NHS actually functioning, and try to salvage as many jobs as possible.

Do you not wonder whether his views on this matter, which date back at least to June, might not have something to do with an attempt to rebut the criticisms he received from other islanders when he did his runner? Bear in mind that he was in the front rank of academics with knowledge of the virus, back in December.

[teamsaint]

Do you not wonder whether his views on this matter, which date back at least to June, might not have something to do with an attempt to rebut the criticisms he received from other islanders when he did his runner?

Who knows ?

The important thing is to learn lessons from what has happened. The non covid excess deaths are a huge and ongoing cause for concern, as is the shutdown and continuing restrictions in NHS care.

I think we all need to look and think carefully at what has happened, and about how we might respond in future.

The working lives of millions of our fellow citizens have been badly damaged. People are dying for no good reason, and also suffering bad health outcomes.Democratic accountability has been further eroded.
Considering whether the lockdown was well thought through, and whether our support for it in all aspects was justified, of very great importance. If we /they were wrong, we need to admit it.

[burning dog]

Considering whether the lockdown was well thought through, and whether our support for it in all aspects was justified, of very great importance. If we /they were wrong, we need to admit it.

I think it would be WE who were wrong. Boris tended toward "keep the economy going". However, it's possible that that would have been 100,000 covid deaths without a lockdown.

[teamsaint]

I think it would be WE who were wrong. Boris tended toward "keep the economy going". However, it's possible that that would have been 100,000 covid deaths without a lockdown.

The options weren't just lockdown or not. And the government did lockdown, broadly in line with how other similar countries did. The economy has been very seriously impacted by the lockdown.

[Serial_Apologist]

It was reported on BBC1 news at 1 today that reservations for surgery delays increased from 500 at the start of March to 25,000 by the end of June in London's hospitals. That's going to take one helluva lot of time and work to reduce.

[johnb]

Food for thought: UK Government Scientist Admits Lockdown Was a “Monumental Mistake...”

Yes, we will probably see more deaths due to the lockdown (missed advanced cancer diagnoses, complications from postponed operations, etc.) than from the virus itself.

Taking at face value what is written on a far-right conspiracy website is ... "unwise". (I thought we would have learnt that by now.)

It might be that the article accurately represents Mark Woolhouse's views - but I certainly wouldn't bet on it.

[LeMartinPecheur]

I say probably because of the govt. report back in April (but only widely reported by our media in late July) warning that healthcare delays and economic impact of the pandemic may lead to up to 200,000 deaths. It was put together by "experts" from the Department of Health, the Office of National Statistics (ONS), the government’s Actuary Department and the Home Office.

It claims 25,000 people could die from delayed treatment for non-coronavirus-related illnesses in the first six months of the pandemic, with a further 185,000 dying in the medium to long term. It does indeed seem a very large number, but even though an estimate, it is still more than 4 times current UK deaths from Covid-19.

But surely you are comparing with the covid deaths we have now, rather than the great unknown of the probably huge numbers we'd have had, and would still be having, without lockdown?

[burning dog]

The options weren't just lockdown or not. .

I agree. We never had a full Lockdown anyway and I believe we could had an even looser "Lockdown" (IMO) if we'd have acted (possibly two weeks) earlier.

Before 16th March the advice was use a hankie and wash your hands. IMO the problem was lack of any guidance or legally enforced behavior before the 16th and 23rd March

At work, the "Flu Poster" ie. wash your hands and dispose of tissues, was circulated in late Feb, with Flu crossed out and Corona-virus written in in crayon. No mention of social distancing.

My conclusion being the Gov.t didn't take it seriously for ages and rushed into lockdown without enough consideration of the consequences

[burning dog]

There's no doubt we could have treated far more people from other illnesses during "lockdown". Anecdotally, a friends mother had a heart attack in May and was treated superbly in a half empty emergency ward in the "Green Wing" of the local Hospital. Lack of communication to the public could be a big problem as well as lockdown itself.

[johnb]

I say probably because of the govt. report back in April (but only widely reported by our media in late July) warning that healthcare delays and economic impact of the pandemic may lead to up to 200,000 deaths. It was put together by "experts" from the Department of Health, the Office of National Statistics (ONS), the government’s Actuary Department and the Home Office.

It claims 25,000 people could die from delayed treatment for non-coronavirus-related illnesses in the first six months of the pandemic, with a further 185,000 dying in the medium to long term. It does indeed seem a very large number, but even though an estimate, it is still more than 4 times current UK deaths from Covid-19.

Does anyone have a link to the actual report?

I've seen an article in the Daily Mail which references the Telegraph for further information (so perhaps the Telegraph as the Mail's source?) - but neither provides a link to the report, which slightly worries me.

[Cockney Sparrow]

I read the Guardian and The Times, and don't recall this. A speculative figure of 210,000 deaths from the effects of lockdown would surely have appealed to the casual approach of journalists and generated a story - I note your ref to the Mail and Telegraph.

Only thing I've found on a search - and not from government sources is this from 3 academics in July - lots of references at the end of the article but on a quick look nothing that meets the description above.

"COVID-19 outbreak: implications on healthcare operations"

https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/TQM-05-2020-0111/full/pdf?title=covid-19

[Cockney Sparrow]

"Lockdown may cost 200,000 lives, government report shows"
By Sarah Knapton,
Daily Telegraph 19 July 2020

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/07/19/lockdown-may-cost-200k-lives-government-report-shows/

Is this it?
(Sending you a PM, johnb)

[johnb]

Is the Daily Express website sufficiently "far-right conspiracy" to dismiss this as representing Mark Woolhouse's views? Far right, maybe on some issues, but probably not conspiracy.

I'm not particularly a fan of Mr. Woolhouse, but at least he's saying what he really thinks. I suspect a lot of people high up in the Health Service are staying on script because their next pay cheque depends on it.

The website you originally provided a link to IS a far right conspiracy theory website.

The only other source for the material (apart from various conspiracy websites) appears to be the Daily Express, where it appears without any explanation of how the article was sourced, e.g. an interview with MW, an article by MW, etc.

The report might or might not reflect MW's views but I am always a little cautious about accepting these things at face value.

Intriguingly, the many of the comments attributed to MW appeared on the conspiracy websites Infowars and Summit (in articles written by Paul Joseph Watson) two days before the Daily Express published their piece....

[french frank]

Food for thought: UK Government Scientist Admits Lockdown Was a “Monumental Mistake...”

Yes, we will probably see more deaths due to the lockdown (missed advanced cancer diagnoses, complications from postponed operations, etc.) than from the virus itself.

Blimey! Where did that source come from? Here's the MediaBias Fact check: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/summit-news/

I've edited out the link. The more people who look at it from this site, the more it attracts attention to our website.

"History

Launched in March 2019, Summit News is a far-right conspiracy website. Like most questionable sources this website does not have an about page nor disclosure of ownership. The primary writer appears to be Paul Joseph Watson, who is a former editor for the conspiracy website Infowars. Although not disclosed, Paul Joseph Watson appears to be the owner and editor of this website. Further, Summit News has been banned on Facebook."

Looking through its other headlines … phew! What johnb said. It's a nastier version of 'Freddy Starr ate my hamster' journalism. The Daily Express quoted it???

[oddoneout]

So whose nose would be put out of joint if alternative British tests were used as well?

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/aug/27/data-secrecy-covid-antibody-test-trusted-fingerprint-doubt