[firqdays]

Do the Chinese actually believe that people believe the rubbish about locking down cities because of THREE (sic) cases of Covid ? 

I know they think the world is naïve to their propaganda but COME ON !

[DeepBlue]

Do the Chinese actually believe that people believe the rubbish about locking down cities because of THREE (sic) cases of Covid ? 

I know they think the world is naïve to their propaganda but COME ON !

There are plenty of western journalists in those cities who are verifying the story.  The Chinese population are used to an authoritarian government and will comply obediently, and if it prevents a further wave who is to say they are wrong ??

I remember my wife saying in Feb 2020 when the story broke about Wuhan being locked down "that could never happen in the west". not that any of our lockdowns were anywhere near as total as the chinese ones.

[bluebollox]

Do the Chinese actually believe that people believe the rubbish about locking down cities because of THREE (sic) cases of Covid ? 

I know they think the world is naïve to their propaganda but COME ON !

There are plenty of western journalists in those cities who are verifying the story.  The Chinese population are used to an authoritarian government and will comply obediently, and if it prevents a further wave who is to say they are wrong ??

I remember my wife saying in Feb 2020 when the story broke about Wuhan being locked down "that could never happen in the west". not that any of our lockdowns were anywhere near as total as the chinese ones.

2 things imho that are basically crackers ref this story.
1. To lockdown after 3 cases is barking.
2. The Chinese leadership believe that zero Covid is attainable-again barking to think that. They let the genie out the bottle, there's no going back.

[Cressers]

So any lockdown shouldn't be implemented until after the virus has been loosed beyond containment?

[Jizbag]

Do the Chinese actually believe that people believe the rubbish about locking down cities because of THREE (sic) cases of Covid ? 

I know they think the world is naïve to their propaganda but COME ON !

There are plenty of western journalists in those cities who are verifying the story.  The Chinese population are used to an authoritarian government and will comply obediently, and if it prevents a further wave who is to say they are wrong ??

I remember my wife saying in Feb 2020 when the story broke about Wuhan being locked down "that could never happen in the west". not that any of our lockdowns were anywhere near as total as the chinese ones.

"who is to say they are wrong??"

Jesus fucking wept, what's the matter with you? 

[Jizbag]

So any lockdown shouldn't be implemented until after the virus has been loosed beyond containment?

OMFG!! The lockdown fanatics are back despite all the evidence against them, and all the damage they cause.

[bluebollox]

So any lockdown shouldn't be implemented until after the virus has been loosed beyond containment?

Assume this is aimed @ me?? (reply with quote is decent  )
Nope never said that did I. But to lockdown a city after THREE cases??

[DeepBlue]

So any lockdown shouldn't be implemented until after the virus has been loosed beyond containment?

OMFG!! The lockdown fanatics are back despite all the evidence against them, and all the damage they cause.

I'm no great fan of lockdowns, I just accepted  that the first one was totally necessary because of the criminal lack of preparedness for a pandemic,  but the fact remaiins that they do reduce contact and thus reduce cases. 

But if a short lockdown in a chinese city leads to  a totally free society with no covid in a few weeks then that is a price many would choose to pay surely ?   We are way past that, we have chosen to live with Covid rather than eliminate it, so have chosen an ongoing lfe of threats of restrictions when waves arrive, booster jabs etc, and no return to toally normal life for years to come. 

China have chosen to go for a zero-Covid country, if they succeed I repeat who is to say they were wrong ?

[Jizbag]

We had a lockdown for months and we've still got covid so it makes no fecking difference other than making people's lives a misery. I really don't think you have any idea how a virus works even after all this time. It will spread and mutate and there's sfa you can do about it. Protect the vulnerable as much as you can, increase hospital capacity (which we didn't) and crack the fuck on with life.

[bluebollox]

I think our Lockdowns have been for different reasons probably than the chinese. Ours have been to prevent the NHS being overwhelmed. The Chinese are going for zero covid-wont happen. You cant stop this thing now, the hope is it'll weaken to such a degree that we can in the most part safely live with it.

[DeepBlue]

We had a lockdown for months and we've still got covid so it makes no fecking difference other than making people's lives a misery. I really don't think you have any idea how a virus works even after all this time. It will spread and mutate and there's sfa you can do about it. Protect the vulnerable as much as you can, increase hospital capacity (which we didn't) and crack the fuck on with life.

The fecking difference it made was that the NHS continued to function because cases were reduced and or delayed by the reduced contact between people, and a few thousand lives were therefore saved.  Many may think that saving the economy and people having a normal life and personal freedom is more important than saving lives, but the government had/has a duty to protect public health. No-one ever claimed that the lockown would get of Covid, they were just a way a minimising the damage done by it by keeping the NHS running.

[Jizbag]

We had a lockdown for months and we've still got covid so it makes no fecking difference other than making people's lives a misery. I really don't think you have any idea how a virus works even after all this time. It will spread and mutate and there's sfa you can do about it. Protect the vulnerable as much as you can, increase hospital capacity (which we didn't) and crack the fuck on with life.

The fecking difference it made was that the NHS continued to function because cases were reduced and or delayed by the reduced contact between people, and a few thousand lives were therefore saved.  Many may think that saving the economy and people having a normal life and personal freedom is more important than saving lives, but the government had/has a duty to protect public health. No-one ever claimed that the lockown would get of Covid, they were just a way a minimising the damage done by it by keeping the NHS running.

And what about the lives lost because of lockdown?? And in years to come too? They're not important obviously.

The NHS is not fit for purpose. Needs a complete overhaul and to be run like a business. And it's there to protect us not the other way around.

[DeepBlue]

Of course those lives matter too, but they are a small fraction in number compared to what an unrestricted covid outbreak would have caused.

[Tufnell_Chimes]

"Needs a complete overhaul and to be run like a business"

Yeah, strip it to the bone, don't look any further than the next quarter, pay massive unearned dividends to the board and shareholders, bankrupt the patients and then sell it on to the next rung down. Rinse and repeat.

Running public services as a commercial business is why we have untreated turds filling up our rivers.

[Jizbag]

Like private hospitals. Get rid of the middle management and sick notes. How come we have the worst health service in the western world?

[BilltheCat]

Like private hospitals. Get rid of the middle management and sick notes. How come we have the worst health service in the western world?

Remind us. When was the last time you paid for your healthcare? Home or abroad?

[Jizbag]

My tax pays for my healthcare. If it was run efficiently we would have a fantastic health service...but it isn't.

[BilltheCat]

So, you need to qualify how we have "the worst health service in the western world". Compared to whom? The USA?

[Tufnell_Chimes]

Andrew Landsley spent five years, whilst in opposition, perfecting his NHS reforms; and in 2012 when he became Health Secretary he implemented the Health and Social Care Act, it was all about decentralisation, cutting red tape, and giving clinical staff freedom to manage affairs locally. A lot of middle-management went during these changes. It was a total disaster Now we have NHS consultants with thirty years clinical experience spending 80% of their time creating PowerPoint presentations in order to renew constant bidding contracts; and private contractors cherry picking the services that they can profit from.

As Bill points out, the US of A has both the worst, and the most expensive healthcare system in the world. Two-thirds of all American bankruptcies cite medical bills as a determining factor, even when they have medical insurance.

[Rescue Dog]

We need to be as certain as we can be about 2 'things' when considering lockdowns:

1) EXACTLY how effective are lockdowns in saving lives from Covid in reality; no guessing, genuine real world data is needed.

2) EXACTLY, what are the OTHER consequences of lockdown. For example, lack of diagnosis and treatments for cancers, heart diseases etc., etc., mental health issues, societal well being and the economy.  

Below is a link to a scientific study released last week: 
COVID-19 Pandemic: How Effective Are Preventive Control Measures and Is a Complete Lockdown Justified? A Comparison of Countries and States


https://www.mdpi.com/2673-8112/2/1/3/htm

This study compares the health outcomes of 92 countries, states and provinces with varying degrees of lockdown from none to complete lockdown. 

Some quotes from the researcher's many findings:

1) "We did not find any statistically significant difference in the effectiveness between countries with and without lockdowns." 
"(Generally) "There was also no evidence that lockdown measures manage the mortality (deaths per population) better than measures without lockdowns." 

The research did show lockdowns tended to slow contagion in the short term but that this, generally, had no long term benefit.

However, there were some specific instances where the research showed lockdowns did seem more successful at saving lives:
2) "The smaller the population size and the land area, the more effective the control measures"

For honesty, I found 2 other research articles that supported lockdowns as a method of saving lives and 1 other that also said lockdowns had no long term benefit. All 3 of these studied fewer geographical areas than the link I provide.

However, all the research showed, obviously, that lockdowns create many other health issues, many serious (as well as being a massive attack on personal liberty and harming the economy). 





Apologies for the length but a relevant personal anecdote from our area:

Due to the increase in NHS waiting lists from lockdown my cousin has been told she has a 3-4 year waiting list for a simple knee operation. When fit, she is a carer in an old people's home.

At the moment she can barely walk to the end of her garden path (literally), struggles getting in and out of a bath and is in pain daily. Walking to the shops is impossible.

She seems to have aged 15 years in the last 12months. It's really horrible to see. 

Due to her body over compensating for the bad knee she now also has chronic back pain and is on a daily dose of high strength pain killers which makes her appear drunk (slurred speech, poor balance, forgetfulness......).

The toll on her mental health and sense of well being is simply awful; it's genuinely upsetting.

To justify a lockdown, IMO, we need to be certain that this 'cure' works and is not worse than the disease we are seeking protection from.

[Rescue Dog]

We had a lockdown for months and we've still got covid so it makes no fecking difference other than making people's lives a misery. I really don't think you have any idea how a virus works even after all this time. It will spread and mutate and there's sfa you can do about it. Protect the vulnerable as much as you can, increase hospital capacity (which we didn't) and crack the fuck on with life.

The fecking difference it made was that the NHS continued to function because cases were reduced and or delayed by the reduced contact between people, and a few thousand lives were therefore saved.  Many may think that saving the economy and people having a normal life and personal freedom is more important than saving lives, but the government had/has a duty to protect public health. No-one ever claimed that the lockown would get of Covid, they were just a way a minimising the damage done by it by keeping the NHS running.

And what about the lives lost because of lockdown?? And in years to come too? They're not important obviously.

The NHS is not fit for purpose. Needs a complete overhaul and to be run like a business. And it's there to protect us not the other way around.

I think business models work very well in some areas of society and can bring efficiency and cost reductions.

However, I think the NHS is an area where running it like a business is disastrous. For example, the Internal Market has cost the NHS literally £billions and made health outcomes worse, privatisation splinters & harms services and costs actually tend to increase with business models. 

I think the NHS needs to be invested in, strengthened and run purely on a care model; business incentives tend to pervert health priorities. 
Obviously, the NHS will always have limits so we need to agree exactly what it can and cannot do.

[Tufnell_Chimes]

It needs to be ring-fenced from political interference, but with the size of its budget, how is that ever going to be possible?

Saying that, the MoD seems to manage it… and continually go billions over budget.

[DeepBlue]

Rescue Dog ... there are lots of people with similiar stories to your cousin, but to their credit the NHS has kept up with more life-threatening condiitions like cancer treatment.   But to blame them on lockdowns is ridiculous - the cause of delays to treatment to people was the pandemic itself filling the hospitals to over capacity. Quite how anyone can think allowing more cases to develop in the community more quickly by increasing contact between people would help that is a mystery. The reality is that without restrictions the NHS would have been even more overloaded by Covid cses and even more people would have had to wait for other treatment. 

I also think judging the efeectiveness of lockdowns on country death rates is missing the whole point of lockdowns.  The only objective of the lockdown was to stop the NHS being overhwelmed to the level that it could no longer function, which it came very close to even with lockdown.  Yes, that has a secondary benefit of saving lives, but that was not the primary purpose of the lockdown. So the only measure of success or not  of lockdowns is whther the NHS kept going or not. It did, just.

[Rescue Dog]

Rescue Dog ... there are lots of people with similiar stories to your cousin, but to their credit the NHS has kept up with more life-threatening condiitions like cancer treatment.   But to blame them on lockdowns is ridiculous - the cause of delays to treatment to people was the pandemic itself filling the hospitals to over capacity. Quite how anyone can think allowing more cases to develop in the community more quickly by increasing contact between people would help that is a mystery. The reality is that without restrictions the NHS would have been even more overloaded by Covid cses and even more people would have had to wait for other treatment. 

I also think judging the efeectiveness of lockdowns on country death rates is missing the whole point of lockdowns.  The only objective of the lockdown was to stop the NHS being overhwelmed to the level that it could no longer function, which it came very close to even with lockdown.  Yes, that has a secondary benefit of saving lives, but that was not the primary purpose of the lockdown. So the only measure of success or not  of lockdowns is whther the NHS kept going or not. It did, just.

Many valid points Deep and I agree up to a point. My Dad got his cancer treatment. 

However, it is also true that many, many check-ups and operations have been cancelled as part of the Covid restrictions and that these, obviously, also have tragic implications; as does dying of Covid.

I have never seen an honest and realistic evaluation of the need for Covid restrictions v the consequence of Covid restrictions. 

Given the amount of censorship and lies told over Covid (and many other matters) I find it close to impossible to believe anyone in Govt (or Starmer's 'opposition' for that matter).

[DeepBlue]

Rescue Dog ... there are lots of people with similiar stories to your cousin, but to their credit the NHS has kept up with more life-threatening condiitions like cancer treatment.   But to blame them on lockdowns is ridiculous - the cause of delays to treatment to people was the pandemic itself filling the hospitals to over capacity. Quite how anyone can think allowing more cases to develop in the community more quickly by increasing contact between people would help that is a mystery. The reality is that without restrictions the NHS would have been even more overloaded by Covid cses and even more people would have had to wait for other treatment. 

I also think judging the efeectiveness of lockdowns on country death rates is missing the whole point of lockdowns.  The only objective of the lockdown was to stop the NHS being overhwelmed to the level that it could no longer function, which it came very close to even with lockdown.  Yes, that has a secondary benefit of saving lives, but that was not the primary purpose of the lockdown. So the only measure of success or not  of lockdowns is whther the NHS kept going or not. It did, just.

Many valid points Deep and I agree up to a point. My Dad got his cancer treatment. 

However, it is also true that many, many check-ups and operations have been cancelled as part of the Covid restrictions and that these, obviously, also have tragic implications; as does dying of Covid.

I have never seen an honest and realistic evaluation of the need for Covid restrictions v the consequence of Covid restrictions. 

Given the amount of censorship and lies told over Covid (and many other matters) I find it close to impossible to believe anyone in Govt (or Starmer's 'opposition' for that matter).

Yes, of course its true that lots of check-ups and operations have been cancelled, but my point was that is nothing to do with lockdowns and restrictions. Without the restrictions there would have been even more cancelled because they would have been dealing with even more Covid cases.  Surey that is obvious ?