Lockdown - harmful to children

[TWGL1]

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/202...vernment-told/

Many parents were banging in about this from the beginning, but were pigeonholed as selfish, or a conspiracy theorist

Report by leading campaigners argues worst impacts could have been avoided if ministers had considered rights of the young

This person was reported and investigated when he dared mention that lockdowns would harm children. Everyone else in his profession (education) remained silent. We must empower more people to speak out

https://x.com/1mikefairclough/status...LhmySD2aRt-GNg

[pipster]

You cant say things like that on here, you'll have Professor Drakeflap on your door with the powers of arrest. You're probably alright at the moment though, as Prof Mark is busy walking up and down Cathedral road with a red flag in from of the traffic.

[TWGL1]

You cant say things like that on here, you'll have Professor Drakeflap on your door with the powers of arrest. You're probably alright at the moment though, as Prof Mark is busy walking up and down Cathedral road with a red flag in from of the traffic.

Shhhhh you can’t agree with me , they will think you’re a multi account

Anybody with young kids has seen the detrimental effect of unnecessary diktats

[life on mars]

I can personally relate to this via one of my grandchildren.

Wales had a chance to be different.

Too busy planning 20mph. ?

[JamesWales]

A tremendously damaging policy to society at large especially children.

I think the first lockdown can be forgiven as we didn't know what we were dealing with. Subsequent ones, it because clear this would be deeply damaging to people.

Such concerns were dismissed and ridiculed at the time as 'not following the science', which is probably true, but it was following the social sciences.

'the science' was designed to control a virus (and it didn't do a great job). It took no account of other factors, whereas a much more holistic approach was needed

[Eric Cartman]

A tremendously damaging policy to society at large especially children.

I think the first lockdown can be forgiven as we didn't know what we were dealing with. Subsequent ones, it because clear this would be deeply damaging to people.

Such concerns were dismissed and ridiculed at the time as 'not following the science', which is probably true, but it was following the social sciences.

'the science' was designed to control a virus (and it didn't do a great job). It took no account of other factors, whereas a much more holistic approach was needed

I think you are on the right tracks but not quite right.

The only point of locking down was to slow the virus down once it 'became apparent' that we were quickly heading towards a countrywide situation similar that region in Italy (i.e. bodies lying in corridors of hospitals because capacity was significantly breached).

Deaths would have likely been significantly higher if capacity had been breached because people who wouldn't have died with basic treatment, would have died in a corridor

Now, if we hadn't completely ****ed up the first lockdown then I doubt there would have been such a knee jerk reaction second time around. First lockdown was by a mile too slow and primarily that was because they were still deciding upon their strategy.. lockdown vs the absolute dumb**** leap of faith of bau 'natural immunity' to a virus we didn't understand, once it was sufficiently proven that our health service had been run down so much that business as usual was a ticket to a complete disaster they began to lock certain things down. But not all things were equal, I can remember thinking, and probably saying on here at the time, why are their hundreds of flights coming in per day from countries with severe outbreaks already?

Basically we made our strategy up as we went along (as has been proven since) and it meant that lockdowns were deeper than they probably needed to be.

As for the effect on kids, no shit Sherlock.

[Tuerto]

I can personally relate to this via one of my grandchildren.

Wales had a chance to be different.

Too busy planning 20mph. ?

Poor kid was locked up with you.

[the other bob wilson]

I think you are on the right tracks but not quite right.

The only point of locking down was to slow the virus down once it 'became apparent' that we were quickly heading towards a countrywide situation similar that region in Italy (i.e. bodies lying in corridors of hospitals because capacity was significantly breached).

Deaths would have likely been significantly higher if capacity had been breached because people who wouldn't have died with basic treatment, would have died in a corridor

Now, if we hadn't completely ****ed up the first lockdown then I doubt there would have been such a knee jerk reaction second time around. First lockdown was by a mile too slow and primarily that was because they were still deciding upon their strategy.. lockdown vs the absolute dumb**** leap of faith of bau 'natural immunity' to a virus we didn't understand, once it was sufficiently proven that our health service had been run down so much that business as usual was a ticket to a complete disaster they began to lock certain things down. But not all things were equal, I can remember thinking, and probably saying on here at the time, why are their hundreds of flights coming in per day from countries with severe outbreaks already?

Basically we made our strategy up as we went along (as has been proven since) and it meant that lockdowns were deeper than they probably needed to be.

As for the effect on kids, no shit Sherlock.

Good post.

[JamesWales]

I think you are on the right tracks but not quite right.

The only point of locking down was to slow the virus down once it 'became apparent' that we were quickly heading towards a countrywide situation similar that region in Italy (i.e. bodies lying in corridors of hospitals because capacity was significantly breached).

Deaths would have likely been significantly higher if capacity had been breached because people who wouldn't have died with basic treatment, would have died in a corridor

Now, if we hadn't completely ****ed up the first lockdown then I doubt there would have been such a knee jerk reaction second time around. First lockdown was by a mile too slow and primarily that was because they were still deciding upon their strategy.. lockdown vs the absolute dumb**** leap of faith of bau 'natural immunity' to a virus we didn't understand, once it was sufficiently proven that our health service had been run down so much that business as usual was a ticket to a complete disaster they began to lock certain things down. But not all things were equal, I can remember thinking, and probably saying on here at the time, why are their hundreds of flights coming in per day from countries with severe outbreaks already?

Basically we made our strategy up as we went along (as has been proven since) and it meant that lockdowns were deeper than they probably needed to be.

As for the effect on kids, no shit Sherlock.

Do you honestly think it would have made a difference if we had locked down several days earlier? It was going to spread anyway, no? In multiple waves.

I think it was inevitable and the focus should have been on protecting the vulnerable.

[Hilts]

Do you honestly think it would have made a difference if we had locked down several days earlier? It was going to spread anyway, no? In multiple waves.

I think it was inevitable and the focus should have been on protecting the vulnerable.

Thousands mixed at various huge sporting festivals at the time. Cheltenham being a big example. Yeah it would have made a difference. Getting you admit your party screwed up isnt going to happen though.🤣

[TWGL1]

Thousands mixed at various huge sporting festivals at the time. Cheltenham being a big example. Yeah it would have made a difference. Getting you admit your party screwed up isnt going to happen though.🤣

I heard on the radio today Sweden had a much different approach to the uk and they kept schools open - their excess death rates were much lower

[JamesWales]

Thousands mixed at various huge sporting festivals at the time. Cheltenham being a big example. Yeah it would have made a difference. Getting you admit your party screwed up isnt going to happen though.🤣

You honestly think that? That had Cheltenham not happened and had Liverpool not played Atletico Madrid at home etc, then those people would not have got covid over the next year before the vaccine was rolled out? I didn't think anyone believed that anymore.

We locked down too late on the first one, that's true, but with hindsight I don't think it would have made a blind bit of difference really.

That's not to dispute covid in any way, but I think we got the balance wrong and the focus should have been on protecting the most vulnerable once it became clear that long term damages would be caused to people.

[Hilts]

You honestly think that? That had Cheltenham not happened and had Liverpool not played Atletico Madrid at home etc, then those people would not have got covid over the next year before the vaccine was rolled out? I didn't think anyone believed that anymore.

We locked down too late on the first one, that's true, but with hindsight I don't think it would have made a blind bit of difference really.

That's not to dispute covid in any way, but I think we got the balance wrong and the focus should have been on protecting the most vulnerable once it became clear that long term damages would be caused to people.

I didnt say over the next year they wouldnt have got it.

It was always going to go through the country.

The issue was it overwhelming the NHS / Care Homes etc.

Which happened.

[JamesWales]

I didnt say over the next year they wouldnt have got it.

It was always going to go through the country.

The issue was it overwhelming the NHS / Care Homes etc.

Which happened.

Okay fair enough. I honestly don't think it made much difference although I can see how it would have bought a little extra time.

[Eric Cartman]

Do you honestly think it would have made a difference if we had locked down several days earlier? It was going to spread anyway, no? In multiple waves.

I think it was inevitable and the focus should have been on protecting the vulnerable.

Yeah I do think so, but the biggy for me was the amount of flights coming from a country where for weeks we had seen/heard of people dying in hospital corridors. I was baffled that we didn't try and make more of the fact that we could isolate ourselves from other countries which had earlier outbreaks. I don't think it is simple to 'protect the vulnerable' while everybody else is mixing and getting covid, it just doesn't work. I lived with my parents at the time, who I deemed to be vulnerable (Dad was 75 and mum had pneumonia a few years back), same for lots of people with parents/grandparents, or they work with them, or they live with someone who works with them.

Someone joked at the time that the best solution would be to move every vulnerable person to the highlands in Scotland and everybody else carry on as normal, maybe true but it just highlights how intertwined everybody's lives are that this would be the only way to have separation.

[Eric Cartman]

You honestly think that? That had Cheltenham not happened and had Liverpool not played Atletico Madrid at home etc, then those people would not have got covid over the next year before the vaccine was rolled out? I didn't think anyone believed that anymore.

Our approach wasn't about stopping healthy people catching covid, it was always about stopping everyone catching it at the same time because the health service likely wouldn't cope, we got very close to capacity in some areas as it was and that was with lockdowns.

As for the point about Sweden in another post, it's interesting and needs looking at. They had a higher death rate than their neighbours who did have a stricter approach but they kept things more open and didn't breach capacity within hospitals. That could be because they have a better equipped health sector, I don't know but I do definitely know that staying in your house doesn't spread Covid.

[lardy]

I think you are on the right tracks but not quite right.

The only point of locking down was to slow the virus down once it 'became apparent' that we were quickly heading towards a countrywide situation similar that region in Italy (i.e. bodies lying in corridors of hospitals because capacity was significantly breached).

Deaths would have likely been significantly higher if capacity had been breached because people who wouldn't have died with basic treatment, would have died in a corridor

Now, if we hadn't completely ****ed up the first lockdown then I doubt there would have been such a knee jerk reaction second time around. First lockdown was by a mile too slow and primarily that was because they were still deciding upon their strategy.. lockdown vs the absolute dumb**** leap of faith of bau 'natural immunity' to a virus we didn't understand, once it was sufficiently proven that our health service had been run down so much that business as usual was a ticket to a complete disaster they began to lock certain things down. But not all things were equal, I can remember thinking, and probably saying on here at the time, why are their hundreds of flights coming in per day from countries with severe outbreaks already?

Basically we made our strategy up as we went along (as has been proven since) and it meant that lockdowns were deeper than they probably needed to be.

As for the effect on kids, no shit Sherlock.

Agree particularly with your last sentence. My daughter was very young during 2020 and it worried me that she was beginning to become aware of the world while everyone she saw wore a mask as seeing expressive faces is an important part of development - plus what she missed through lockdowns. Luckily she seems to be unaffected by it now.

But obviously it was bad for kids. It's not like it was introduced as a radical new teaching approach.

Covid was only three years ago, it amazes me how short some people's memories are, as if millions of us didn't hate what we had to go through and as if there wasn't a serious global reason for it.

[SLUDGE FACTORY]

Kids had it tough , it was difficult

But it was those with chronic illnesses and the elderly in care homes that suffered the most

The kids on the whole will get through unlike the oldies who died

But of course they were going to die anyway

At least that seemed to be the excuse for not taking covid seriously along with its a hoax or a plot

Nutters

[jon1959]

I think you are on the right tracks but not quite right.

The only point of locking down was to slow the virus down once it 'became apparent' that we were quickly heading towards a countrywide situation similar that region in Italy (i.e. bodies lying in corridors of hospitals because capacity was significantly breached).

Deaths would have likely been significantly higher if capacity had been breached because people who wouldn't have died with basic treatment, would have died in a corridor

Now, if we hadn't completely ****ed up the first lockdown then I doubt there would have been such a knee jerk reaction second time around. First lockdown was by a mile too slow and primarily that was because they were still deciding upon their strategy.. lockdown vs the absolute dumb**** leap of faith of bau 'natural immunity' to a virus we didn't understand, once it was sufficiently proven that our health service had been run down so much that business as usual was a ticket to a complete disaster they began to lock certain things down. But not all things were equal, I can remember thinking, and probably saying on here at the time, why are their hundreds of flights coming in per day from countries with severe outbreaks already?

Basically we made our strategy up as we went along (as has been proven since) and it meant that lockdowns were deeper than they probably needed to be.

As for the effect on kids, no shit Sherlock.

Top post.

[jon1959]

Yeah I do think so, but the biggy for me was the amount of flights coming from a country where for weeks we had seen/heard of people dying in hospital corridors. I was baffled that we didn't try and make more of the fact that we could isolate ourselves from other countries which had earlier outbreaks. I don't think it is simple to 'protect the vulnerable' while everybody else is mixing and getting covid, it just doesn't work. I lived with my parents at the time, who I deemed to be vulnerable (Dad was 75 and mum had pneumonia a few years back), same for lots of people with parents/grandparents, or they work with them, or they live with someone who works with them.

Someone joked at the time that the best solution would be to move every vulnerable person to the highlands in Scotland and everybody else carry on as normal, maybe true but it just highlights how intertwined everybody's lives are that this would be the only way to have separation.

Another top post.

[jon1959]

Our approach wasn't about stopping healthy people catching covid, it was always about stopping everyone catching it at the same time because the health service likely wouldn't cope, we got very close to capacity in some areas as it was and that was with lockdowns.

As for the point about Sweden in another post, it's interesting and needs looking at. They had a higher death rate than their neighbours who did have a stricter approach but they kept things more open and didn't breach capacity within hospitals. That could be because they have a better equipped health sector, I don't know but I do definitely know that staying in your house doesn't spread Covid.

Nailed it again. Absolutely right!

[JamesWales]

But aren't we talking here about the impact of lockdowns on children? I don't think anyone disputes that in order to stop an airborne disease then you stop people mixing - without doubt, according to the science of that, the best thing to do was to have a strict lockdown from March 2020 until we were all vaccinated?

It was always about balance and isn't this discussion about the counter side to that policy? That's not to say lockdowns were wrong (although I do think they went on too long and after the first one another approach was needed?) but more a recognition and respect for those who have been negatively impacted?

[lardy]

But aren't we talking here about the impact of lockdowns on children? I don't think anyone disputes that in order to stop an airborne disease then you stop people mixing - without doubt, according to the science of that, the best thing to do was to have a strict lockdown from March 2020 until we were all vaccinated?

It was always about balance and isn't this discussion about the counter side to that policy? That's not to say lockdowns were wrong (although I do think they went on too long and after the first one another approach was needed?) but more a recognition and respect for those who have been negatively impacted?

I'm not sure what you think is wrong with the discussion so far.

[JamesWales]

I'm not sure what you think is wrong with the discussion so far.

It's reiterating the justification for lockdowns, as opposed to talking about the consequences for younger people.

Both valid topics, both related, but different.

I'm not sure we deal with the surge in mental health problems, sad kids, lacking social skills, absenteeism etc by reiterating the benefits of staying away from people in 2020.

It's shifting the debate from the needs of young people in 2023 to the needs or generally older people in 2020.

Both critically important, but also different topics really.

[lardy]

It's reiterating the justification for lockdowns, as opposed to talking about the consequences for younger people.

Both valid topics, both related, but different.

I'm not sure we deal with the surge in mental health problems, sad kids, lacking social skills, absenteeism etc by reiterating the benefits of staying away from people in 2020.

It's shifting the debate from the needs of young people in 2023 to the needs or generally older people in 2020.

Both critically important, but also different topics really.

I'm sorry we haven't addressed the thread in the manner and depth that you wished.