Do lockdowns work?

What's Hot
245

Comments

  • p90foolp90fool Frets: 22932
    Rocker said:
    In answer to the question posed by the OP, of course they do.  Assuming the people adhere to the guidelines, they work.
    So the implication is that 128,000 people in the UK ignored the rules and got what they deserved. 
    2reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 3reaction image Wisdom
  • LastMantraLastMantra Frets: 1940
    Eh?
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • p90foolp90fool Frets: 22932
    Eh?
    "If people adhere to the guidelines, they work".

    So they didn't, and it didn't? As one of the countries with one of the highest death rates it's hard not to come to that conclusion if lockdowns work. 
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • stratman3142stratman3142 Frets: 1539
    edited May 6
    p90fool said:
    Rocker said:
    In answer to the question posed by the OP, of course they do.  Assuming the people adhere to the guidelines, they work.
    So the implication is that 128,000 people in the UK ignored the rules and got what they deserved. 

    ...and we're off

    Let the generalization, hyperbole, strawman, appeal to emotion, pigeon-holing, false analogy arguments etc. commence

    It's not a competition.
    1reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 6reaction image Wisdom
  • chris78chris78 Frets: 5196
    I’m amazed so many people who aren’t interested in this thread have taken the time to comment and say so  :o
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • Nick13Nick13 Frets: 678
    Yeah they work but only if implemented propperly with the correct rules in place and at the correct time.  None of that happened in the UK.

    When speaking to am epidemiologist recently they alluded to the fact that had our borders been shut earlier and hard we could probably have has a short hard lockdown and then lived mostly normally for a lot of last year.  They also suggested that once your fucked your fucked and thats why we've had pretty extreme lockdowns with limited overall success.  Thats not to say that the lock downs haven't lowered the case count, just that we have had loads of extended lockdowns and lots of deaths.
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 1reaction image Wisdom
  • LastMantraLastMantra Frets: 1940
    Nick13 said:
    Yeah they work but only if implemented propperly with the correct rules in place and at the correct time.  None of that happened in the UK.

    When speaking to am epidemiologist recently they alluded to the fact that had our borders been shut earlier and hard we could probably have has a short hard lockdown and then lived mostly normally for a lot of last year.  They also suggested that once your fucked your fucked and thats why we've had pretty extreme lockdowns with limited overall success.  Thats not to say that the lock downs haven't lowered the case count, just that we have had loads of extended lockdowns and lots of deaths.

    Like Australia not letting people in from India. 
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 2reaction image Wisdom
  • Nick13Nick13 Frets: 678
    edited May 6
    Nick13 said:
    Yeah they work but only if implemented propperly with the correct rules in place and at the correct time.  None of that happened in the UK.

    When speaking to am epidemiologist recently they alluded to the fact that had our borders been shut earlier and hard we could probably have has a short hard lockdown and then lived mostly normally for a lot of last year.  They also suggested that once your fucked your fucked and thats why we've had pretty extreme lockdowns with limited overall success.  Thats not to say that the lock downs haven't lowered the case count, just that we have had loads of extended lockdowns and lots of deaths.

    Like Australia not letting people in from India. 

    Its not as simple as letting people in from India. Should Australia let Indians in? Nope, obviously not.  Should they let Australians who happen to be in India return to their own country? IMO yes, they are tax paying citizens and the government have a duty to protect them and could do so if they wanted to.
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • p90foolp90fool Frets: 22932
    p90fool said:
    Rocker said:
    In answer to the question posed by the OP, of course they do.  Assuming the people adhere to the guidelines, they work.
    So the implication is that 128,000 people in the UK ignored the rules and got what they deserved. 

    ...and we're off

    Let the generalization, hyperbole, strawman, appeal to emotion, pigeon-holing, false analogy arguments etc. commence

    Fwiw I think lockdowns have a place in the toolbox, but it's hard to defend our position when we've had one of the highest death rates AND the one of the highest levels of economic damage in the world. 

    If one of those two had been a success we could all argue that the tradeoff had been worth it, but when they're both a disaster where does that leave us? 
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • stratman3142stratman3142 Frets: 1539
    p90fool said:
    p90fool said:
    Rocker said:
    In answer to the question posed by the OP, of course they do.  Assuming the people adhere to the guidelines, they work.
    So the implication is that 128,000 people in the UK ignored the rules and got what they deserved. 

    ...and we're off

    Let the generalization, hyperbole, strawman, appeal to emotion, pigeon-holing, false analogy arguments etc. commence

    Fwiw I think lockdowns have a place in the toolbox, but it's hard to defend our position when we've had one of the highest death rates AND the one of the highest levels of economic damage in the world. 

    If one of those two had been a success we could all argue that the tradeoff had been worth it, but when they're both a disaster where does that leave us? 

    Sorry I've had that one lined up for a while, waiting for a moment. It wasn't intended personally, just meant as a general comment. Let's exclude Ad Hominem from the list. 


    It's not a competition.
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • hungrymarkhungrymark Frets: 1782
    edited May 6
    p90fool said:
    p90fool said:
    Rocker said:
    In answer to the question posed by the OP, of course they do.  Assuming the people adhere to the guidelines, they work.
    So the implication is that 128,000 people in the UK ignored the rules and got what they deserved. 

    ...and we're off

    Let the generalization, hyperbole, strawman, appeal to emotion, pigeon-holing, false analogy arguments etc. commence

    Fwiw I think lockdowns have a place in the toolbox, but it's hard to defend our position when we've had one of the highest death rates AND the one of the highest levels of economic damage in the world. 

    If one of those two had been a success we could all argue that the tradeoff had been worth it, but when they're both a disaster where does that leave us? 
    There was an article on More or Less on R4 a couple of weeks ago about the economic impact - making the point that actually it just looks like we've had a worse hit than others because of the way we calculate GDP. Comes down to public sector, teachers, health pros etc. Other countries only count their salaries towards GDP, whereas we also count hours worked. So in other countries in Europe teachers etc were still being paid so their contribution stayed the same. Our public sector frontline staff were still being paid but many were forced to have time off, so their % contribution to GDP fell. If you calculate GDP the same way in western countries, the UK is about the same as anybody else. Something like that
    Use Your Brian
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • AdeyAdey Frets: 1176
    Sorry I'm a bit late to this discussion, but I thought it was about the Criminal Justice Act.

    I'm so disappointed now that I'm going off to commit a crime. If I get caught and banged up I'll get back to this thread in about 5-7 years I reckon to let you know if being locked away has helped me see the error of my ways...

    Competition - what crime might I be thinking of committing?
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • hungrymarkhungrymark Frets: 1782
    As far as lockdowns go, there's evidence that they do work but how well they work is dependent on timing, cultural and social attitudes etc. We didn't lock down until it was well underway, so still got many deaths but fewer than if we hadn't locked down at all. We could have locked down sooner but then there's the argument for compliance. A national lockdown is practically unenforceable so relies entirely on public cooperation. We're sceptical of authority in this country, which is probably a good thing in normal circumstances but it goes a bit the other way in times of national crises - there was doubt whether a lockdown would have been followed if it wasn't blatantly obvious to the general population that it was needed. Tricky call, I wouldn't have wanted to make it
    Use Your Brian
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • DesVegasDesVegas Frets: 3973
    I do agree though that the borders should have been closed if the county was locking down.

    Toofuckinglate.co.uk and all that
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • EricTheWearyEricTheWeary Frets: 12711
    Adey said:
    Sorry I'm a bit late to this discussion, but I thought it was about the Criminal Justice Act.

    I'm so disappointed now that I'm going off to commit a crime. If I get caught and banged up I'll get back to this thread in about 5-7 years I reckon to let you know if being locked away has helped me see the error of my ways...

    Competition - what crime might I be thinking of committing?
    As you would be about three times more likely to die of Covid in a British prison than in the community I don’t highly recommend it. 

    5-7 years: drug dealing or serious sexual assault? 
    I’ll handle this Violet, you take your three hour break. 
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • TanninTannin Frets: 792
    It is astonishing that anyone is even daft enough to ask the question, let alone seriously consider it for longer than three seconds. Ask anyone in New Zealand, where the economy is going full steam ahead, people are free to do what they like, and there is no Coronavirus. Why? Because they locked down hard and early. Same story in Australia where, despite an incompetent federal government (Scomo could swap places with Bojo and no-one would even notice) and the most horrendously screwed-up attempt at a vaccine rollout, there is zero Coronavirus. Why? Because the states implemented early lockdowns and worked hard on tracing contacts. 

    People make the most ridiculous excuses to explain these things away. They pretend that "it's population density" in complete ignorance of the fact that Sydney would be the second-largest city in the UK and Melbourne is even bigger - even "little" Auckland is a big city by the standards of Europe or the USA. They pretend that it's thousands of miles of distance, even though Australia is closer to China, and have closer trade, tourism and travel relationships. (Taiwan is closer still, with very intimate travel ties, and Taiwan showed the whole world the way to deal with Coronavirus.) Absurdly, they pretend that Anzacs are "more obedient to authority" than the British. And so, on and on. They make up whatever it takes to defend the ridiculous, believe whatever they have to believe so that they can go on pretending that white is black. 

    Lockdowns work. They work best when they are done hard and early, and they only work when there are genuine sanctions for breaking them - social ostracism or fines and prison, or preferably both. Breaking isolation orders in the face of a deadly disease is exactly the same thing as driving at 150km/h in a 60km/h zone: it is risking the lives of your fellow citizens for your own selfish reasons,. and it should be punished in the same way.

    When there is a relapse - e.g., when the virus got out of hotel quarantine in Victoria and ran like wildfire through the community, killing hundreds of people in the second wave - the renewed lockdown stopped it in its tracks. Eliminated the virus completely. Result: the state has been back at school, back at work, back at the cafes and pubs and concerts and football stadia for months now, the economy is going gangbusters, and Coronavirus has been once again eliminated. Still no vaccine because the federal government in Canberra couldn't manage a chook raffle without screwing up, but life is 99% normal.

    Lockdowns work.
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 4reaction image Wisdom
  • crunchmancrunchman Frets: 8102
    They might work to some extent in reducing the spread, but the damage they cause is too great.  We have totally trashed our economy, and the government has taken on ridiculous levels of debt.  The interest on that debt will cripple government finances for decades to come.

    That economic damage and debt will cause problems with NHS funding in future, and people will die as a result.  People will die from air pollution because the government won't be able to afford to subsidise the rollout of electric/hydrogen cars.  People will die because of the lack of money to fund medical research.

    The other problem with the first two lockdowns is that we didn't know at that time whether there would be a successful vaccine.  If there had been no vaccine, all we would have been doing was delaying things and making the damage worse.  We needed some restrictions (especially last March) to protect the NHS, but they left them on too long last spring.  By the time they imposed the second lockdown based on dodgy figures, cases were already falling.  When they didn't know that there would be a successful vaccine, the aim should have been to keep cases low enough that the NHS didn't get overwhelmed.  Stopping it completely was a completely false hope, and would have just saved up cases for the future.
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • TanninTannin Frets: 792
    ^ They didn't work because you didn't do them right. How do I know that without even visiting the country? Because the virus spread like crazy. If you had locked down properly, (the way several other countries have done) you would have saved yourselves untold billions of pounds and a great deal of heartbreak. Too little, too late is just about pointless.
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • TanninTannin Frets: 792
    crunchman said:Stopping it completely was a completely false hope, and would have just saved up cases for the future.
    Nonsense. New Zealand stopped it dead. So did Tasmania, and South Australia, and Western Australia, and Queensland. So did New South Wales (after some initial difficulty). So did Victoria, twice - the second time after it escaped from hotel quarantine and ran riot with community spread. But the renewed lockdown nailed it. 
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 1reaction image Wisdom
  • AdeyAdey Frets: 1176
    I think you need to define what is meant by "does lockdown work".

    NZ is an excellent example where by closing your doors you can allow the virus to die out in that isolated area.

    However, all the time the virus is still active outside your doors, you can't open them back up again. It seems to be ok short term. NZ relies heavily on importing goods and exporting tourism to people rich enough to get there (and sheep too I suppose). I doubt that they can survive long term selling sheep to the virus ridden world outside without a massive drop in their standard of living. They could easily drop back into the 1930s from the 1970s where they currently have got to...

    Unless the rest of the world manages to sort itself out using the same lockdown route, and I mean everywhere, you can't eradicate the virus, and you will have multiple waves of lockdown ad infinitum. Realistically if you only rely on lockdowns, this is the result as the population never gets exposed to the virus and build immunity.

    The solution ultimately has to be to find a way to make everyone immune, and that has to be either catching the virus (and surviving) or vaccinating.
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 2reaction image Wisdom
Sign In or Register to comment.