people are never gonna back down from their braindead position on this. The only thing to argue apparently is that "it should have been 2 weeks earlier we fucked everything up". They have all convinced themselves asymptomatic transmission was real and a mass silent killer and that's that, and that the 20 year old piece of broken modelling code that wasn't peer reviewed by anyone was an accurate representation of what would happen. At least they got their 5 shots in a year though.
The politicians involved all made a shit load though, plunged small businesses into shit with bounceback loans, fucked up education for a generation of kids, and created a waiting list so big on the NHS now that you are expected to live without quality of life surgery and just get hooked on opioid pain killers - all this enquiry is about is making up more excuses for doing it all over again when they decide we need another "pandemic" in a couple of years time
I was pro lock down initially and complied throughout. Studies I have seen since have changed my opinion. I will try and find the exact research but a recent study suggested that just 1700 deaths from covid were halted as a result of the lockdown.
Compare this to those who lost their lives because of depression, lack of cancer checkups etc etc and it seems like lockdown was a complete waste of time and actually caused more deaths than it saved.
All we will see is politicians on both sides back tracking and claiming that none of them really wanted to close down education or the NHS or indeed have lockdown at all.
Edit found article here
Researchers say draconian measures taken in spring 2020 had 'negligible impact' on Covid mortality compared with lighter-touch countries
The first lockdown, announced by Boris Johnson in March 2020, came on the back of research suggesting 500,000 could die from the virus
Lockdown saved as few as 1,700 lives in England and Wales in spring 2020, according to a landmark study which concludes the benefits of the policy were “a drop in the bucket compared to the staggering collateral costs” imposed.
Scientists from Johns Hopkins University and Lund University examined almost 20,000 studies on measures taken to protect populations against Covid across the world.
Their findings suggest that lockdowns in response to the first wave of the pandemic, when compared with less strict policies adopted by the likes of Sweden, prevented as few as 1,700 deaths in England and Wales. In an average week there are around 11,000 deaths in England and Wales.
The report authors said their findings showed that the draconian measures had a “negligible impact” on Covid mortality and were a “policy failure of gigantic proportions”.
Johns Hopkins is one of the most respected medical schools in the world and became known during the pandemic for its Covid dashboard measuring cases and deaths all over the world.
The study’s authors conclude: “The science of lockdowns is clear; the data are in: the deaths saved were a drop in the bucket compared to the staggering collateral costs imposed.”
The detrimental impact of lockdown on children’s health and education, on economic growth and its contribution to large increases in public debt has become increasingly clear since the policy was introduced.
H
owever, The Telegraph recently revealed that a secretive government unit worked with social media companies during the pandemic in an attempt to curtail criticism of controversial lockdown policies.
The Covid Disinformation Unit monitored social media and asked tech companies to remove posts it considered to be “potentially harmful content”.
Britain’s first lockdown, in March 2020, was introduced on the basis of modelling exercises from Prof Neil Ferguson which had predicted there could be more than 500,000 deaths in the UK, without action to stop the spread of the virus.
His research had suggested that even with mitigations such as social distancing, and household quarantines for Covid cases, there could be at least 250,000 deaths, unless further measures were taken.
The new study on the impact of lockdowns is published in a report by the Institute of Economic Affairs out on Monday.
Across Europe, countries which embarked on lockdowns saw 6,000 fewer deaths than if they had embarked on a less draconian approach, while the US could have seen 4,000 fewer deaths, they conclude.
By contrast, modelling by Prof Ferguson and his colleagues from Imperial College London in March 2020 had predicted that, without action, the UK could see 510,000 deaths from Covid, with 2.2 million in the United States.
After lockdown was imposed, the scientist suggested that “intense social distancing and other interventions now in place” could reduce that figure to 20,000 in the UK.
The Covid Inquiry is set to examine the Government’s decision making during the pandemic but it has already been the subject of significant criticism relating to its speed, scope and transparency.
Researchers for the Johns Hopkins study said the findings showed that lockdowns had been “a global policy failure of gigantic proportions”.
Lockdowns ‘a failed promise’
Co-author Dr Lars Jonung, professor emeritus at the Knut Wicksell Centre for Financial Studies at Sweden’s Lund University, said the study was the first to fully evaluate the impact of mandatory restrictions.
He said: “It demonstrates that lockdowns were a failed promise. They had negligible health effects but disastrous economic, social and political costs to society. Most likely lockdowns represent the biggest policy mistake in modern times.”
Prof Steve H. Hanke, co-author and professor of applied economics and co-director of the Institute for Applied Economics, Global Health, and the Study of Business Enterprise at Johns Hopkins University: said: “When it comes to Covid, epidemiological models have many things in common: dubious assumptions, hair-raising predictions of disaster that miss the mark, and few lessons learned.”
The researchers examined 19,646 potentially relevant studies, selecting 22 with standardised measures for meta analysis.
They used two approaches to examine the impact of lockdown.
The first, described as “stringency index studies”, examined the difference between harsher lockdowns and more voluntary measures.
This found the difference in mortality amounted to just 3.2 per cent – or 1,700 deaths in England and Wales – compared with countries such as Sweden which relied more on voluntary social changes.
Even when a broader definition of lockdown was used – combining the impact of specific interventions, to allow for the fact countries embarked on different measures – the estimates suggest that it only reduced Covid deaths by 10.7 per cent.
This amounts to 6,000 deaths in England and Wales, 23,000 deaths in Europe and 16,000 deaths in the United States during the first wave. Over this period there were 74,000 Covid deaths in England and Wales.
Some measures linked to increase in deaths
While business closures were associated with a 7.5 per cent fall in Covid mortality, gathering limits – such as “the rule of six” – were linked to an increase in Covid death rates of 5.9 per cent.
Other interventions, such as the use of face coverings, which were not pushed in Britain until the end of the first wave, were found to be “relatively effective” where they were used, cutting deaths by 18.7 per cent.
Researchers said more research was needed – including to examine the impact of masks on welfare – to answer the question of whether mask mandates were a desirable policy.
The report’s authors said their estimate of 1,700 deaths prevented by the first lockdown was far less than those of a typical flu season, which has between 18,500 and 24,800 deaths.
Jonas Herby, co-author of the study and special adviser at the Centre for Political Studies (CEPOS), an independent classical liberal think tank based in Copenhagen, Denmark, said: “Numerous misleading studies, driven by subjective models and overlooking significant factors like voluntary behaviour changes, heavily influenced the initial perception of lockdowns as highly effective measures.
“Our meta-analysis suggests that when researchers account for additional variables, such as voluntary behaviour, the impact of lockdowns becomes negligible.”
Swedish model suggests voluntary change
Researchers said studies showed that voluntary behavioural change was more important than mandatory restrictions in combating Covid.
While Sweden had few compulsory restrictions, changes in consumer activity showed that older people stayed away from shops and restaurants at times as infections spread.
Prof Ferguson did not respond to the points made in the study.
In response to an earlier version of the paper, which did not include UK data, he said: “Disentangling the precise impact of individual NPIs [non pharmaceutical interventions] remains extremely challenging, not least because the most socially and economically disruptive measures (closing all non-essential businesses, stay at home orders) were generally used in combination and as last resorts on top of longer-term measures such as mask wearing.
“Analysis has been further complicated by the accumulation of immunity (from infection and vaccination) in populations together with the emergence of new Covid-19 variants. Distinguishing the relative effectiveness of mandates versus government recommendations – while clearly of political interest – is even more challenging, given the large between- (and even within-) country differences in population responses to both types of measures.”
A government spokesman said: “We are committed to learning from the Covid Inquiry’s findings, which will play a key role in informing the Government’s planning and preparations for the future.”
