Scientist criticizes UK's long-lockdown approach to Covid pandemic: 'In short, we panicked'

by Ben Reilly Sun Jan 02, 2022 9:35 pm

There was a distinctive moment, at the start of the Covid-19 pandemic, that neatly encapsulated the mistakes and confusion of Britain’s early efforts to tackle the disease, says Mark Woolhouse. At a No 10 briefing in March 2020, cabinet minister Michael Gove warned the virus did not discriminate. “Everyone is at risk,” he announced.

And nothing could be further from the truth, argues Professor Woolhouse, an expert on infectious diseases at Edinburgh University. “I am afraid Gove’s statement was simply not true,” he says. “In fact, this is a very discriminatory virus. Some people are much more at risk from it than others. People over 75 are an astonishing 10,000 times more at risk than those who are under 15.”

Advertisement

And it was this failure to understand the wide variations in individual responses to Covid-19 that led to Britain’s flawed responses to the disease’s appearance, he argues – errors that included the imposition of a long-lasting, national lockdown. This is a strategy that Woolhouse – one of the country’s leading epidemiologists – describes as morally wrong and highly damaging in his forthcoming book, The Year the World Went Mad: A Scientific Memoir.

“We did serious harm to our children and young adults who were robbed of their education, jobs and normal existence, as well as suffering damage to their future prospects, while they were left to inherit a record-breaking mountain of public debt,” he argues. “All this to protect the NHS from a disease that is a far, far greater threat to the elderly, frail and infirm than to the young and healthy.

“We were mesmerised by the once-in-a-century scale of the emergency and succeeded only in making a crisis even worse. In short, we panicked. This was an epidemic crying out for a precision public health approach and it got the opposite.

Rather than imposing blanket lockdowns across the nation, the government should have adopted measures designed to make contacts safe, Woolhouse maintains. “You can see from the UK data that people were reducing their contacts with each other as cases rose and before lockdown was imposed. That, coupled with Covid-safe measures, such as masks and testing, would have been sufficient to control spread.”

Largely voluntary behaviour change worked in Sweden and it should have been allowed to progress in the UK, argues Woolhouse. Instead, we plumped for an enforced national lockdown, in part because, for the first time in history, we could. Enough business is now done online to allow large parts of society to function fairly well – through video conferences and online shopping. “But it was a lazy solution to a novel coronavirus epidemic, as well as a hugely damaging one,” he adds.

However, Woolhouse is at pains to reject the ideas of those who advocated the complete opening up of society, including academics who backed the Barrington Declaration which proposed the Covid-19 virus be allowed to circulate until enough people had been infected to achieve herd immunity.

“This would have led to an epidemic far larger than the one we eventually experienced in 2020,” says Woolhouse. “It also lacked a convincing plan for adequately protecting the more vulnerable members of society, the elderly and those who are immuno-compromised.”

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jan/02/britain-got-it-wrong-on-covid-long-lockdown-did-more-harm-than-good-says-scientist

I think there are a few questions he hasn't addressed in the article, but perhaps he does in his book.

by eddie Sun Jan 02, 2022 9:40 pm

It has been proven and agreed upon, over and over, that “the vulnerable” were the only ones at risk from covid.
Just like the vulnerable are more at risk with contracting the flu, which isn’t deadly unless you are vulnerable.

by Vintage Sun Jan 02, 2022 10:55 pm

I don't think its so much about the death rate, although there appears to be a lot of unvaccinated young people dying. The other problem is people being too ill to go to or having to stay away from work, I'm already reading about trains buses etc being cancelled due to staff shortages, if too many people are off work we grind to a halt or are at least inconvenienced and then everyone will be asking why was it allowed to happen like this, we should have had a vaccine, what were the government thinking..

by eddie Sun Jan 02, 2022 11:00 pm

There’s also a lot of vaccinated young people dying.
Swings and roundabouts.

Depends what you choose to read / believe...

by Vintage Sun Jan 02, 2022 11:06 pm

So it was supposed to target the old and vulnerable so now its also the young and presumably healthy vaccinated or not. Those famous last words of so many on their death beds seem to be
'I wish I'd had the vaccination' and 'Get vaccinated'.

by Vintage Sun Jan 02, 2022 11:06 pm

So it was supposed to target the old and vulnerable so now its also the young and presumably healthy vaccinated or not. Those famous last words of so many on their death beds seem to be
'I wish I'd had the vaccination' and 'Get vaccinated'.

by gelico Sun Jan 02, 2022 11:26 pm

my brother is a truck driver, double jabbed, caught covid

he told me half is firm is out ill with covid, all double jabbed of course.

the definition of a vaccine is that it eliminates the virus but people are getting it again and again, furthermore, it shouldn't need a booster.

my dad's cousin and her hubby and neighbour all got their jabs together, now all of them have heart palpitations and other problems that weren't there before

it is not a vaccine.

anyone calling this vile jab a ''vaccine'' is clearly just spreading misinformation.

by gelico Sun Jan 02, 2022 11:27 pm

people don't get effing small pox virus every few months.

it was wiped out with a ''VACCINE''

by eddie Sun Jan 02, 2022 11:47 pm

gelico wrote:

people don't get effing small pox virus every few months.

it was wiped out with a ''VACCINE''

Word

by gelico Sun Jan 02, 2022 11:57 pm

eddie wrote:
gelico wrote:

people don't get effing small pox virus every few months.

it was wiped out with a ''VACCINE''

Word

uh?

by Tommy Monk Mon Jan 03, 2022 12:09 am

Efforts to try to prevent people getting it are in fact prolonging the life cycle and existence of the virus. And actually giving it a chance to mutate and then start going round again.

If mostly everyone (except old and clinically vulnerable) had just been allowed to carry on as normal from the start, then it would have gone round enough people early last year for herd immunity to have effectively prevented it carrying on and on as it has.

by Vintage Mon Jan 03, 2022 11:48 am

gelico wrote:

people don't get effing small pox virus every few months.

it was wiped out with a ''VACCINE''

Might have something to do with it being an entirely different virus.
Coronaviruses are single strand RNA and unstable, mutates easily.
Variola viruses are double strand DNA and stable, mutates slowly.

by Vintage Mon Jan 03, 2022 11:50 am

Tommy Monk wrote:

Efforts to try to prevent people getting it are in fact prolonging the life cycle and existence of the virus. And actually giving it a chance to mutate and then start going round again.

If mostly everyone (except old and clinically vulnerable) had just been allowed to carry on as normal from the start, then it would have gone round enough people early last year for herd immunity to have effectively prevented it carrying on and on as it has.

That's the problem many people would not have been able to carry on as normal then where would we have been, economically etc.

by Tommy Monk Mon Jan 03, 2022 1:53 pm

Overwhelming vast majority would have done...

The old were already on state pension and private pension etc and were already hiding indoors anyway... Most of the relatively small number of clinically vulnerable were already on other sickness benefits and also already staying indoors too.

Everyone else could have easily just carried on as normal.

As many of the workforce did, shop workers, delivery drivers, healthcare workers etc... Many other trades like me also had to carry on working...

The virus would have been around and gone away ages ago if this had been allowed to happen.

The policy adopted throughout has perpetuated the problem.

by gelico Tue Jan 11, 2022 1:27 pm

Dame Abi Roberts
@abiroberts
The elephant in the room regarding No 10 party gate is the fact that their behaviour confirms that they knew there was no deadly risk from any virus.

No matter how you spin it, that’s the real story here.

The truth will out.
12:52 PM · Jan 11, 2022·Twitter for iPhone

by Vintage Tue Jan 11, 2022 10:53 pm

So all the countries locking down again are all panicking or are nearly all the governments in the world of every persuasion, in on the con and for once in the history of the world co operating for some nefarious reason? I keep asking for a reason but get no answers. Is it the greys maybe calling the shots? Or the tall blonde Nordic types or maybe the reptilians?

by gelico Tue Jan 11, 2022 11:52 pm

Depopulation is a big issue

complete control of those left via a social credit scoring system

by eddie Thu Jan 13, 2022 9:13 pm

To me, the biggest factor in all of this is that Boris Johnson was so
“not worried” about covid that he threw a party for a group of people all the while telling us we should be worried.

Yet he wasn’t, and neither were the people that attended.

That’s a big tell for me. That’s it in a nutshell.

by Ben Reilly Thu Jan 13, 2022 9:20 pm

gelico wrote:

Depopulation is a big issue

complete control of those left via a social credit scoring system

Depopulation literally helps nobody in power. If you want more money than God, you want as many as people as possible to take it from. Also, the virus isn't nearly deadly enough to be the mechanism for depopulation.

Not every massive thing that happens was planned, and just because some people benefit from these massive things doesn't mean they orchestrated them.

As far as complete control of those who are left, that really doesn't make a lot of sense when you look at the fact that people all over the world would have different things they'd have people do if they could. China would definitely wish that its people would stop agitating for free speech and democracy, but other countries are going to have a totally different definition of what their perfect citizen would be like.

by Vintage Thu Jan 13, 2022 9:37 pm

eddie wrote:To me, the biggest factor in all of this is that Boris Johnson was so
“not worried” about covid that he threw a party for a group of people all the while telling us we should be worried.

Yet he wasn’t, and neither were the people that attended.

That’s a big tell for me. That’s it in a nutshell.

Just because some people are entitled, arrogant and in some ways fairly stupid doesn't mean there's a conspiracy going on. Maybe he wasn't worried but Boris did catch it.
So there were parties at 10 Downing Street, do you remember ordinary people having gatherings and weddings and parties? I seem to remember quite a lot going on including loads of Jewish weddings. Does that mean its all a lie as well or only when politicians and famous people do it?

by gelico Thu Jan 13, 2022 9:41 pm

has anyone yet checked the terrible injuries that the covid-19 jab is causing?

check it out

www.vigiaccess.org

by gelico Thu Jan 13, 2022 9:43 pm

if you go onto that site and type in searchbar

polio vaccine

dyphtheria vaccine

measles vaccine

and then go in and tupe

covid-19 vaccine

just take a look for yourselves,,,,,

by eddie Thu Jan 13, 2022 9:58 pm

Vintage wrote:
eddie wrote:To me, the biggest factor in all of this is that Boris Johnson was so
“not worried” about covid that he threw a party for a group of people all the while telling us we should be worried.

Yet he wasn’t, and neither were the people that attended.

That’s a big tell for me. That’s it in a nutshell.

Just because some people are entitled, arrogant and in some ways fairly stupid doesn't mean there's a conspiracy going on. Maybe he wasn't worried but Boris did catch it.
So there were parties at 10 Downing Street, do you remember ordinary people having gatherings and weddings and parties? I seem to remember quite a lot going on including loads of Jewish weddings. Does that mean its all a lie as well or only when politicians and famous people do it?

I never said it was a lie. I said Boris wasn’t worried enough to not mingle, so why did he make us worried?
Please read what I said again, I can’t be any clearer.

by Vintage Thu Jan 13, 2022 10:11 pm

eddie wrote:
Vintage wrote:

Just because some people are entitled, arrogant and in some ways fairly stupid doesn't mean there's a conspiracy going on. Maybe he wasn't worried but Boris did catch it.
So there were parties at 10 Downing Street, do you remember ordinary people having gatherings and weddings and parties? I seem to remember quite a lot going on including loads of Jewish weddings. Does that mean its all a lie as well or only when politicians and famous people do it?

I never said it was a lie. I said Boris wasn’t worried enough to not mingle, so why did he make us worried?
Please read what I said again, I can’t be any clearer.

Yes I read that, Boris apparently wasn't worried but he ended up in ICU didn't he?
I wonder how many more people who held gatherings ended up in hospital or dead.

by eddie Thu Jan 13, 2022 10:27 pm

Vintage wrote:
eddie wrote:
Vintage wrote:

Just because some people are entitled, arrogant and in some ways fairly stupid doesn't mean there's a conspiracy going on. Maybe he wasn't worried but Boris did catch it.
So there were parties at 10 Downing Street, do you remember ordinary people having gatherings and weddings and parties? I seem to remember quite a lot going on including loads of Jewish weddings. Does that mean its all a lie as well or only when politicians and famous people do it?

I never said it was a lie. I said Boris wasn’t worried enough to not mingle, so why did he make us worried?
Please read what I said again, I can’t be any clearer.

Yes I read that, Boris apparently wasn't worried but he ended up in ICU didn't he?
I wonder how many more people who held gatherings ended up in hospital or dead.

You have missed my point. So I’ll clarify:

If the MAN who’s telling YOU to be worried isn’t worried how worried should YOU be?

by Tommy Monk Fri Jan 14, 2022 2:57 pm

Woman on the radio earlier was saying she lives in Jersey and there were less deaths in 2020 and 2021 than any year over the last 5 years.

The experts were predicting something like 800 or so deaths there... But it never happened... Think she said only about 50 are listed but most of them are questionable as to real causes.

Also in America, the CDC say that 75% of so called covid deaths were of people with at least 4 other co-morbidities.

Here in UK there have been only about 600 deaths in under 60's with no other health conditions.

Over 80's were vast majority and with other serious health problems in nearly all cases.

by Original Quill Fri Jan 14, 2022 9:37 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:Also in America, the CDC say that 75% of so called covid deaths were of people with at least 4 other co-morbidities.

That is false, tom, and another reason why one needs to carefully heed all qualifiers when dealing with quantitative facts.

A recent study found that 75% of all COVID-19 deaths among FULLY VACCINATED individuals involved at least four co-morbidities. That is a much smaller population, given that fully vaccinated people get Covid in only 5 - 6% of cases. It tends to show the degree to which co-morbidities need be present in a host in order to overcome the strong protection of vaccines. In other words, vaccines are working with great effectiveness.

When CDC Director Rochelle Walensky talked about this study during an appearance on Good Morning America, a brief clip that was missing important context went viral and was shared with the false claim that Walensky was talking about ALL COVID-19 deaths. https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/covid-deaths-4-comorbidities/ She was making the point of how sick you have to be, otherwise, in order to overcome the safeguards of vaccines.

by Tommy Monk Fri Jan 14, 2022 11:30 pm

Fair enough on that point.

However, it has always been the case that older people and people with co-morbidities faced a higher risk of serious illness/death from getting covid... Vaccinated or not...

by Vintage Sat Jan 15, 2022 10:55 pm

I'm sorry if the morbidity of Covid isn't great enough for you Tommy.
If we can halt this virus by vaccination isn't that a good thing for everyone in the end?
If it behaves like colds or flu a vaccine may be required annually is that too much to ask to save fellow citizens?
If you think there is something wrong with the vaccine can you explain what that might be? -
considering labs have been researching and testing since SARS began?
Do you think it will have some effect in the future for those who took it?
For side effects now(There are always side effects for some, the polio vaccine could cause paralysis as bad as the disease)
Should we wait and test for 10years while people die along the way?
Do you envisage a scenario like 'Legend' perhaps?

by Tommy Monk Sun Jan 16, 2022 4:17 am

Give it to those high risk groups, if they want it... Leave everyone else alone!!!

I've had covid twice already... Was just like a cold/flu... I don't need a vaccine to prevent me dying from covid when I've already had it twice... The vaccine has got more chance if doing me damage than a virus my immune system has already dealt with twice!!!

by Vintage Mon Jan 17, 2022 2:03 pm

Maybe you are lucky and can fight it off and don't have underlying health issues, Covid has carried off more people like that than similar complications with the virus.
How many people have been successfully vaccinated in the world and how many people have had problems with the vaccination?

by gelico Mon Jan 17, 2022 4:03 pm

Vintage wrote: Maybe you are lucky and can fight it off and don't have underlying health issues, Covid has carried off more people like that than similar complications with the virus.
How many people have been successfully vaccinated in the world and how many people have had problems with the vaccination?

Don't like to point out the obvious here but I did give you a link to a reliable source for that question,,,,,,

by Vintage Mon Jan 17, 2022 4:24 pm

Haven't had a chance to look for it.
Are you stating then that more people have died from complications of the vaccine than complications from actually having Covid?

by Tommy Monk Mon Jan 17, 2022 4:38 pm

I just looked at your link gelico...

vigiaccess.org

Eye wateringly high adverse reactions listed for covid vaccines.

by Tommy Monk Mon Jan 17, 2022 4:39 pm

Vintage... I posted a load of info about how many lives saved compared to deaths caused by vaccines.

by gelico Mon Jan 17, 2022 4:45 pm

Vintage wrote:Haven't had a chance to look for it.
Are you stating then that more people have died from complications of the vaccine than complications from actually having Covid?

and in the time it took you to type that you could have had a quick look

just saying

Cool

by Tommy Monk Mon Jan 17, 2022 6:16 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:

Vintage... I posted a load of info about how many lives saved compared to deaths caused by vaccines.

Here it is again..

https://www.mdpi.com/2076-393X/9/7/693/htm

Here it says...

"...as we prevent 3 deaths by vaccinating, we incur 2 deaths..."

And...

Thus, we need to accept that around 16 cases will develop severe adverse reactions from COVID-19 vaccines per 100,000 vaccinations delivered, and approximately four people will die from the consequences of being vaccinated per 100,000 vaccinations delivered. Adopting the point estimate of NNTV = 16,000 (95% CI, 9000–50,000) to prevent one COVID-19-related death, for every six (95% CI, 2–11) deaths prevented by vaccination, we may incur four deaths as a consequence of or associated with the vaccination. Simply put: As we prevent three deaths by vaccinating, we incur two deaths.

And...

The risk–benefit ratio in terms of deaths prevented and deaths incurred thus ranges from 2:3 to 1:8, although real-life data also support ratios as high as 2:1, i.e., twice as high a risk of death from the vaccination compared to COVID-19, within the 95% confidence limit.

by Vintage Mon Jan 17, 2022 6:47 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:

Vintage... I posted a load of info about how many lives saved compared to deaths caused by vaccines.

Here it is again..

https://www.mdpi.com/2076-393X/9/7/693/htm

Here it says...

"...as we prevent 3 deaths by vaccinating, we incur 2 deaths..."

And...

Thus, we need to accept that around 16 cases will develop severe adverse reactions from COVID-19 vaccines per 100,000 vaccinations delivered, and approximately four people will die from the consequences of being vaccinated per 100,000 vaccinations delivered. Adopting the point estimate of NNTV = 16,000 (95% CI, 9000–50,000) to prevent one COVID-19-related death, for every six (95% CI, 2–11) deaths prevented by vaccination, we may incur four deaths as a consequence of or associated with the vaccination. Simply put: As we prevent three deaths by vaccinating, we incur two deaths.

And...

The risk–benefit ratio in terms of deaths prevented and deaths incurred thus ranges from 2:3 to 1:8, although real-life data also support ratios as high as 2:1, i.e., twice as high a risk of death from the vaccination compared to COVID-19, within the 95% confidence limit.

Its marked retracted - all over it.

by Tommy Monk Mon Jan 17, 2022 7:03 pm

It's not... I just checked the link.

Works fine.

And this bit was from the conclusion at the bottom...

"Currently, our estimates show that we have to accept four fatal and 16 serious side effects per 100,000 vaccinations in order to save the lives of 2–11 individuals per 100,000 vaccinations, placing risks and benefits on the same order of magnitude."

by Vintage Tue Jan 18, 2022 6:48 pm

I used that link and it has retracted in large black letters on each page.

by Tommy Monk Tue Jan 18, 2022 7:37 pm

Don't know what that is all about.

by Original Quill Tue Jan 18, 2022 9:16 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:

Don't know what that is all about.

It means the publisher/poster who originally sponsored the claim has withdrawn the conclusion, as unsupported…

Oxford Dictionary wrote:Retract
...withdraw (a statement or accusation) as untrue or unjustified.
"he retracted his allegations" – Oxford Dictionary

The fact that it is done voluntarily means the original sponsor of the statement has made an independent judgment that the information/conclusion is unsupported, at best, and/or more probably, in an attempt to deceive.

The latter (deception) is more probable because the sponsor leaves the post intact, and uses the term “retracted” as an approbative statement. That means s/he has affirmative knowledge that that there is deceit afoot. Otherwise, the posting would simply disappear.

by Tommy Monk Tue Jan 18, 2022 9:18 pm

Or maybe they have been forced to do that...

by Original Quill Tue Jan 18, 2022 9:31 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:Or maybe they have been forced to do that...

By whom...the plain truth? The First Amendment protects a publisher...they can say what they want. That style is usually used to indicate deceit in the original claim. The term "retracted" - particularly when used to blot out some other writing - is an affirmative act that indicates derisive dismissiveness...it's like the publisher (MDPI) is saying, Bullshit!

MDPI is struggling for their reputation in the science communication community. They are a reprint publisher, so it's not as if the article is their own. They could be trying to disassociate themselves from patently fraudulent papers that might further jeopardize their reputation. https://www.quora.com/Is-MDPI-a-reputable-publishing-company

by Vintage Wed Jan 19, 2022 7:11 pm

Looks like there are many opinions out there
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8627831

by Tommy Monk Wed Jan 19, 2022 8:27 pm

The papers I posted the link to, looked quite well researched and collated.

I have no idea why the pages now have 'retracted' on them... Maybe this was after pressure from pharma companies and/or govt... None of them say why and for which bits.

But the fact remains... People have been made ill from these vaccines, and also caused deaths in significant numbers!

For what!!!???

When the chances of dying from the actual virus is extremely low for under 60's!!!

by Original Quill Wed Jan 19, 2022 10:47 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:The papers I posted the link to, looked quite well researched and collated.

I have no idea why the pages now have 'retracted' on them... Maybe this was after pressure from pharma companies and/or govt... None of them say why and for which bits.

What you cited us to is a reprint publisher (MDPI) in the scientific field. In other words, it has only ‘passed’ the originally printed material on, by republishing it.

When a reprint publisher no longer has faith in an article, or the content it contains, it removes the publication. It is withdrawing any/all endorsement of the article or its content.

The reprint publisher generally is only passing the content along. Ordinarily, it would simply remove the content from its website – cease "passing it along". Therefore, if it feels that it must take the extra positive steps to divorce itself from the content by stating it's retracted, that content must be troublesome, in some way. What it is saying by that act is, 'I want to give notice the information herein is not just questionable, but could cause injury…'

In short, it’s avoiding malice lawsuits by giving positive, legal notice that it does not endorse the content.

by Original Quill Wed Jan 19, 2022 11:16 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:But the fact remains... People have been made ill from these vaccines, and also caused deaths in significant numbers!

For what!!!???

When the chances of dying from the actual virus is extremely low for under 60's!!!

Have they...from the vaccines? Nonsense. What about the 'nocebo' effect, raised by Vintage?

PMC wrote:Adverse events claimed to be caused by modern medicines be they tablets or injections, are the commonest reason given by patients for not accepting medication or for failing to adhere to prescribed drugs.

This has serious implications not only for the individual who refuses potentially life-saving medication, but for the community in the case of vaccinations against infectious agents in the context of a pandemic. This is particularly frustrating when in many cases the perceived adverse reactions are not causally related to the administered drug or vaccine.

Because the vaccines have become political, certain people are pre-disposed to find fault with them by 'willing' themselves to imagine, and thus claim adverse reactions. I say it's [political] drama more than anything.

by Tommy Monk Thu Jan 20, 2022 12:32 am

It is well known that these vaccines have caused numerous serious adverse reactions like blood clots, myocarditis and death!

by Tommy Monk Thu Jan 20, 2022 1:04 am

https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/new-zealand-links-26-year-old-mans-death-pfizer-covid-19-vaccine-2021-12-20/

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/lisa-shaw-covid-vaccine-death-b1909089.html

by Sponsored content