Gov. Petition for Inquiry into Full Effect of Lockdowns

[Galant]

You said "To look at the lock down only in terms of slowing the spread of a disease is far too limited."
My answer was no-one has done or is doing that, so I'm not sure what you mean by your statement.

Er of course it was done, otherwise we'd have just gone into country wide lockdown as soon as we heard about the virus. Right from the start everyone was saying how you have to balance all factors eg. loss of life due to economic down turn vs loss due to the virus. Even the PM said as much in his briefings, and it was certainly part of the modelling.

I have to disagree entirely.

On the first point I was referring to the notion generally, which I assume you agree with. If that's the case then there should be no issue with an inquiry into the full effects of the lockdowns.

On the second point, no cost-benefit analysis was done. This is why a number of MPs called for one at the end of last year:

https://twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/sta...666418183?s=20
https://twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/sta...461576192?s=20

[kalniel]

I have to disagree entirely.

On the first point I was referring to the notion generally, which I assume you agree with. If that's the case then there should be no issue with an inquiry into the full effects of the lockdowns.

I agree about learning lessons (which is obvious and doesn't need a petition, it will happen), but I disagree with the petition stating we should only enter lockdown if there is irrefutable proof that it will have a clear benefit - we can't know that, so the petition is in effect asking the govt to ban all future lockdowns, which is clearly an unwise thing to do.

On the second point, no cost-benefit analysis was done. This is why a number of MPs called for one at the end of last year

I think we can be sure that some version was done as part of the modelling, but that it hasn't been released yet. There are petitions for it's publication though which you might like to sign:
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/559117

Whether the public have enough understanding of modelling for it to be useful I'm not sure, but I'm all for more transparency.

edit: turns out these social and economic impacts (as well as indirect health impacts) were released:
https://assets.publishing.service.go...essible_v2.pdf

[Zhaoman]

Agree that this petition uses pretty loaded and emotive language that it's pretty clear what direction it's hoping to go. @Galant not sure what you mean by private research but I'm sure public academic research will more than cover all analysis of the efficacy of lockdowns and compare them across the world for this pandemic. The academics are in a race with each other of course to be able to publish the best research and scrutinize each other.

The only public enquiry that needs to happen is why this government was so incompetent at making the right decisions. As others have pointed out, it is almost certainly the lack of will to lockdown fast. In fact, it's precisely all the political arguments against lockdown in the beginning that delayed action and has now left us in this mess. Case in point is China where things started have long been back to normal and they have banned travel from Europe and USA in a bitter irony. NZ and Australia other commonly cited examples. It's easy to spot the governments with incompetent pandemic responses from a mile away, that's the tragedy lockdown or no lockdown.

[Saracen999]

I won't be supporting a petition like that either. The way it's worded reads to me like the framers have already decided the lockdown was a bad thing and are looking to block future use. In other words, as others have said, it's loaded. They've decided what they want and a public "inquiry" is about getting it, not about truly inquiring.

If that's not their agenda, then it's badly worded.

I mean ....

"Petition
Agree to hold a public inquiry to examine the true, full, effects of Lockdowns.
The UK Government should commit to holding a public inquiry into the use of Lockdowns as a public health strategy during a crisis to ensure that we only resort to this major intervention again if proven, irrefutably and objectively, to work as intended and to clearly outweigh any harms caused."

Well, "The UK Government should commit to holding a public inquiry into the use of Lockdowns as a public health strategy during a crisis".

Okay, I guess. But public inquiries are usually very expensive and I'm not sure we'll get value for money from that.

But "to ensure that we only resort to this major intervention again if proven, irrefutably and objectively, to work as intended and to clearly outweigh any harms caused."

The "ensure" and "only"bits clarifies the objective - limit future government's choices. It's a blocking move. And the "proven ..... " is simply impossible.

Whatever the situation next time this might arise, it will not be identical to last time. It can't be, because last time, this caught us unawares and in an unpreceented situation. Next time, it'll have precedents. We have experienced it, and a full lockdown, for instance, implemented fast, cannot be assumed to have the same impact as one implemented in staes, or with a view to minimising impact. One is going to be a theoretical assessment and cannot be proven "irrefutably", etc.

Next, "outweigh harms caused". If the situation is not identical (and can't be), and isn't implemented in the same way, then the harms caused cannot be assessed with the absolute certainty needed for "proven, irrefutably and objectively".

Unless you have the same situation, which won't be the case, any prediction iof harms causwed is going to be subjective, and based on some kind of interpolation or extrapolation of what happened last time and pretty much by definition, cannot be "proven irrefutably".

If te need for such drastic action arises again, we could argue that a more targeted lockdown is better, or that a much faster, harder full lockdown is better but in any event, cannot be 100% sure of the harms it'll cause, not lease because any such calculation has to be done in terms of harms resulting if we don't lock down.

All the research you like, all the public inquiries we can wish for and, should the need arise, the final deision to lock down or not not only will be but absolutely should be a political one. That's why we have people running countries, not computers. And we can always fire the people making the decisions, come the next election, if they screw up too badly.

[TeePee]

While the petition is awkward, there needs to be some kind of inquiry and accountability. There is little evidence to suggest that lockdowns reduced deaths attributed to the virus, and a likelihood that they increased the overall death rate. But even if they didn't. If they worked, better than anyone had dreamed, and Neil Fergusson's modelling was actually right, for the first time ever. Without considering the social impact, from a purely financial perspective, the cost of lockdowns was too great.

Of course, Fergusson has been proven wrong, repeatedly, and the Government was pushed in to sunk cost fallacy. They couldn't keep the country open this winter without admitting the earlier lockdown was a mistake, and they could never do that.

There will be plenty of studies over the next decade (Even with cuts to funding of academia), but those responsible for this disaster are unlikely to see consequences. The people will get to feel those, and they haven't even begun.

[spacein_vader]

There should (and IMO will,) be an enquiry. But it should go further than lockdown and look at the government response across the board to Covid. Not just to find blame (should there be any,) but to learn for any future diseases and mutations.

I'm confident there'll be one and I'm not convinced this petition will make much odds. My prediction is we won't know the result for years and all those with their hands on the tiller will no longer be in cabinet. Hancock is nailed on for the bullet as soon as its over and the 1922 will likely do for Boris before the next election IMO.

[Saracen999]

... and the 1922 will likely do for Boris before the next election IMO.

That, IMHO, wil entirely depend on two factors :=

- is he seen (by voters) as an electoral advantage, or liability, and
- do they have a better option?

After all, when Cameron quit, they didn't have much in the way of electorally attractive candidates, and Boris did manage to bring in a thumping win .... helped considerably by Labour's choice of leader, but that's help the Tories can't count on again.

Nothing appeals to politicians like increasing the chances of keeping their own butts in power.





Cynic? Wot, me?

[Iota]

I think most people agree that a lot of actions taken during the lockdown and/or the timing of actions taken were weighed more by political considerations than scientific ones.

Based on what exactly? Define "most people", define "weighed more by political considerations than scientific ones", what is that conjecture based upon?

There is nothing wrong with having an opinion, but I personally do not think wasting more public taxpayer money on a very limited scope inquiry has any merit.