Gov. Petition for Inquiry into Full Effect of Lockdowns

[Galant]

This seems to me to be an important investigation that needs to happen and proceed with diligence.

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/575462

"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."

[Scryder]

meh...

[Galant]

meh...

...because you don't believe in petitioning the government or because you don't think a review is important?

[Scryder]

Don't think much will come out of it. Plus the scope seems to be too narrow imo (Only Lockdowns?). A weak opposition. And this govt seems to be Teflon when it comes to brushing off past mistakes, among other things.

[Galant]

Don't think much will come out of it. Plus the scope seems to be too narrow imo (Only Lockdowns?). A weak opposition. And this govt seems to be Teflon when it comes to brushing off past mistakes, among other things.

I think focusing on lockdowns only is helpful. There would be enough breadth to that investigation without expanding it to other areas. Either way, the terms would have to be defined. The important point here is that where a government takes such unprecedented control and in so doing starts to set a precedent, there should be ironclad reasons for doing so. If some or all aspects of the lockdown were ineffective or caused more harm than damage then we should know and those things should be avoided when (not if), future pandemics come around. What the government has done here should never, ever, be considered something normal.

[Zhaoman]

I think it definitely should be looked into and the results would both be interesting and important for public health policy in future but I don't like the sound of a public inquiry. It makes it sound unnecessarily political. It should just be normal/impartial scientific research and I'm sure there must be researchers who are gathering this data and publishing papers. Funds should go into supporting that instead of a 'public inquiry' that may or may not be botched or covered up. This feels like it belongs in the realm of research rather than 'public inquiry'.

[Galant]

I think it definitely should be looked into and the results would both be interesting and important for public health policy in future but I don't like the sound of a public inquiry. It makes it sound unnecessarily political. It should just be normal/impartial scientific research and I'm sure there must be researchers who are gathering this data and publishing papers. Funds should go into supporting that instead of a 'public inquiry' that may or may not be botched or covered up. This feels like it belongs in the realm of research rather than 'public inquiry'.

I think it should be both. I think private research into some of this will happen, and should. However, the government has to be shown that this is important and that the people want them to be accountable for their actions. Politics is always a slippery eel but we should use all the tools we have available to us to reduce the wiggle room the government has, and eliminate as many excuses as possible, to develop better, more focused policy options in the future.

[Scryder]

I think focusing on lockdowns only is helpful. There would be enough breadth to that investigation without expanding it to other areas. Either way, the terms would have to be defined. The important point here is that where a government takes such unprecedented control and in so doing starts to set a precedent, there should be ironclad reasons for doing so. If some or all aspects of the lockdown were ineffective or caused more harm than damage then we should know and those things should be avoided when (not if), future pandemics come around. What the government has done here should never, ever, be considered something normal.

I think the problem with our lockdown was that it was done in such a haphazard way. And it was implemented when the current methodology completely fell apart. Lockdowns can work if done effectively. Look at Auz and NZ.
I already know the govt's response to this. "These are unprecedented times/events" and "We're following the science", excuses already used.

Lessons learned in concept is a good thing. I've attended several in the past at work. Problem is lessons are never learned and the same mistakes will be made over and over again. Guess I'm too cynical these days.

[kalniel]

Petition starter doesn't understand the nature of pandemics.

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

Any possible enquiry can only look backwards - ie, it could answer the question for the original lockdown, then the 2nd and 3rd lockdowns, and the variants that were present at the time. Each disease and variant of disease has quite different spreading characteristics - so it's impossible to prove that any particular lockdown (and again, there are differences in lockdowns) will work against a new disease or variant that has different characteristics. So if the wish of this petition were granted we could never enter a lockdown again, and in the case of the kent variant for example, that would spell utter disaster.

The decisions about lockdown have to be taken without irrefutable empirical proof, because they are forward looking and based on modelling. And getting it wrong in the past doesn't mean they aren't right for the future.

If the petition was a bit smarter, and was more along the lines of 'ensure that lessons are learned about the timings and level of restrictions' then it's open to being improved either way - it might be concluded that we should enter lockdown more rapidly in the future without waiting for more evidence for example. But then I hope we don't need a petition to ensure lessons are learned.

[Galant]

Petition starter doesn't understand the nature of pandemics.


Any possible enquiry can only look backwards - ie, it could answer the question for the original lockdown, then the 2nd and 3rd lockdowns, and the variants that were present at the time. Each disease and variant of disease has quite different spreading characteristics - so it's impossible to prove that any particular lockdown (and again, there are differences in lockdowns) will work against a new disease or variant that has different characteristics. So if the wish of this petition were granted we could never enter a lockdown again, and in the case of the kent variant for example, that would spell utter disaster.

The decisions about lockdown have to be taken without irrefutable empirical proof, because they are forward looking and based on modelling. And getting it wrong in the past doesn't mean they aren't right for the future.

But none of that is to say that we cannot learn from this. 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. That will always be an influence but it must be minimised. In addition, as much as phrases like 'follow the science' gets bandied about the reality it that no cost-benefit analysis was ever done. Even the official advice from organisations like the WHO kept chopping and changing.

In addition to questions about what aspects of a lockdown were or were not effective in slowing the spread, the other, most important aspect here, is to ask what side-effects were caused by the lockdown - damage to mental health, suicides, and other things. To look at the lock down only in terms of slowing the spread of a disease is far too limited.

[kalniel]

To look at the lock down only in terms of slowing the spread of a disease is far too limited.

Agreed, but no-one has done that. The modelling and decisions in the UK about lockdowns took account of side effects etc.

[Galant]

Agreed, but no-one has done that. The modelling and decisions in the UK about lockdowns took account of side effects etc.

I'm not sure what you're saying here. This wider-look is what the petition is calling for, and it's definitely something that wasn't done in terms of decisions through the lockdown. Questions about how it would impact people in various different ways and the costs society would pay for the lockdown.

[Spud1]

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.

This is true - politics prevented us going into a proper lockdown *ever*, and even worse, caused us to go into semi lockdowns earlier which were largely ineffectual due to complete lack of enforcement and very limited restrictions. It's crystal clear to me that we should have locked down hard and fast, for several months...but that didn't happen.

Whats worse, politics now risks bringing us out of this semi lockdown "just because" rather than because the science or common sense says its the right thing to do.

The government's inaction and ineffectual lockdowns cost thousands of lives, and *that* is what should be investigated in a totally unbiased, logical way. I recognize my own bias here btw and that my opinion is likely the opposite of yours, so whatever investigation happens needs to be impartial and lead to a revised, clear set of public health rules for the next time we face a global pandemic like this.

[Galant]

I think that differences of opinion on details of the lockdown aside, the massively important point here is that when the government chooses to act in this way it must be done in a robust and effective way. In terms of the public health, all aspects must be considered, and political considerations should not (ideally) factor in. Then in terms of government powers and citizens' rights and liberties, appropriate checks and balances and limitations must be set and rigorously maintained to ensure that such actions can only be taken when there is a genuine reason for it - and not just because the government says so.

[Scuber]

Reading between the lines here; the petition appears to have the focus on wanting to quantify the overall negative impact on society caused by the lockdowns, with the aim of using it as an argumentative stand point against potential future lockdowns.
The dilemma with this approach is that it would be countered by what the overall negative impact would have been without a lockdown, which would then be disputed as this would have to be theoretical.

If a similar situation, in the future, were to warrant a national lockdown, this petition would most likely draw people to the negative, factual figures caused by lockdowns and not the counter, theoretical ones.

"...only resort to this major intervention again if proven, irrefutably and objectively..."
"...questions its true efficacy..."
"...establish the truth..."

Based on the wording, I get the impression that a good portion of people wouldn't be happy with the outcome until it coincided with their opinion.
For example, we have numerous scenarios where science has proven things "irrefutably and objectively", yet plenty of people choose to disbelieve it.

[kalniel]

I'm not sure what you're saying here.

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.

This wider-look is what the petition is calling for, and it's definitely something that wasn't done in terms of decisions through the lockdown.

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.