Nice to see the spirit of respectful debate remains live and well on this forum!!I don't doubt that many epidemiologists are stringently opposed to the GBD. Their sole focus is on tracking and modelling the virus. Many of the original signatories of the declaration (it was a mistake to leave it open for any joker on the web to add their signature) are leading experts in other areas of health and social care - cancer; heart disease; mental health, which they argue are being ignored at the expense of Covid-19. I think their opinion that that 'current lockdown policies are producing devastating effects on short term and long-term public health' to be persuasive. I also think there's strong evidence to support their view that these effects are being disproportionately felt by the young and the poorer parts of our society and will last for years. A few new reports (or were new to me) that have emerged in the last couple of weeks: - The Resolution Foundation predict that unemployment in the 17 - 29 age group could hit 17% by Christmas, as this age group takes the brunt of the economic hit of lockdowns - Macmillan Cancer Support report that there are now likely to be 50,000 people in the UK with undiagnosed cancer that would, in other years, have been picked up. It will take 20 months to clear this backlog. Some of these people will not have 20 months left - MIND report that rates of depression doubled during the first national lockdown, with 19% of UK adults experiencing symptoms of depression. 18% of vulnerable people considered suicide or self-harm. They predict numbers will get worse during any Winter lockdown- OXFAM suggest that an additional 12,000 people globally could be dying of starvation every day as a result of the economic effects of national lockdownsI'm not questioning the science behind the Covid response. The experts said number of cases would rise when we came out of lockdown and so it has proved. New cases are now rife and will seemingly continue to rise without further interventions. We are, however, pretty confident that for the overwhelming majority of these people, having the virus will cause nothing more than a few days mild illness - if any symptoms at all. For a minority of people - the ill elderly and the vulnerable with underlying health conditions - the virus poses a mortal threat. The scientists tell us that more people will die and rates of death will grow. It is right, therefore, that we, as a society, seek to protect these people as we best we can. My issue is that right now, the policy seems to be to prevent death by any means - quantity of life over quality. I think it's a valid question to ask whether this is what the elderly and vulnerable want? To what extent have we involved these people in decisions about their own lives? For the terminally ill Mum in Wales last week, who was made to choose which of one her four children could visit her in hospital to say goodbye - was this decision in her interests? Are the elderly in care homes, who have been denied the chance to spend precious times with their families, content to sign up to another year of missing out on seeing their loved ones in person - which in some cases will mean never seeing them again? What about those younger people with health conditions who work but are unable to do so from home - are they willing to sign up to another few months on low or no pay because they've been told to shield at home? If the answer to all these questions is yes, then fine - let the lockdowns continue. I'm not, however, hearing anything from patient groups or representative bodies that the government and scientist are involving them in these decisions. I think Michael E's view that we'll be living in current conditions for another year to be plausible, mirroring the 18 month cycle from 1918. Given we're potentially not half-way through this cycle, I don't think it's wrong to ask questions about the full cost of lockdowns and whether these are proportionate to the benefits. The original signatories of the GBD decided that they weren't. Others have disagreed and all are entitled to their views. Critically, however, these are the sorts of debates we should be having in a civilised society. Resorting to petty name-calling and general tub-thumping when faced with a view different to yours is really rather sad - and arguably more dangerous
Craig Fordham ● 1978d