Thank you so much for this article. There were no easy choices in response to covid, every decision was (or should have been) a balancing act. The fate of poor people in underdeveloped countries is certainly an important factor that should have been considered.
I remember reading that Modi apologized to his nation when he ordered lockdown. He seemed to understand the consequences of what he was doing. So why did he do it? Did he really believe covid was a major threat, or was he browbeaten by the West, the WHO, and Gates? I’m genuinely interested to know the answer if any commenter has insight into India’s covid response.
I do remember certain states having different responses to treatment…. Some used remdesivir – I remember low efficacy, very high cost and dodgy safety. Other states like Uttar Pradesh (most highly populated state – 200 million?) used ivermectin and claimed success. Of course compromised MSM and organisations ‘debunked’ this. Too much lovely lolly to be made made and ivermectin was never going to satisfy this).
At a time during the lockdowns, half a billion poor people were reported as pushed into poverty by lockdowns. Many were happy to sacrifice these people.
I will have respectfully disagree with everyone here.
The data are in. We hear numbers like 0.2% infection fatality rate for COVID. Seasonal flu is usually closer to 0.1% (one-in-a-thousand infected people), but even a flu season can run at a higher rate like 0.2%.
And where have those fatalities, whether by flu or COVID, been concentrated: on the elderly. Indeed, the median age of fatalities attributed to COVID tended to run a little higher than the median age from all-cause mortality.
The choices were easy: Just do what we’d been doing in any bad flu season. So, the question is: Why did most of the world freak out over COVID?
I will have respectfully disagree with everyone here.
The data are in. We hear numbers like 0.2% infection fatality rate for COVID. Seasonal flu is usually closer to 0.1% (one-in-a-thousand infected people), but even a flu season can run at a higher rate like 0.2%.
And where have those fatalities, whether by flu or COVID, been concentrated: on the elderly. Indeed, the median age of fatalities attributed to COVID tended to run a little higher than the median age from all-cause mortality.
The choices were easy: Just do what we’d been doing in any bad flu season. So, the question is: Why did most of the world freak out over COVID?
It’s true that the decisions made during the pandemic were challenging, with a need to balance public health concerns and socio-economic factors. During the crazy COVID times, I totally helped out my fellow students https://writinguniverse.com/essay-types/definition-essays/ with their essays. Regarding India’s response, it’s difficult to pinpoint a single motive, as it likely involved a combination of factors, including the perceived threat of COVID-19, global recommendations, and the unique circumstances of the country. It would be insightful to hear from others who can shed more light on the intricacies of India’s approach during those times.
I do remember certain states having different responses to treatment…. Some used remdesivir – I remember low efficacy, very high cost and dodgy safety. Other states like Uttar Pradesh (most highly populated state – 200 million?) used ivermectin and claimed success. Of course compromised MSM and organisations ‘debunked’ this. Too much lovely lolly to be made made and ivermectin was never going to satisfy this).
At a time during the lockdowns, half a billion poor people were reported as pushed into poverty by lockdowns. Many were happy to sacrifice these people.
It’s true that the decisions made during the pandemic were challenging, with a need to balance public health concerns and socio-economic factors. During the crazy COVID times, I totally helped out my fellow students https://writinguniverse.com/essay-types/definition-essays/ with their essays. Regarding India’s response, it’s difficult to pinpoint a single motive, as it likely involved a combination of factors, including the perceived threat of COVID-19, global recommendations, and the unique circumstances of the country. It would be insightful to hear from others who can shed more light on the intricacies of India’s approach during those times.
J Bryant
1 year ago
Thank you so much for this article. There were no easy choices in response to covid, every decision was (or should have been) a balancing act. The fate of poor people in underdeveloped countries is certainly an important factor that should have been considered.
I remember reading that Modi apologized to his nation when he ordered lockdown. He seemed to understand the consequences of what he was doing. So why did he do it? Did he really believe covid was a major threat, or was he browbeaten by the West, the WHO, and Gates? I’m genuinely interested to know the answer if any commenter has insight into India’s covid response.
Arkadian X
1 year ago
What I fail to understand is why people went along with it, especially in rural places where people are – at least partially – exempt from the social media contagion.
Arkadian X
1 year ago
What I fail to understand is why people went along with it, especially in rural places where people are – at least partially – exempt from the social media contagion.
David McKee
1 year ago
Thank you, Mr. Purohit. This is a very valuable corrective for the navel-gazing we usually indulge in, here in the West.
David McKee
1 year ago
Thank you, Mr. Purohit. This is a very valuable corrective for the navel-gazing we usually indulge in, here in the West.
Sayantani Gupta Jafa
1 year ago
This is not a very balanced article. As an Indian who lived through the lockdown I will put on record that India had one of the mildest lockdowns. Apart from one month in April 2020 most of the remaining lockdowns were partial. Also as a federal nation the Central government gave total flexibility to different states to impose their own versions. Ironically it was Opposition ruled states like Tamil Nadu and Maharashtra which had the most stringent lockdowns while PM Modis BJP ruled states were more liberal and gave massive social welfare to poorer people.
This is a puff piece designed to make Western anti India lobbies feel good.
Sayantani Gupta Jafa
1 year ago
This is not a very balanced article. As an Indian who lived through the lockdown I will put on record that India had one of the mildest lockdowns. Apart from one month in April 2020 most of the remaining lockdowns were partial. Also as a federal nation the Central government gave total flexibility to different states to impose their own versions. Ironically it was Opposition ruled states like Tamil Nadu and Maharashtra which had the most stringent lockdowns while PM Modis BJP ruled states were more liberal and gave massive social welfare to poorer people.
This is a puff piece designed to make Western anti India lobbies feel good.
Robbie K
1 year ago
Here we go, another day and another anti-lockdown article. Unherd is turning into an echo chamber.
And long may it continue until the full scale and futility of the disastrous lock down policy is formally acknowledged by the instigators of the ridiculous scheme to ensure careful thought and analysis is undertaken to ensure the same mistakes are not repeated next time.
They want to brush it under the carpet. People should be swinging. The usual suspects will come on here and defend their ludicrous positions, despite everything we know as fact (not opinion) e.g. Hancocks WhatsApps, Twitter files and much more data. Still they cling on like drowning people hanging onto a log.
A good idea based on what exactly? The fallout has been disastrous. 140,000 children who haven’t returned to school for a start before we talk about high excess death figures. 3 weeks to flatten the curve turned into 2years of whack a mole. People only think it was a good idea because they were frightened to death by corrupt politicians and then paid to stay at home and bake banana bread – of course they think its a good idea.
A good idea based on what exactly? The fallout has been disastrous. 140,000 children who haven’t returned to school for a start before we talk about high excess death figures. 3 weeks to flatten the curve turned into 2years of whack a mole. People only think it was a good idea because they were frightened to death by corrupt politicians and then paid to stay at home and bake banana bread – of course they think its a good idea.
They want to brush it under the carpet. People should be swinging. The usual suspects will come on here and defend their ludicrous positions, despite everything we know as fact (not opinion) e.g. Hancocks WhatsApps, Twitter files and much more data. Still they cling on like drowning people hanging onto a log.
Unsurprisingly, since these opinions are not allowed to be expressed in most other media. Take a look at the BBC if you want to see a real echo chamber.
And long may it continue until the full scale and futility of the disastrous lock down policy is formally acknowledged by the instigators of the ridiculous scheme to ensure careful thought and analysis is undertaken to ensure the same mistakes are not repeated next time.
Unsurprisingly, since these opinions are not allowed to be expressed in most other media. Take a look at the BBC if you want to see a real echo chamber.
Robbie K
1 year ago
Here we go, another day and another anti-lockdown article. Unherd is turning into an echo chamber.
Thank you so much for this article. There were no easy choices in response to covid, every decision was (or should have been) a balancing act. The fate of poor people in underdeveloped countries is certainly an important factor that should have been considered.
I remember reading that Modi apologized to his nation when he ordered lockdown. He seemed to understand the consequences of what he was doing. So why did he do it? Did he really believe covid was a major threat, or was he browbeaten by the West, the WHO, and Gates? I’m genuinely interested to know the answer if any commenter has insight into India’s covid response.
I do remember certain states having different responses to treatment…. Some used remdesivir – I remember low efficacy, very high cost and dodgy safety. Other states like Uttar Pradesh (most highly populated state – 200 million?) used ivermectin and claimed success. Of course compromised MSM and organisations ‘debunked’ this. Too much lovely lolly to be made made and ivermectin was never going to satisfy this).
At a time during the lockdowns, half a billion poor people were reported as pushed into poverty by lockdowns. Many were happy to sacrifice these people.
In South Africa and many other countries, many poor children were lost from the schooling system forever.
The Delta variant was quite devastating and I remember a high % of the population suffered from diabetes or pre diabetes, so deaths high.
I will have respectfully disagree with everyone here.
The data are in. We hear numbers like 0.2% infection fatality rate for COVID. Seasonal flu is usually closer to 0.1% (one-in-a-thousand infected people), but even a flu season can run at a higher rate like 0.2%.
And where have those fatalities, whether by flu or COVID, been concentrated: on the elderly. Indeed, the median age of fatalities attributed to COVID tended to run a little higher than the median age from all-cause mortality.
The choices were easy: Just do what we’d been doing in any bad flu season. So, the question is: Why did most of the world freak out over COVID?
I will have respectfully disagree with everyone here.
The data are in. We hear numbers like 0.2% infection fatality rate for COVID. Seasonal flu is usually closer to 0.1% (one-in-a-thousand infected people), but even a flu season can run at a higher rate like 0.2%.
And where have those fatalities, whether by flu or COVID, been concentrated: on the elderly. Indeed, the median age of fatalities attributed to COVID tended to run a little higher than the median age from all-cause mortality.
The choices were easy: Just do what we’d been doing in any bad flu season. So, the question is: Why did most of the world freak out over COVID?
It’s true that the decisions made during the pandemic were challenging, with a need to balance public health concerns and socio-economic factors. During the crazy COVID times, I totally helped out my fellow students https://writinguniverse.com/essay-types/definition-essays/ with their essays. Regarding India’s response, it’s difficult to pinpoint a single motive, as it likely involved a combination of factors, including the perceived threat of COVID-19, global recommendations, and the unique circumstances of the country. It would be insightful to hear from others who can shed more light on the intricacies of India’s approach during those times.
I do remember certain states having different responses to treatment…. Some used remdesivir – I remember low efficacy, very high cost and dodgy safety. Other states like Uttar Pradesh (most highly populated state – 200 million?) used ivermectin and claimed success. Of course compromised MSM and organisations ‘debunked’ this. Too much lovely lolly to be made made and ivermectin was never going to satisfy this).
At a time during the lockdowns, half a billion poor people were reported as pushed into poverty by lockdowns. Many were happy to sacrifice these people.
In South Africa and many other countries, many poor children were lost from the schooling system forever.
The Delta variant was quite devastating and I remember a high % of the population suffered from diabetes or pre diabetes, so deaths high.
It’s true that the decisions made during the pandemic were challenging, with a need to balance public health concerns and socio-economic factors. During the crazy COVID times, I totally helped out my fellow students https://writinguniverse.com/essay-types/definition-essays/ with their essays. Regarding India’s response, it’s difficult to pinpoint a single motive, as it likely involved a combination of factors, including the perceived threat of COVID-19, global recommendations, and the unique circumstances of the country. It would be insightful to hear from others who can shed more light on the intricacies of India’s approach during those times.
Thank you so much for this article. There were no easy choices in response to covid, every decision was (or should have been) a balancing act. The fate of poor people in underdeveloped countries is certainly an important factor that should have been considered.
I remember reading that Modi apologized to his nation when he ordered lockdown. He seemed to understand the consequences of what he was doing. So why did he do it? Did he really believe covid was a major threat, or was he browbeaten by the West, the WHO, and Gates? I’m genuinely interested to know the answer if any commenter has insight into India’s covid response.
What I fail to understand is why people went along with it, especially in rural places where people are – at least partially – exempt from the social media contagion.
What I fail to understand is why people went along with it, especially in rural places where people are – at least partially – exempt from the social media contagion.
Thank you, Mr. Purohit. This is a very valuable corrective for the navel-gazing we usually indulge in, here in the West.
Thank you, Mr. Purohit. This is a very valuable corrective for the navel-gazing we usually indulge in, here in the West.
This is not a very balanced article. As an Indian who lived through the lockdown I will put on record that India had one of the mildest lockdowns. Apart from one month in April 2020 most of the remaining lockdowns were partial. Also as a federal nation the Central government gave total flexibility to different states to impose their own versions. Ironically it was Opposition ruled states like Tamil Nadu and Maharashtra which had the most stringent lockdowns while PM Modis BJP ruled states were more liberal and gave massive social welfare to poorer people.
This is a puff piece designed to make Western anti India lobbies feel good.
This is not a very balanced article. As an Indian who lived through the lockdown I will put on record that India had one of the mildest lockdowns. Apart from one month in April 2020 most of the remaining lockdowns were partial. Also as a federal nation the Central government gave total flexibility to different states to impose their own versions. Ironically it was Opposition ruled states like Tamil Nadu and Maharashtra which had the most stringent lockdowns while PM Modis BJP ruled states were more liberal and gave massive social welfare to poorer people.
This is a puff piece designed to make Western anti India lobbies feel good.
Here we go, another day and another anti-lockdown article. Unherd is turning into an echo chamber.
And long may it continue until the full scale and futility of the disastrous lock down policy is formally acknowledged by the instigators of the ridiculous scheme to ensure careful thought and analysis is undertaken to ensure the same mistakes are not repeated next time.
They want to brush it under the carpet. People should be swinging. The usual suspects will come on here and defend their ludicrous positions, despite everything we know as fact (not opinion) e.g. Hancocks WhatsApps, Twitter files and much more data. Still they cling on like drowning people hanging onto a log.
Is this the same policy that most people think was a good idea, or a different one?
A good idea based on what exactly? The fallout has been disastrous. 140,000 children who haven’t returned to school for a start before we talk about high excess death figures. 3 weeks to flatten the curve turned into 2years of whack a mole. People only think it was a good idea because they were frightened to death by corrupt politicians and then paid to stay at home and bake banana bread – of course they think its a good idea.
Oh I dunno, that crazy majority of stupid people and their misguided wrong think!
Oh I dunno, that crazy majority of stupid people and their misguided wrong think!
A good idea based on what exactly? The fallout has been disastrous. 140,000 children who haven’t returned to school for a start before we talk about high excess death figures. 3 weeks to flatten the curve turned into 2years of whack a mole. People only think it was a good idea because they were frightened to death by corrupt politicians and then paid to stay at home and bake banana bread – of course they think its a good idea.
They want to brush it under the carpet. People should be swinging. The usual suspects will come on here and defend their ludicrous positions, despite everything we know as fact (not opinion) e.g. Hancocks WhatsApps, Twitter files and much more data. Still they cling on like drowning people hanging onto a log.
Is this the same policy that most people think was a good idea, or a different one?
Unsurprisingly, since these opinions are not allowed to be expressed in most other media. Take a look at the BBC if you want to see a real echo chamber.
And long may it continue until the full scale and futility of the disastrous lock down policy is formally acknowledged by the instigators of the ridiculous scheme to ensure careful thought and analysis is undertaken to ensure the same mistakes are not repeated next time.
Unsurprisingly, since these opinions are not allowed to be expressed in most other media. Take a look at the BBC if you want to see a real echo chamber.
Here we go, another day and another anti-lockdown article. Unherd is turning into an echo chamber.