Below is the list of complaints from the Lancet article you referenced above (its int he pdf):

Long term consequences of COVID-19: research needs
Supplementary material

Box 1: Long-term complaints of people recovering from acute COVID-19
Extreme fatigue
Muscle weakness
Low grade fever
Inability to concentrate
Memory lapses
Changes in mood
Sleep difficulties
Headaches
Needle pains in arms and legs
Diarrhea and bouts of vomiting
Loss of taste and smell
Sore throat and difficulties to swallow
New onset of diabetes and hypertension
Skin rash
Shortness of breath
Chest pains
Palpitations


So which of these are worthy of lockdown?

Well good thing the lockdowns are targeted to Melbourne and not the whole country.

Note my use of the word "potential".  It is far too early to expect any comprehensive studies on long term effects of COVID-19 yet there are early signs that deaths from the virus may not be the main issue that society will deal with in the fallout to it. 

easy for people who dont live in Melbourne to say!!

you did see the list of complaints the study was looking into, didnt you? Dont think any of them would justify a lockdown or restrictions of any kind and if you are suggesting we should keep restrictions because there is a risk of some unknown other issue, well people wouldnt be allowed to leave their homes ever again as just living has an inherent risk of dying

It is interesting how you gloss over some of the early studies that show the long term effects may be more than just "complaints", for example the study on cardiovascular function.

https://www.cardiovascularbusiness.com/topics/cardiovascular-imaging/78-covid-19-patients-heart-damage-recovery

If COVID causes heart disease in 78% of recovered individuals what do you think the long term economic cost will be?

jeebus, how much googling did it take for you to find that obscure study? Here is an interesting article from the British Heart Foundation that debunks your theory. Good attempt though and with the attempted scaremongering you could get a job with Dan Andrews in Victoria!!

   Can coronavirus cause long-term damage to the heart? 

        17 August 2020

You may have seen headlines claiming that coronavirus can leave many people with dangerous and lasting damage. But what’s the evidence? We look at recent research and news coverage comparing the effects of Covid-19 to heart attacks

The BHF view

Dr Sonya Babu-Narayan, BHF Associate Medical Director, said:

“This study shows some indications of changes in the structure and function of the hearts of people at different stages of their recovery from Covid-19. On its own, this study is not conclusive evidence that a high proportion of people who become infected with coronavirus will have short or long-term damage to their hearts.

https://www.bhf.org.uk/informationsupport/heart-matters-magazine/news/behind-the-headlines/coronavirus/can-coronavirus-cause-long-term-damage-to-the-heart

Ironic you lambast me for posting an opinion piece and then do exact same fucking thing just a few hours later.

Any any case how does this debunk anything? All it says is that one study isn't conclusive evidence, which if you'd bothered to read my previous posts you would have seen me acknowledge already. There is clearly a lot more time and research required before we know for sure. 

The method of recording COVID deaths isn't conclusive evidence that a high proportion of deaths actually weren't because of COVID but that hasn't stopped you coming to that conclusion has it? 

Not saying lockdowns don't suck. They do. But unfortunately, there was an outbreak in Melbourne and these measures needed to be taken to contain it. 

Stepping back to the original claim that the WHO is against the Melbourne lockdown approach - they do not. They have warned people about fatigue and also not to have a country wide approach. 

If COVID causes heart disease in 78% of recovered individuals what do you think the long term economic cost will be? - yep that sure looks like you believe more research is needed. I heard Dan Andrews is looking for a new communications manager for the next 3 months, you should apply.

As for the cause of death, other than your opinion, you have produced nothing to dispute what I and the CMO of Victoria have said

Victorian CMO explains death classifications

By Rachael Dexter

Australia’s deaths from coronavirus include people who may not have specifically died from the virus itself. Victoria’s Chief Health Officer has explained the practice, which is a standard set by the Commonwealth National Surveillance Committee and consistent across the country. “Anyone who’s a confirmed case who dies is classified amongst the deaths, so it doesn’t have to be definitely from coronavirus,” he said. “In some instances, you know in aged care, there would have been some residents who were already receiving palliative care who became infected with coronavirus”.

At 12.24 in below blog.

https://www.theage.com.au/national/coronavirus-updates-live-security-guard-contracts-virus-at-sydney-s-marriott-hotel-victoria-records-lowest-cases-in-a-month-australian-death-toll-stands-at-438-20200818-p55mxc.html

So the WHO thinks lockdowns are a blunt instrument that takes a heavy toll and should be avoided, except for in Victoria?

The WHO thinks national lockdowns are, but a tailored approach for each region depending on circumstances needs to be looked at and applied.

Do you have any quotes or links to support this? The WHO Director-General seems to disagree with you, and is actually saying pretty much the same thing Andrews has been saying:


https://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/health/health-problems/coronavirus-who-warns-easing-restrictions-early-is-a-recipe-for-disaster/news-story/7ccecdde9229612575edffe8b0bc7774

bump for you Pala

Well it’s pretty obvious that lockdowns are not a long term solution. 

Will Melbourne only come out of lockdown when there are fewer than 5 cases a day? Seems a bit strict

Exactly. In the context of COVID 8-10 weeks isn't "long term". 

AJF has a bit of a habit of trying to twist reputable sources to get them to say something they're not saying. ie. his claims with the recorded COVID deaths. 

With covid deaths, I have the CHO of Victoria agreeing with me whereas other than your opinion you have nothing

Its not a roadmap its a road to nowhere and Andrews is already walking back from some of the targets he's set as they are over the top and unacheivable, eg based on current cases in NSW they would have a curfiew, no travel and basically all business shut if Andrews was your premier

If you’re debating on level of restrictions and what’s reasonable or not, then it’s self evident that this is not a full lockdown. From the look of things, the conditions are getting relaxed each month and it’s already easing from 28 September.

I also don’t think NSW would be at the Victorian level of stage 4 lockdowns since the unknown sources have been consistently less than 5 each day. Praise the contact tracers but they’ve done a great job with throwing a net around things here.

Deceptively selective. He's clearly talking about places that had passed their first wave and didn't have many cases for some time at that point, not places that only just had a second wave.

No wonder you cut the quote short before he continued saying "WHO is committed to working with all countries to move into a new stage of opening their economies, societies, schools and businesses safely.

To do that, every single person must be involved. Every single person can make a difference. Every person, family, community and nation must make their own decisions, based on the level of risk where they live." Because that's exactly what Andrews is doing. If we open up too early we'll be right back where we started in a week or two.

I'm also sure the "lives or livelihoods" comment was addressing countries where they don't have social services like Jobkeeper like we do.

That's already been debunked.

who by?

Someone better tell the PM because he doesnt agree: "What I can't help but be struck by is that, under the thresholds that have been set in that plan, Sydney would be under curfew now. Sydney doesn't need to be under curfew now," the Prime Minister said.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-09-07/scott-morrison-victoria-coronavirus-restrictions/12636750

Not sure you have seen the list of restrictions here. From 28th Melbournians get their curfew extended by 1hour to 9pm (awesome just in time for daylight savings), still have to stay within 5km radius and only 1 person per household is allowed to leave the house for essential shopping once per day, majority of business is still closed (ie other than supermarkets, all retail is shut), you are only allowed to leave your home for 2 hours of exercise within 5km of your home. Vast majority of kids dont return to school. It stays like that until end of October, which will mean Melbourne has been under house arrest for 3 months.

even the left wing press are getting on board the Victorian Modelling is wrong bandwagon....

Victoria's roadmap out of Covid lockdown is 'a sledgehammer approach', expert says

Prof Catherine Bennett says it’s important for the public to understand how modelling data is being used to determine the lifting of restrictions

Wed 9 Sep 2020 16.32

Experts say they are unsure whether Victorian premier Daniel Andrews’ understands that modelling used for the roadmap to reopening is about more than just coronavirus case numbers.Photograph: James Ross/EPA

The Victorian government has “taken a sledgehammer approach” to its roadmap out of lockdown “when a hammer may have been just as effective”, Deakin’s chair of epidemiology Prof Catherine Bennett has said.Bennett said it was important for the public to understand that the model, developed by computer scientists and epidemiologists from the University of Melbourne, assumed all cases of Covid-19 in the community were randomly distributed, and that all cases are mixing in the community in the same way. In reality, many cases are already in isolation, or are part of outbreaks in workplaces where transmission and movements may be different.“Now, two-thirds of our cases are in health or aged care workers and their household contacts, and a third of cases are out in the community,” Bennett said. “So assuming we have 60 new cases per day by next weekend, that really means there would be roughly 20 community cases.”The model assumed all 60 cases would be random cases in the community and did not account for unique settings like aged care, Bennett said. But if someone was Covid-19 positive, for most infected people, their movements would be anything but random, she said, and they would mostly stay indoors.“This is not at all a criticism of the model or the modellers themselves, who have been very clear on what this model can and can’t do,” she said. But Bennett said she was unsure whether premier Daniel Andrews understood what epidemiology can offer, and that it is about more than just case numbers.

“Epidemiology is also the study of the determinants of the disease, or the risk, and involves investigating how disease spreads. Those two things used together prevent further cases. They see where virus is through testing and they know where cases are linked, but epidemiology is about also asking: ‘What’s different about these people getting sick when compared to another similar group?

’”The model was therefore setup to examine stage four and lockdown only, rather than what the effect might be if, for example, Victoria went back to stage three with mandatory masks. Or what might happen if curfew was dropped, but other measures kept in place.“We can learn more about our epidemiology and out intervention effectiveness by investigating this spread from the inside,” she said. “This might give them confidence to navigate through different scenarios. So they are using a sledgehammer on a nut, only because they actually don’t know how small the hammer can be to crack that nut.”

I saw those restrictions. NSW (or Sydney) would not be under the same restrictions since our daily count of unknown cases is much lower than 30-50. We would be at the third step/October level of controls. 

Not saying the restrictions don't suck, they do but to say all of those restrictions mean a full lockdown is not accurate.

How is it deceptive when I provided the link to the actual source?

Also that speech was made on 21st August and the other WHO one I referenced was made on 4th September so how can they be related to the first wave?

Plus the only reason Melbourne is stuffed is because of Andrew's incompetence in managing quarantine hotels and contact tracing, so the risk of another wave will still be there once restrictions ease anyway.

Compare the UK response to 6,000 new cases in 2 days to Victoria's response. same with any number of countries around the world. There are so many people in Australia with coronaphobia that they are quite happy to cower under their sheets at home waiting for a vaccine which may never come.

Covid aint going away and the sooner we start learning to live with it the better for us all.

Because you are intentionally misinterpreting the source. Its clear the WHO isn't saying lockdowns are not an important tool, rather that efforts should be made to avoid situations where they aren't necessary.

Literally NOBODY is suggesting Victoria stay in lockdown indefinitely.

Well, those who are trying to say these measures are trying to paint it that way.

Nice of you to crawl out from under your blanket, no misrepresentation, direct quote from WHO with link, and 3 seperate sources at that. 

England 6,000 cases in 2 days no lockdown. Melbourne 50 cases lockdown with billions in economic carnage and immeasurable psychological damage to its inhabitants, one is proportionate response the other isn’t.