So, coronavirus...

[JM2K6]

Interesting. Remember seeing pre pandemic figures of recorded flu deaths much higher than 4 a day (10s of thousands a year)

The issue I'd have with the 4 per day vs 100 per day, is that he's taken the absolute lowest interpretation for Flu and the highest for Covid (there aren't 100 people a day dying primarily of Covid). It seems a pretty sloppy comparison to the layman.

He's using the same methodology for both, no?

[Margin__Walker]

Interesting. Remember seeing pre pandemic figures of recorded flu deaths much higher than 4 a day (10s of thousands a year)

The issue I'd have with the 4 per day vs 100 per day, is that he's taken the absolute lowest interpretation for Flu and the highest for Covid (there aren't 100 people a day dying primarily of Covid). It seems a pretty sloppy comparison to the layman.

He's using the same methodology for both, no?

It doesn't feel like it.

So the ONS has England and Wales deaths from influenza as:

2018 - 1,596 (4.3 a day)
2019 - 1,213 (3.3)

So in the 4 a day in normal times ballpark

But then the ONS also have figures for Influenza and Pneumonia

2018 - 29,451 (80.7)
2019 - 26,342 (72.2)

The 100 a day Covid deaths is deaths within 28 days (from memory) of a positive covid test and will absolutely be inclusive of pneumonia and other incidental cases.

I agree that Covid is clearly the bigger threat, but the 4 v 100 figure just seems pretty disingenuous to me.

[JM2K6]

Interesting. Remember seeing pre pandemic figures of recorded flu deaths much higher than 4 a day (10s of thousands a year)

The issue I'd have with the 4 per day vs 100 per day, is that he's taken the absolute lowest interpretation for Flu and the highest for Covid (there aren't 100 people a day dying primarily of Covid). It seems a pretty sloppy comparison to the layman.

He's using the same methodology for both, no?

It doesn't feel like it.

So the ONS has England and Wales deaths from influenza as:

2018 - 1,596 (4.3 a day)
2019 - 1,213 (3.3)

So in the 4 a day in normal times ballpark

But then the ONS also have figures for Influenza and Pneumonia

2018 - 29,451 (80.7)
2019 - 26,342 (72.2)

The 100 a day Covid deaths is deaths within 28 days (from memory) of a positive covid test and will absolutely be inclusive of pneumonia and other incidental cases.

I agree that Covid is clearly the bigger threat, but the 4 v 100 figure just seems pretty disingenuous to me.

The 100 a day is deaths with Covid on the death certificate, which is his point - the FT uses figures where influenza isn't on the certificate and is just swept up in the mass of respiratory conditions etc, plenty of which won't be caused by flu. Even you're pointing at Influenza AND Pneumonia with the ONS figures... Covid might well be causing more deaths than is recorded because of the impact it has on the heart, circulatory system, and respiratory system - if you die >28 days from a stroke that you wouldn't have had were it not for Covid, you don't get recorded as a Covid death.

You don't end up with Covid on the death certificate unless it was contributory in some way.

Additionally, there's also the question of how rigorous the testing for flu is. No-one really does it the same way we test for Covid; the numbers could easily be way off - who on earth is going to be recording asymptomatic flu?

[Margin__Walker]

He's using the same methodology for both, no?

It doesn't feel like it.

So the ONS has England and Wales deaths from influenza as:

2018 - 1,596 (4.3 a day)
2019 - 1,213 (3.3)

So in the 4 a day in normal times ballpark

But then the ONS also have figures for Influenza and Pneumonia

2018 - 29,451 (80.7)
2019 - 26,342 (72.2)

The 100 a day Covid deaths is deaths within 28 days (from memory) of a positive covid test and will absolutely be inclusive of pneumonia and other incidental cases.

I agree that Covid is clearly the bigger threat, but the 4 v 100 figure just seems pretty disingenuous to me.

The 100 a day is deaths with Covid on the death certificate, which is his point - the FT uses figures where influenza isn't on the certificate and is just swept up in the mass of respiratory conditions etc, plenty of which won't be caused by flu. Even you're pointing at Influenza AND Pneumonia with the ONS figures... Covid might well be causing more deaths than is recorded because of the impact it has on the heart, circulatory system, and respiratory system - if you die >28 days from a stroke that you wouldn't have had were it not for Covid, you don't get recorded as a Covid death.

You don't end up with Covid on the death certificate unless it was contributory in some way.

Additionally, there's also the question of how rigorous the testing for flu is. No-one really does it the same way we test for Covid; the numbers could easily be way off - who on earth is going to be recording asymptomatic flu?

That's the problem with the comparison though. Unless I'm miss reading the ONS figures above here (a possibility) more than 4 a day death certs have influenza listed

[JM2K6]

It doesn't feel like it.

So the ONS has England and Wales deaths from influenza as:

2018 - 1,596 (4.3 a day)
2019 - 1,213 (3.3)

So in the 4 a day in normal times ballpark

But then the ONS also have figures for Influenza and Pneumonia

2018 - 29,451 (80.7)
2019 - 26,342 (72.2)

The 100 a day Covid deaths is deaths within 28 days (from memory) of a positive covid test and will absolutely be inclusive of pneumonia and other incidental cases.

I agree that Covid is clearly the bigger threat, but the 4 v 100 figure just seems pretty disingenuous to me.

The 100 a day is deaths with Covid on the death certificate, which is his point - the FT uses figures where influenza isn't on the certificate and is just swept up in the mass of respiratory conditions etc, plenty of which won't be caused by flu. Even you're pointing at Influenza AND Pneumonia with the ONS figures... Covid might well be causing more deaths than is recorded because of the impact it has on the heart, circulatory system, and respiratory system - if you die >28 days from a stroke that you wouldn't have had were it not for Covid, you don't get recorded as a Covid death.

You don't end up with Covid on the death certificate unless it was contributory in some way.

Additionally, there's also the question of how rigorous the testing for flu is. No-one really does it the same way we test for Covid; the numbers could easily be way off - who on earth is going to be recording asymptomatic flu?

That's the problem with the comparison though. Unless I'm miss reading the ONS figures above here (a possibility) more than 4 a day death certs have influenza listed

My understanding is the ONS figures are flu and pneumonia (and other respiratory stuff) lumped together. He explains the discrepancy with the numbers from the FT's data set. Essentially, the only way to do an apples to apples comparison (mentioned on the death certificate) changes things drastically

[C69]

Just a word of caution, death certificates are in the most part guess work and not really that useful or accurate.

Having been part of an audit team that carried out a study related to this I am less than convinced by their accuracy.

Also NHS coding generally is appalling and pretty useless.

[Biffer]

I reckon China are in a great deal of difficulty about where they go from here. Their vaccination rates amongst the oldest groups aren't so great (and are mostly Sinovac) so what's happening in Hong Kong will likely repeat across mainland China when they try to open up. The sensible public health thing to do would be to boost with an mRNA vaccine but that would be politically unacceptable.

[TB63]

Seems to be ramping up now, my S in L has it again, (3rd time), quite ill with it but not close to being hospitalised, daughter has it now. Both fully vaxxed also. Client I'm working for has it, as does all his family..

[dpedin]

Contrary to popular belief the dreaded covid hasn't gone away! I hear that some modelling is suggesting another potential wave, there are some serious concerns about some new variants emerging which seem to be more serious in causing ill health/hospitalisations running alongside the vaccine waning. Numbers are creeping up. Fingers crossed!

Don't say you weren't warned guys!

[mat the expat]

South Korea had 400, 000 cases yesterday!

[JM2K6]

I reckon China are in a great deal of difficulty about where they go from here. Their vaccination rates amongst the oldest groups aren't so great (and are mostly Sinovac) so what's happening in Hong Kong will likely repeat across mainland China when they try to open up. The sensible public health thing to do would be to boost with an mRNA vaccine but that would be politically unacceptable.

The framing here seems odd - "Hong Kong Omicron deaths expose limits of fraying zero-Covid policy"? Especially given this:

Every country in the region has faced a rude awakening after two years of minimal Covid transmission but, unlike Hong Kong, most have been spared a wave of severe illness after using the time bought by zero-Covid to vaccinate large swaths of their vulnerable population.

The whole point of zero Covid was to stamp down and eliminate the virus as much as possible while buying time for vaccination efforts, and taking measures to prevent the spread of the disease. Not vaccinating is the problem here, not the concept of zero Covid. The other countries "abandoned" zero Covid because unlike a lot of people taking a stance on these issues, they're not actually driven by ideology: they went with zero Covid for as long as possible, but accept the reality of the impossibility of preventing the spread of an incredibly infectious strain even among a mostly vaccinated population.

The focus here should be on Hong Kong's failure to vaccinate.

[Biffer]

I reckon China are in a great deal of difficulty about where they go from here. Their vaccination rates amongst the oldest groups aren't so great (and are mostly Sinovac) so what's happening in Hong Kong will likely repeat across mainland China when they try to open up. The sensible public health thing to do would be to boost with an mRNA vaccine but that would be politically unacceptable.

The framing here seems odd - "Hong Kong Omicron deaths expose limits of fraying zero-Covid policy"? Especially given this:

Every country in the region has faced a rude awakening after two years of minimal Covid transmission but, unlike Hong Kong, most have been spared a wave of severe illness after using the time bought by zero-Covid to vaccinate large swaths of their vulnerable population.

The whole point of zero Covid was to stamp down and eliminate the virus as much as possible while buying time for vaccination efforts, and taking measures to prevent the spread of the disease. Not vaccinating is the problem here, not the concept of zero Covid. The other countries "abandoned" zero Covid because unlike a lot of people taking a stance on these issues, they're not actually driven by ideology: they went with zero Covid for as long as possible, but accept the reality of the impossibility of preventing the spread of an incredibly infectious strain even among a mostly vaccinated population.

The focus here should be on Hong Kong's failure to vaccinate.

Yeah, that's pretty much what's said in the thread.

[dpedin]

I reckon China are in a great deal of difficulty about where they go from here. Their vaccination rates amongst the oldest groups aren't so great (and are mostly Sinovac) so what's happening in Hong Kong will likely repeat across mainland China when they try to open up. The sensible public health thing to do would be to boost with an mRNA vaccine but that would be politically unacceptable.

The framing here seems odd - "Hong Kong Omicron deaths expose limits of fraying zero-Covid policy"? Especially given this:

Every country in the region has faced a rude awakening after two years of minimal Covid transmission but, unlike Hong Kong, most have been spared a wave of severe illness after using the time bought by zero-Covid to vaccinate large swaths of their vulnerable population.

The whole point of zero Covid was to stamp down and eliminate the virus as much as possible while buying time for vaccination efforts, and taking measures to prevent the spread of the disease. Not vaccinating is the problem here, not the concept of zero Covid. The other countries "abandoned" zero Covid because unlike a lot of people taking a stance on these issues, they're not actually driven by ideology: they went with zero Covid for as long as possible, but accept the reality of the impossibility of preventing the spread of an incredibly infectious strain even among a mostly vaccinated population.

The focus here should be on Hong Kong's failure to vaccinate.

Exactly this!

Zero covid is a dodgy term not used by PH experts etc - I suspect what they mean is covid elimination strategy? Note - no-one suggested a covid eradication strategy!

Faced with a novel and deadly virus the priority for any country has to be stop it spreading whilst you work out what the fuck you can do to deal with it! Those countries that adopted a covid elimination strategy were trying to reduce covid cases and community transmission as much as possible until the virus was understood and a vaccine /treatment was developed. This is bog standard PH response to any epidemic or pandemic - look at the Spanish Flu over 100 years ago! These countries such as NZ now have a higher vaccination rate than the UK (78% v 73%) and are now able to open borders and reduce PH mitigations knowing that deaths will be greatly reduced. NZ deaths per pop are 100 times lower than the UK! Unfortunately HK has a lower vaccination rate that UK and is using vaccines which are less effective.

[Biffer]

I reckon China are in a great deal of difficulty about where they go from here. Their vaccination rates amongst the oldest groups aren't so great (and are mostly Sinovac) so what's happening in Hong Kong will likely repeat across mainland China when they try to open up. The sensible public health thing to do would be to boost with an mRNA vaccine but that would be politically unacceptable.

The framing here seems odd - "Hong Kong Omicron deaths expose limits of fraying zero-Covid policy"? Especially given this:

Every country in the region has faced a rude awakening after two years of minimal Covid transmission but, unlike Hong Kong, most have been spared a wave of severe illness after using the time bought by zero-Covid to vaccinate large swaths of their vulnerable population.

The whole point of zero Covid was to stamp down and eliminate the virus as much as possible while buying time for vaccination efforts, and taking measures to prevent the spread of the disease. Not vaccinating is the problem here, not the concept of zero Covid. The other countries "abandoned" zero Covid because unlike a lot of people taking a stance on these issues, they're not actually driven by ideology: they went with zero Covid for as long as possible, but accept the reality of the impossibility of preventing the spread of an incredibly infectious strain even among a mostly vaccinated population.

The focus here should be on Hong Kong's failure to vaccinate.

Exactly this!

Zero covid is a dodgy term not used by PH experts etc - I suspect what they mean is covid elimination strategy? Note - no-one suggested a covid eradication strategy!

Faced with a novel and deadly virus the priority for any country has to be stop it spreading whilst you work out what the fuck you can do to deal with it! Those countries that adopted a covid elimination strategy were trying to reduce covid cases and community transmission as much as possible until the virus was understood and a vaccine /treatment was developed. This is bog standard PH response to any epidemic or pandemic - look at the Spanish Flu over 100 years ago! These countries such as NZ now have a higher vaccination rate than the UK (78% v 73%) and are now able to open borders and reduce PH mitigations knowing that deaths will be greatly reduced. NZ deaths per pop are 100 times lower than the UK! Unfortunately HK has a lower vaccination rate that UK and is using vaccines which are less effective.

And the point being made is that the vaccination profile in China is very similar to the profile in HK. So when Omicron rips through China it'll kill millions.

[JM2K6]

I reckon China are in a great deal of difficulty about where they go from here. Their vaccination rates amongst the oldest groups aren't so great (and are mostly Sinovac) so what's happening in Hong Kong will likely repeat across mainland China when they try to open up. The sensible public health thing to do would be to boost with an mRNA vaccine but that would be politically unacceptable.

The framing here seems odd - "Hong Kong Omicron deaths expose limits of fraying zero-Covid policy"? Especially given this:

Every country in the region has faced a rude awakening after two years of minimal Covid transmission but, unlike Hong Kong, most have been spared a wave of severe illness after using the time bought by zero-Covid to vaccinate large swaths of their vulnerable population.

The whole point of zero Covid was to stamp down and eliminate the virus as much as possible while buying time for vaccination efforts, and taking measures to prevent the spread of the disease. Not vaccinating is the problem here, not the concept of zero Covid. The other countries "abandoned" zero Covid because unlike a lot of people taking a stance on these issues, they're not actually driven by ideology: they went with zero Covid for as long as possible, but accept the reality of the impossibility of preventing the spread of an incredibly infectious strain even among a mostly vaccinated population.

The focus here should be on Hong Kong's failure to vaccinate.

Yeah, that's pretty much what's said in the thread.

Ish. There's a couple of ideological jabs in there.

[Calculon]

Contrary to popular belief the dreaded covid hasn't gone away! I hear that some modelling is suggesting another potential wave, there are some serious concerns about some new variants emerging which seem to be more serious in causing ill health/hospitalisations running alongside the vaccine waning. Numbers are creeping up. Fingers crossed!

Don't say you weren't warned guys!

Nobody thinks covid has disappeared. For most people the risk of getting seriously ill from covid is small enough not to worry about it. Of course if you're more risk adverse or physiologically vulnerable to covid nothing is stopping you from continuing to wear a mask and socially isolate (if your working environment allows for it).

[JM2K6]

Contrary to popular belief the dreaded covid hasn't gone away! I hear that some modelling is suggesting another potential wave, there are some serious concerns about some new variants emerging which seem to be more serious in causing ill health/hospitalisations running alongside the vaccine waning. Numbers are creeping up. Fingers crossed!

Don't say you weren't warned guys!

Nobody thinks covid has disappeared. For most people the risk of getting seriously ill from covid is small enough not to worry about it. Of course if you're more risk adverse or physiologically vulnerable to covid nothing is stopping you from continuing to wear a mask and socially isolate (if your working environment allows for it).

It increases the risk for everyone. And there's still plenty of info coming out regarding the neurological and cardiological damage of getting Covid, even 'mild' Covid. And we know that increasing the virus reservoir increases the risk of mutation (and possible vaccine escape).

It's not right to frame this as purely a thing of "if you're particularly vulnerable or just scared, you can do x". I don't want to get Covid, but I don't want other people to get Covid either.

[dpedin]

Don't say you weren't warned guys!

Nobody thinks covid has disappeared. For most people the risk of getting seriously ill from covid is small enough not to worry about it. Of course if you're more risk adverse or physiologically vulnerable to covid nothing is stopping you from continuing to wear a mask and socially isolate (if your working environment allows for it).

It increases the risk for everyone. And there's still plenty of info coming out regarding the neurological and cardiological damage of getting Covid, even 'mild' Covid. And we know that increasing the virus reservoir increases the risk of mutation (and possible vaccine escape).

It's not right to frame this as purely a thing of "if you're particularly vulnerable or just scared, you can do x". I don't want to get Covid, but I don't want other people to get Covid either.

Calculon - why do you think we have a thing called Public Health? Sometimes we all need to take precautions to protect the health and well being of others in our community not just ourselves. We all have a role to play in stopping the spread of this highly contagious and for some a highly dangerous virus for which we still don't know its longer term effects. We don't know who might be more susceptible to serious covid or long covid. Breaking the chains of transmission by simple things like wearing a mask or isolating as much as possible if you contract it is pretty simple ask. This is even more important given we know little about what causes and what the impact is of long covid, although a lot of research is now finding out about micro clotting and the impact upon organs such as the brain, lungs and heart.

I would be happy to let someone who deliberately drinks and drive kill themselves when they crash, its their personal choice. Unfortunately they are likely to kill or hurt someone else in the process or if they don't die become a huge drain on our already stretched NHS and care services. Sure it is a personal choice for them and the chances of me being killed by a drunk driver is very, very small but we still reckon it is worth it to make it illegal and prosecute and fine/jail those that do ... for the good of public health and safety as a whole.

Sometimes good public health mitigations require everyone to play their part and not opt out because they think their risks of an adverse event are smaller than others.

[Ymx]

Well, either way, we are all catching it. Probably not many here who haven’t already. So the long term thing is happening like it or not, and it’s certainly nothing which we would or should be adding restrictions for just in case, or holding out to find out.

Unless a new much more severe strain breaks out, we won’t see restrictions again here in the UK.

I wasn’t aware there were still people wishing the covid restrictions all back still.

[dpedin]

Well, either way, we are all catching it. Probably not many here who haven’t already. So the long term thing is happening like it or not, and it’s certainly nothing which we would or should be adding restrictions for just in case, or holding out to find out.

Unless a new much more severe strain breaks out, we won’t see restrictions again here in the UK.

I wasn’t aware there were still people wishing the covid restrictions all back still.

You call them restrictions - I call them sensible mitigations, a bit like wearing safety glasses when sawing some wood, wearing gloves when taking something hot out of the oven or putting on a seat belt when I'm in a car. Wearing a mask, a bit of distancing and opening windows to allow fresh air in doesn't restrict me doing anything I want to do. I'm a 62 overweight asthmatic with dodgy knees but can still do 25mins on the cross trainer and 40 mins of weight circuits in a surgical mask in the gym - it doesn't restrict me one iota! One of my mates a surgeon and wears a mask whilst carrying out long and complex eye surgery, he doesn't think it as a restriction but rather a safety measure for others, his patients. He is still alive despite wearing a mask for hours on end for 2-3 days a week for the last 30+ years. Let's not get all hysterical and melodramatic about something pretty sensible and which mirrors what we do in lots of other parts of our lives.

I have had flu, proper flu 2 or 3 times in my life and I don't want it again if I can avoid it. I have the flu vaccine every year to protect against the different variants around each year. I would take sensible protections like wearing a mask if there was a nasty flu variant outbreak again. Like flu you are better off not catching covid at all or if you have had it before try to avoid catching the next variant down the line. The last thing I want is the need for more serious mitigations - not taking sensible mitigations now just increases the chances of having more lock downs in the future!

[Ymx]

Remind me why restrictions now will prevent future ones?

It is not still 2020 with a more severe and less transmissible disease and an unvaccinated population any more.

I think you are living on a different planet to me. (Sorry, I don’t mean that to come across rude).

[Ymx]

A good friend of mine was a massive HAD sufferer.

It was crippling, and started from having a bad illness.

Fortunately she coped with COVID after CBT treatment in the year leading up to COVID.

I imagine there are many people who must have had a horrible time of it. And those newly with healthy anxiety disorder.

[petej]

Well, either way, we are all catching it. Probably not many here who haven’t already. So the long term thing is happening like it or not, and it’s certainly nothing which we would or should be adding restrictions for just in case, or holding out to find out.

Unless a new much more severe strain breaks out, we won’t see restrictions again here in the UK.

I wasn’t aware there were still people wishing the covid restrictions all back still.

You call them restrictions - I call them sensible mitigations, a bit like wearing safety glasses when sawing some wood, wearing gloves when taking something hot out of the oven or putting on a seat belt when I'm in a car. Wearing a mask, a bit of distancing and opening windows to allow fresh air in doesn't restrict me doing anything I want to do. I'm a 62 overweight asthmatic with dodgy knees but can still do 25mins on the cross trainer and 40 mins of weight circuits in a surgical mask in the gym - it doesn't restrict me one iota! One of my mates a surgeon and wears a mask whilst carrying out long and complex eye surgery, he doesn't think it as a restriction but rather a safety measure for others, his patients. He is still alive despite wearing a mask for hours on end for 2-3 days a week for the last 30+ years. Let's not get all hysterical and melodramatic about something pretty sensible and which mirrors what we do in lots of other parts of our lives.

I have had flu, proper flu 2 or 3 times in my life and I don't want it again if I can avoid it. I have the flu vaccine every year to protect against the different variants around each year. I would take sensible protections like wearing a mask if there was a nasty flu variant outbreak again. Like flu you are better off not catching covid at all or if you have had it before try to avoid catching the next variant down the line. The last thing I want is the need for more serious mitigations - not taking sensible mitigations now just increases the chances of having more lock downs in the future!

No disadvantages at all with masking unless you are deaf and lip read. You are stuck in an ideological rut at this point. Most people shifted ages ago and anyone with school age kids knew once Delta came along with most the country having been vaccinated they were going to get it some point. We are very, very unlikely to have future lockdowns for COVID because we don't have an immune naive population. In the big random numbers game on a planet with billions of people masking is going to make diddly squat difference to future variants though definitely a negative on the plastic pollution front.

The country with the best COVID response throughout the pandemic remains Denmark for me as they made the correct decisions at the right times which includes lifting restrictions and prioritising schools.

[Tichtheid]

Denmark has had a bad winter with Covid, the current 7 day average death rate is around the 40 mark.

The UK has a population very roughly 13 times that of Denmark, for the UK that would mean a daily average of around 520 deaths.
The latest here is 138.

We haven't been in that territory since winter 20/21.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/ ... ions-today

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavir ... y/denmark/

[Ovals]

Cases increasing very rapidly in the South. Gone up fourfold in my area in the last week or so ! If the pattern is repeated acroos the country we could be in for another rough ride. I think they might have to wheel out the 2nd booster programmes very quickly.

[Enzedder]

And the point being made is that the vaccination profile in China is very similar to the profile in HK. So when Omicron rips through China it'll kill millions.

And we will learn of 127 of them

[Calculon]

I'm no expert but my understanding is that a variant that will be able to substantially evade the existing levels of immunity and then cause a severe health crises similar to the original outbreak, arising from the existing lineages in circulation, is unlikely.


The potentially greater danger is a novel “sars cov 3” coming from an animal reservoir (probably bats), same as sars cov, sars cov 2 and mers cov.

[Rinkals]

Don't say you weren't warned guys!

Nobody thinks covid has disappeared. For most people the risk of getting seriously ill from covid is small enough not to worry about it. Of course if you're more risk adverse or physiologically vulnerable to covid nothing is stopping you from continuing to wear a mask and socially isolate (if your working environment allows for it).

It increases the risk for everyone. And there's still plenty of info coming out regarding the neurological and cardiological damage of getting Covid, even 'mild' Covid. And we know that increasing the virus reservoir increases the risk of mutation (and possible vaccine escape).

It's not right to frame this as purely a thing of "if you're particularly vulnerable or just scared, you can do x". I don't want to get Covid, but I don't want other people to get Covid either.

It's a tricky one.

Anecdotally, at least, the severity of the disease seems to be falling away and public support for lockdown and other measures is declining with it.

I'm largely with you in that I don't want to get it and I don't want to pass it on and I don't want it to suddenly get out of hand and overwhelm hospitals and mortuaries.

However, there is a huge body of opinion that says that we have been over cautious and that any further lockdowns risk destroying jobs, livelihoods and mental health.

If you have a lockdown and the impact of further waves is not as serious, would people acknowledge that any amelioration was the product of lockdown or would they say that there was little risk in the first place? I'm inclined to think that there would be a lot of people thinking the latter (if my family members and others I am in contact with are anything to go by).

On the other hand, if measures are relaxed and the pandemic strikes again, it won't be much fun saying "I told you so".

[JM2K6]

Nobody thinks covid has disappeared. For most people the risk of getting seriously ill from covid is small enough not to worry about it. Of course if you're more risk adverse or physiologically vulnerable to covid nothing is stopping you from continuing to wear a mask and socially isolate (if your working environment allows for it).

It increases the risk for everyone. And there's still plenty of info coming out regarding the neurological and cardiological damage of getting Covid, even 'mild' Covid. And we know that increasing the virus reservoir increases the risk of mutation (and possible vaccine escape).

It's not right to frame this as purely a thing of "if you're particularly vulnerable or just scared, you can do x". I don't want to get Covid, but I don't want other people to get Covid either.

It's a tricky one.

Anecdotally, at least, the severity of the disease seems to be falling away and public support for lockdown and other measures is declining with it.

I'm largely with you in that I don't want to get it and I don't want to pass it on and I don't want it to suddenly get out of hand and overwhelm hospitals and mortuaries.

However, there is a huge body of opinion that says that we have been over cautious and that any further lockdowns risk destroying jobs, livelihoods and mental health.

If you have a lockdown and the impact of further waves is not as serious, would people acknowledge that any amelioration was the product of lockdown or would they say that there was little risk in the first place? I'm inclined to think that there would be a lot of people thinking the latter (if my family members and others I am in contact with are anything to go by).

On the other hand, if measures are relaxed and the pandemic strikes again, it won't be much fun saying "I told you so".

I can only speak for myself but I'm not asking for lockdown. I'm asking to reinstate some measures, for example masks and self-isolation when you're symptomatic.

[dpedin]

Nobody thinks covid has disappeared. For most people the risk of getting seriously ill from covid is small enough not to worry about it. Of course if you're more risk adverse or physiologically vulnerable to covid nothing is stopping you from continuing to wear a mask and socially isolate (if your working environment allows for it).

It increases the risk for everyone. And there's still plenty of info coming out regarding the neurological and cardiological damage of getting Covid, even 'mild' Covid. And we know that increasing the virus reservoir increases the risk of mutation (and possible vaccine escape).

It's not right to frame this as purely a thing of "if you're particularly vulnerable or just scared, you can do x". I don't want to get Covid, but I don't want other people to get Covid either.

It's a tricky one.

Anecdotally, at least, the severity of the disease seems to be falling away and public support for lockdown and other measures is declining with it.

I'm largely with you in that I don't want to get it and I don't want to pass it on and I don't want it to suddenly get out of hand and overwhelm hospitals and mortuaries.

However, there is a huge body of opinion that says that we have been over cautious and that any further lockdowns risk destroying jobs, livelihoods and mental health.

If you have a lockdown and the impact of further waves is not as serious, would people acknowledge that any amelioration was the product of lockdown or would they say that there was little risk in the first place? I'm inclined to think that there would be a lot of people thinking the latter (if my family members and others I am in contact with are anything to go by).

On the other hand, if measures are relaxed and the pandemic strikes again, it won't be much fun saying "I told you so".

No one is talking about having another lock down! It is just about taking sensible small scale PH mitigations to try and slow down the community transmission of covid, much as we do with other highly infectious diseases. Wearing a mask, distancing where possible, opening windows and ensuring good ventilation are all simple and zero cost ways of doing this. It is also about making sure the messaging is right and people are persuaded to do the right thing if they think they have covid. The hysterical response to these simple measures is beyond me and the false equivalence with these being a 'lock down' or even 'restrictions' is appalling.

There may be 'opinion' that we have been over cautious but very little evidence that supports this. The whole point of taking sensible, small scale PH mitigations now is to avoid rapid increases in cases leading to rapid increases in hospitalisations which overwhelm the NHS and ultimately having to lock down to protect the NHS. Unfortunately hospitalisations are currently trending upwards and are now over 14,000 in the UK - up about 30% from the previous week. Whilst they may be hospitalised because of or with covid doesn't make much difference within the NHS - they still need to have all the infection control measures, impact on bed numbers and the resource implications this implies.

There is no reason why future variants of covid will be milder, less harmful nor that current vaccines will offer the same level of protections, although I seriously hope they will. That's why I used flu as an example earlier - every so often we get a 'bad flu season' as a new flu strain hits us. Flu strains can be milder but can also become more severe and that is why we have annual flu vaccinations that are designed to combat that variant. Covid will probably be the same except a more harmful variant that escapes the vaccines will be very very dangerous indeed. Taking simple measures now and getting them to become the 'norm' will save a lot of heartache going forward, including the reduction in numbers of long covid.

[Biffer]

There is no reason why future variants of covid will be milder, less harmful nor that current vaccines will offer the same level of protections, although I seriously hope they will.

Well......


There may be r eason for optimism. Omicron seems to infect the airways more than the lungs - the previous variants were either more likely to infect the lungs or equally likely to do either. That's potentially one of the reasons that Omicron is more infectious - it is in the airways primarily so it's easier for it to be expelled into the air and infect others. And it's also potentially one of the reasons it's a bit less harmful; infection in the deep lungs is more likely to cause breathing difficulties and hence oxygen deficiency etc. So any more serious variant that infects the lungs again may have trouble out competing Omicron.

Lot's of maybes and potentiallys in there, but that's science for ya.

[dpedin]

There is no reason why future variants of covid will be milder, less harmful nor that current vaccines will offer the same level of protections, although I seriously hope they will.

Well......


There may be r eason for optimism. Omicron seems to infect the airways more than the lungs - the previous variants were either more likely to infect the lungs or equally likely to do either. That's potentially one of the reasons that Omicron is more infectious - it is in the airways primarily so it's easier for it to be expelled into the air and infect others. And it's also potentially one of the reasons it's a bit less harmful; infection in the deep lungs is more likely to cause breathing difficulties and hence oxygen deficiency etc. So any more serious variant that infects the lungs again may have trouble out competing Omicron.

Lot's of maybes and potentiallys in there, but that's science for ya.

Agree about omicron being milder than Delta, vaccination does a lot of heavy lifting there, but it has meant that young kids ie <4 are more exposed to infection and hospitalisation as a result as their airways are narrower and less able to cope with upper respiratory infections and they can't clear the mucus that builds up. It is a big worry in babies. Of course these age groups have not been vaccinated. In mid March covid positive hospital admission rate for <4 is about 3.5 times the previous peak in Jan 2021. Thankfully these tend to be short stays but the numbers involved are putting real pressures on paediatric services and are obviously distressing for parents.

Omicron BA.2 is now a cause of concern and although not more dangerous than omicron BA.1 per se it is much more infectious, about 50% more, and this will lead to case numbers peaking higher and faster than before which in turn will lead to higher levels of hospitalisation, given that a % of folk infected will require medical care, and pressure on the NHS. Some suggest that this new variant is almost as infectious as measles which is scary.

'Deltacron' is also a worry and combines both Delta and Omicron, however we still are not sure what impact this may have going forward in terms of how serious and infectious it might be.

So protecting the NHS depends upon not just how mild/serious the next variant is but also how infectious it is. Even a mild variant will lead to a % of those infected requiring hospitalisation and for some this might lead to serious illness and death. If lots of folk are infected all at once then obviously hospitalisation rates increase markedly and the NHS is under pressure! Scotland already has the more positive cases in hospital than it has had throughout the whole pandemic!

Its an airborne virus so wear a mask when indoors, keep your distance, open windows and maintain good ventilation.

[ASMO]

Tested positive myself yesterday, basically a mild cold nothing more, might have been worse had it not been for the vaccines though.

[Biffer]

There is no reason why future variants of covid will be milder, less harmful nor that current vaccines will offer the same level of protections, although I seriously hope they will.

Well......


There may be r eason for optimism. Omicron seems to infect the airways more than the lungs - the previous variants were either more likely to infect the lungs or equally likely to do either. That's potentially one of the reasons that Omicron is more infectious - it is in the airways primarily so it's easier for it to be expelled into the air and infect others. And it's also potentially one of the reasons it's a bit less harmful; infection in the deep lungs is more likely to cause breathing difficulties and hence oxygen deficiency etc. So any more serious variant that infects the lungs again may have trouble out competing Omicron.

Lot's of maybes and potentiallys in there, but that's science for ya.

Agree about omicron being milder than Delta, vaccination does a lot of heavy lifting there, but it has meant that young kids ie <4 are more exposed to infection and hospitalisation as a result as their airways are narrower and less able to cope with upper respiratory infections and they can't clear the mucus that builds up. It is a big worry in babies. Of course these age groups have not been vaccinated. In mid March covid positive hospital admission rate for <4 is about 3.5 times the previous peak in Jan 2021. Thankfully these tend to be short stays but the numbers involved are putting real pressures on paediatric services and are obviously distressing for parents.

Omicron BA.2 is now a cause of concern and although not more dangerous than omicron BA.1 per se it is much more infectious, about 50% more, and this will lead to case numbers peaking higher and faster than before which in turn will lead to higher levels of hospitalisation, given that a % of folk infected will require medical care, and pressure on the NHS. Some suggest that this new variant is almost as infectious as measles which is scary.

'Deltacron' is also a worry and combines both Delta and Omicron, however we still are not sure what impact this may have going forward in terms of how serious and infectious it might be.

So protecting the NHS depends upon not just how mild/serious the next variant is but also how infectious it is. Even a mild variant will lead to a % of those infected requiring hospitalisation and for some this might lead to serious illness and death. If lots of folk are infected all at once then obviously hospitalisation rates increase markedly and the NHS is under pressure! Scotland already has the more positive cases in hospital than it has had throughout the whole pandemic!

Its an airborne virus so wear a mask when indoors, keep your distance, open windows and maintain good ventilation.

I know

And none of it contradicts what I said.

[SaintK]

Tested positive myself yesterday, basically a mild cold nothing more, might have been worse had it not been for the vaccines though.

Fingers crossed for you.
I've just tested positive 9 days after my original positive test and still have head cold symptoms

[petej]

https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... ls-studies
Thought this was interesting. DWI only requested monitoring of 47 PFAs last October.
https://cdn.dwi.gov.uk/wp-content/uploa ... toring.pdf

At this rate I'm going to end up getting a reverse osmosis machine.

[Slick]

It’s got me eventually, the cunt

[petej]

There is no reason why future variants of covid will be milder, less harmful nor that current vaccines will offer the same level of protections, although I seriously hope they will.

Well......


There may be r eason for optimism. Omicron seems to infect the airways more than the lungs - the previous variants were either more likely to infect the lungs or equally likely to do either. That's potentially one of the reasons that Omicron is more infectious - it is in the airways primarily so it's easier for it to be expelled into the air and infect others. And it's also potentially one of the reasons it's a bit less harmful; infection in the deep lungs is more likely to cause breathing difficulties and hence oxygen deficiency etc. So any more serious variant that infects the lungs again may have trouble out competing Omicron.

Lot's of maybes and potentiallys in there, but that's science for ya.

Agree about omicron being milder than Delta, vaccination does a lot of heavy lifting there, but it has meant that young kids ie <4 are more exposed to infection and hospitalisation as a result as their airways are narrower and less able to cope with upper respiratory infections and they can't clear the mucus that builds up. It is a big worry in babies. Of course these age groups have not been vaccinated. In mid March covid positive hospital admission rate for <4 is about 3.5 times the previous peak in Jan 2021. Thankfully these tend to be short stays but the numbers involved are putting real pressures on paediatric services and are obviously distressing for parents.

Omicron BA.2 is now a cause of concern and although not more dangerous than omicron BA.1 per se it is much more infectious, about 50% more, and this will lead to case numbers peaking higher and faster than before which in turn will lead to higher levels of hospitalisation, given that a % of folk infected will require medical care, and pressure on the NHS. Some suggest that this new variant is almost as infectious as measles which is scary.

'Deltacron' is also a worry and combines both Delta and Omicron, however we still are not sure what impact this may have going forward in terms of how serious and infectious it might be.

So protecting the NHS depends upon not just how mild/serious the next variant is but also how infectious it is. Even a mild variant will lead to a % of those infected requiring hospitalisation and for some this might lead to serious illness and death. If lots of folk are infected all at once then obviously hospitalisation rates increase markedly and the NHS is under pressure! Scotland already has the more positive cases in hospital than it has had throughout the whole pandemic!

Its an airborne virus so wear a mask when indoors, keep your distance, open windows and maintain good ventilation.

On the under 4s. Absolute bastard of a winter like catching up on a 1.5 years of bugs. I wouldn't be surprised if every single bug isn't up by about x3.5. as for testing the under 4s-not fun.

[Ymx]

It increases the risk for everyone. And there's still plenty of info coming out regarding the neurological and cardiological damage of getting Covid, even 'mild' Covid. And we know that increasing the virus reservoir increases the risk of mutation (and possible vaccine escape).

It's not right to frame this as purely a thing of "if you're particularly vulnerable or just scared, you can do x". I don't want to get Covid, but I don't want other people to get Covid either.

It's a tricky one.

Anecdotally, at least, the severity of the disease seems to be falling away and public support for lockdown and other measures is declining with it.

I'm largely with you in that I don't want to get it and I don't want to pass it on and I don't want it to suddenly get out of hand and overwhelm hospitals and mortuaries.

However, there is a huge body of opinion that says that we have been over cautious and that any further lockdowns risk destroying jobs, livelihoods and mental health.

If you have a lockdown and the impact of further waves is not as serious, would people acknowledge that any amelioration was the product of lockdown or would they say that there was little risk in the first place? I'm inclined to think that there would be a lot of people thinking the latter (if my family members and others I am in contact with are anything to go by).

On the other hand, if measures are relaxed and the pandemic strikes again, it won't be much fun saying "I told you so".

No one is talking about having another lock down! It is just about taking sensible small scale PH mitigations to try and slow down the community transmission of covid, much as we do with other highly infectious diseases. Wearing a mask, distancing where possible, opening windows and ensuring good ventilation are all simple and zero cost ways of doing this. It is also about making sure the messaging is right and people are persuaded to do the right thing if they think they have covid. The hysterical response to these simple measures is beyond me and the false equivalence with these being a 'lock down' or even 'restrictions' is appalling.

There may be 'opinion' that we have been over cautious but very little evidence that supports this. The whole point of taking sensible, small scale PH mitigations now is to avoid rapid increases in cases leading to rapid increases in hospitalisations which overwhelm the NHS and ultimately having to lock down to protect the NHS. Unfortunately hospitalisations are currently trending upwards and are now over 14,000 in the UK - up about 30% from the previous week. Whilst they may be hospitalised because of or with covid doesn't make much difference within the NHS - they still need to have all the infection control measures, impact on bed numbers and the resource implications this implies.

There is no reason why future variants of covid will be milder, less harmful nor that current vaccines will offer the same level of protections, although I seriously hope they will. That's why I used flu as an example earlier - every so often we get a 'bad flu season' as a new flu strain hits us. Flu strains can be milder but can also become more severe and that is why we have annual flu vaccinations that are designed to combat that variant. Covid will probably be the same except a more harmful variant that escapes the vaccines will be very very dangerous indeed.

Taking simple measures now and getting them to become the 'norm' will save a lot of heartache going forward, including the reduction in numbers of long covid.

You seriously are out of touch. Your proposal completely lacks any end game.

You seem desperate to rebrand restrictions as mitigations. But you are in fact suggesting legal restrictions. Unless you are just saying to encourage people rather than make it a legal requirement?? Knock your socks off, walk the streets, wear a sign.

The whole premise to do it now, is all based on future what ifs.

If a new strain does happen and if and when hospitalisations become unmanageable then yes, otherwise of course it’s a no!

But you go ahead, wear your mask, open your windows, … but don’t expect others to.

You and your family will get it, and probably multiple times. You may have had it.

[C69]

Tested positive myself yesterday, basically a mild cold nothing more, might have been worse had it not been for the vaccines though.

Fingers crossed for you.
I've just tested positive 9 days after my original positive test and still have head cold symptoms

I am still positive after my first positive test on Sunday.
Still have cold symptoms. I had tested negative for 6 days with symptoms before my first positive result.
I can apparently go back to work with a risk assessment after 10 days even if I am still positive and don't deal with vulnerable of immunocompromised patients.

Seriously wtaf?