Re: Coronavirus
 

Funny how he’s viewed the thread since I posted this but hasn’t seen fit to comment. He very quickly offered such forthright opinions when he was convinced he was right.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Often happens to those who think that they know better.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I think this is unfair and inaccurate really.

They were right that both the Alpha and Delta waves. Witty was even right back as the initial wave was declining that we would see another peak in December 2020. The Delta wave was worse than many on his forum were saying at the time as I remember it was being downplayed then as well.

It's really this latest wave that has thankfully not proven as bad as initially feared and I suspect we're in the endgame now as each new wave is less and less serious which is how we assumed this would end.

This has not been a fun couple of years. We've had two major waves of this virus and people seem to react to that in different ways, some people are understandably anxious when they see the numbers go up and others are understandably tired of the whole thing and want to move on. If you try to remember that people aren't being vindictive in their reaction it could help.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Feared! Feared or hyped?

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...say-scientists

No one is going to listen to them anymore.

The government have lost their moral authority

Sage and independent sage and a whole host of other rent-a-gobs are spent.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I don't think SAGE are spent. The Government will always need scientific advisors even if the Government itself has lost its moral authority.

As I said there is a lot science got right in this pandemic. The initial lockdown was clearly correct and given what happened with Delta that too was the right decision which, in hindsight, the Government took too long to implement. We got the fastest developed vaccine in human history and remember it was our own experts who broke with global consensus to prioritise the first vaccine dose and who were vindicated as the numbers dropped. It was also our experts who wanted to rollout boosters faster than a lot of the world as well, that was initially before Omicron, and what a smart decision that was.

They were wrong about Omicron. I think it's understandable to be so. Like the Government with PPE and the timing of these lockdowns, you're not going to get everything right in a fast-changing environment where decisions need to be made quickly.

All of us, albeit no one here is an expert, would have got some things wrong. I remember I didn't think a vaccine would be developed in time, that herd immunity back in April 2020 was a good idea, that it would have been over a year ago and so on. I know you're not someone burdened with humility but I am sure if you were to revisit some of your predictions on how various waves would turn out there would be mistakes there too. Maybe everyone trying to own each other online about whose right and wrong is throwing stones in glass houses.

Re: Coronavirus
 

From your link

From the 1st of December, we have had over 83,000 hospital admissions and over 9,400 deaths.

Total admissions to date 23/01/2021 - 688,800
Total admissions to date 01/12/2021 - 605,123

Total Deaths within 28 days of positive test by date of death 26/01/2022 - 155,036
Total Deaths within 28 days of positive test by date of death 26/01/2022 - 145,604

https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/healthcare

https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/deaths

Looks like we are (unfortunately) on track for around 25k deaths and 200k hospital admissions, if the current figures continue.

Re: Coronavirus
 

The problem is that by the time Omicron started to bite in the UK there was mounting evidence from South Africa that it simply wasn’t as serious an infection as previous variants. This was pooh-poohed on here by certain posters who seem to have no concept of disagreeing well with those who hold a different view than their own. The mere suggestion that we might learn something from elsewhere in the world was rejected as some sort of Bullingdon club plot and South Africa’s relatively younger population held up as somehow self-evident proof that we could learn nothing from them. I think it ought to have been obvious that whatever the demographic differences things simply couldn’t be so different that we couldn’t risk taking serious note of what was going on,

The data from the last 4 weeks demonstrates that South Africa told us everything we needed to know about Omicron, and just how far we actually needed to trash Christmas and New Year in fear of it. The obvious over-reaction in Whitehall and particularly in the devolved administrations will come back to bite us all on the bum if we have to go through all this again because people will be less willing to believe another cry of “wolf”.

Personally I’d love it if some people on here were a little less quick to use the pandemic as a means of demonstrating their supposed moral superiority. And no, I don’t think that means we can’t disagree; I do think it means we need to stop attributing craven self-interest or ideology to those who view things differently.

Re: Coronavirus
 

“Optimistic” and or “realistic” projections we can get board with.

But as we all know, and as was admitted to Fraser Nelson by a sage scientist, only Worst Case scenarios are put forward, and ( not sage’s fault) grabbed by the MSM and pushed by them.

---------- Post added at 22:17 ---------- Previous post was at 22:15 ----------

Amen.

Re: Coronavirus
 

This was very fast-moving though, we're talking about new data coming out every day, and there was also concern on exactly what the data was telling us.

I think you can forgive scientists and the Government for acting with caution when presented with incomplete data. Even if it was only because of their experiences with not being cautious enough a year earlier. Remember this was spreading at an alarming rate so if something about that South African data turned out not to be applicable here the hospitalisation rate would have been huge and a couple of weeks delay means you don't have the luxury of waiting. You need to make a call.

I would hope the relative success we've had over the last two years would give people faith that we're actually quite capable people in dealing with this. The science got most of it right and getting some things wrong doesn't invalidate that, they'll get more things wrong I am sure.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Yet Her Majesty's most glorious Government produces data that indicates the third dose of the vaccine (some 18 million mRNA doses since the start of December) is having the impact of significantly reducing the risk of both symptomatic infection and hospitalisation.

(Page 25)

https://assets.publishing.service.go...nuary-2022.pdf

The so-called "over-reaction" is far from obvious, even if the worst case scenarios never came to pass through voluntary behavioural changes, school closures limiting transmission, more working from home, etc.

There was no rush back to the pre-pandemic economy in the days of 30,000 infections 100 odd deaths in October. It's fantasy to imagine that six figures of cases and 300 odd deaths a day will bring back the halcyon days of 2019.

Re: Coronavirus
 

All of which is less Jfman and more strawman. Maybe you should change your forum username.

Re: Coronavirus
 

It’s hardly a straw man unless you genuinely believe 20 million boosters had no impact on hospitalisations or deaths (against the scientific studies by the Government you usually so rubustly defend).

Re: Coronavirus
 

It's the press who are fault here, not the scientists. They pick up figures from these studies and run with them with to regard to the uncertainties. That 75,000 figure in the Guardian who are amongst the worst for this is the worst case where previous immunity and booster effectiveness is poor.

The London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicines study is very clear on what was known and not known at that time;

Here is the study BTW

It looks like the whole study assumed that the severity of Omicron was the same as for Delta. Without good data at that time, they can only work with the information they do have and therefore used an existing variant as the baseline.

As always, the question needs to be asked is what are the consequences of being wrong? Over reacting and locking down hard when it wasn't needed will affect economies. Under reacting and not locking down when it was needed will kill people

Re: Coronavirus
 

. . . applies to almost all stories thrown about with nothing but mayhem and backstabbing in mind.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I quite like this virus sometimes... :)
https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-e...-b2003747.html

Re: Coronavirus
 

My triple vaccinated sister had it last week ,she said she felt really bad the symptoms were awful.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Just as well she’s had all 3 then - if she’s still that susceptible after two vaccines plus the booster, then without them she might well have ended up in hospital.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Pretty much all of us have one of those, it doesnt mean it always copes well with everything (and everyone is different).

Re: Coronavirus
 

One of the more annoying things about COVID is how some aspects of it have just become part of the culture war. So people don't take the vaccine or wear a mask purely to make a statement, or people make a show about how concerned they are and insist they will wear an N95 mask everywhere and stay indoors because 'it's not over yet'. Everyone suddenly taking Ivermectin just because it's become this rallying point for American culture warriors is another example.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Well it shows the bad decisions made by the gov, and all bull sheet spouted by the rent-a-gob scientists and doctors.

The vaccine(s) are great at preventing you, personally, from getting really Ill………..and that is about it.

By taking the vaccine you are not saving granny, Helping anyone ( other than yourself) or doing diddlysquat.

The vaccines are for personal protection. This is were the narrative had to change and most of the population said screw it.

Thankfully it’s over now. Wear a mask if you need to but we’re all past that now.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Quite a lot is virtue signalling these days to be honest...

Re: Coronavirus
 

I think that choice of terminology underlines Damien's point.

Re: Coronavirus
 

https://www.newscientist.com/article...re-vaccinated/ https://www.news-medical.net/news/20...ssibility.aspx https://www.osfhealthcare.org/blog/f...-19-to-others/

Re: Coronavirus
 

Nah I think he's got it.

My point is there is a lot of performance to it now. This guy wears a t-shirt proclaiming he won't get the vaccine and he is taking treatments with little medical backing because it's become a thing over in America. People who won't respect a shop's request to wear a mask as a point of principle.

But there is some the other way too where people announce to the world that the pandemic isn't over and they, being the good citizens they are, have decided they're going to stay in lockdown or whatever.

People just need to chill out a bit. Not everything has to be a fight.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Just goes to show how successful the fear mongering by Govenment and MSM has been.

Those who (rightly IMHO) didn't believe it naturally rebel.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Yes, guess the 156,000 UK deaths are just down to fear mongering...

Anyway, let's hope lovely Lawrence Fox is OK and doesn't develop any complications from being a rebel without a cause...

Re: Coronavirus
 

Had a feeling this would never happen.

"U-turn on mandatory Covid vaccinations for NHS and social care workers"

Linkage-1

Linkage-2

Re: Coronavirus
 

About time.
It made no sense at all, and given that Wales, Scotland and [likely] Northan Ireland had no plans to do the same, just made them look like nanny state fools.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I don't.

Re: Coronavirus
 

How many virtue signalling gob shytes will refuse treatment by the unclean :shrug:

Re: Coronavirus
 

well the obvious question then, in such "overwhelming" evidence, is why the need for restrictions in a highly vaccinated population?

Re: Coronavirus
 

We've been through this before but the concern was that Omicron had significant vaccine escape and the vaccine doesn't stop you from getting COVID, it helps reduce the chances of getting COVID, then if that fails it reduces the chances of serious symptoms and so on.

It's all a percentage game but when you're dealing with very high numbers, 67 million people in the UK, then those numbers can add up quickly.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Well, they can always be given the option to refuse treatment from an unvaccinated member of staff and then drop further behind in the queue to wait for a vaccinated one?

Not sure their issue with it either. They're presumably routine tested to ensure they don't have covid, and may have medical or other reasons not to be vaccinated. And as has already recently been emphasised on here getting vaccinated neither stops you getting or spreading covid anyway.


Definite virtue signalling. They're acting more superior because they're vaccinated.

Re: Coronavirus
 

You can't do virtue signalling unless you have virtues to signal...

Knowing that the vaccine;

• Reduces infection, meaning that you are available to do your job and not isolating
• Reduces symptomatic disease
• Reduces hospitalisation, freeing up NHS resources
• Reduces mortality so there's a good chance they will come back to work
• Reduces transmission, making society safer as a whole

You would have to question someone working in the healthcare field who refused the vaccine, putting themselves and those around them at risk

Re: Coronavirus
 

Minor correction …. You can’t do virtue signalling unless you possess the things perceived as virtuous by your peer group. Which means falling on your sword rather than getting vaccinated is highly virtuous if you’re trying to impress your anti-vax Facebook mates.

Re: Coronavirus
 

And some who spent a life time denying science now see themselves as leading experts in it now they are jabbed.

Re: Coronavirus
 

How many gob shytes, or their families, will complain if they contract covid in hospital from the staff ? :shrug:

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

If you turn up to hospital after a car accident and the doctor says your legs hanging off but i can save it, but i haven't had any covid jabs and no other doctor/ surgeon is available, do you want them to proceed with the operation or do you want to stay in the ambulance until you bleed to death :shrug:

Re: Coronavirus
 

Well, first of all I don't see any reason why the vast majority wouldn't get vaccinated. As you say, even if it doesn't eliminate, it reduces covid outcomes, and reduces them more effectively the more severe the outcome. Protecting others is a sideshow to getting yourself protected but it's all still important.


I don't realistically see why anyone, especially those working in the front line of the NHS, or any job where they are in contact with a lot of people, shouldn't be vaccinated.


Nor do I see the logic in anyone refusing the vaccination unless they have a valid medical or other reason not to.


But, we do not live in a country where vaccination is mandatory, nor should we. People ultimately do have and should have that choice.


NHS workers should be no different from this. It is ultimately their risk if they decline protection against the virus, though there is still the ongoing discussion over the relative protections of having the virus vs vaccination. I would assume at this stage that virus testing, use of PPE, etc, is still being used for anyone (given the immune escape of Omicron vs prior infection).



I guess they could make it a contractual obligation for NHS workers to be vaccinated or have a valid exception and then dismiss the others. But ultimately this move would exacerbate an existing staff shortage which is presumably one reason why it hasn't been done.


And this only goes so far to addressing the view of a patient who is refusing to get treated by an unvaccinated NHS worker. This is virtue signalling as it's projecting your virtue that everyone should be vaccinated, onto someone who you are dealing with, whose vaccination status you have no right to know, and assuming other mitigations are in place to reduce the chance you will get covid from them, no risk to you anyway. Presumably these also apply the no vaccinated rule to bus drivers, delivery drivers, supermarket workers, and anyone else they come into any form of contact in their lives? You are mainly correct, but it still is virtue signalling, amongst other things.



There's nothing wrong with good vaccine takeup but people should stick to their own business.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Would you not have an expectation that going to a hospital whose sole purpose is your good health that staff should take all reasonable efforts to ensure exactly that? It's not protecting your virtue, it's protecting your health.

I am taking my daughter to a hospital appointment this week and if my daughter or I were to get infected from an unvaccinated health provider, should I shrug my shoulders and say that's the price to pay for someone else's freedom?

Re: Coronavirus
 

But it does reduce the chance of you spreading it, or having severe symptoms/being hospitalised.

Not much in this world is 100% effective (for example, even though cars have brakes, there are still car crashes all the time, but I don’t hear a widespread outcry for people to be allowed to not have brakes/seatbelts/airbags in their cars), but surely a reduction in infection/severity is worthwhile. According to your logic, wearing a seatbelt is "virtue signalling".

https://www.sciencemediacentre.org/e...lege-hospital/

Re: Coronavirus
 

You could always sue…

Re: Coronavirus
 

No it isn't.


But someone going round banging on doors of cars where people aren't, or drawing overt attention to the fact that they are wearing a seatbelt, would be virtue signalling.


I do understand that the vaccines reduce the risk even if they don't eliminate it...

I'd expect that the hospital would have mitigations in place to ensure that staff or other patients did not spread infectious diseases.


Not just covid, but other infections like norovirus, flu, colds, MRSA, etc etc.


In the case of specifically covid, we know that even vaccinated people can spread it, so the chance of getting from an unvaccinated person exists similarly that the chance of getting it from a vaccinated person does.


So they should be doing daily LFTs, regular PCRs as often as is practical, wearing proper surgical PPE and changing it when it's contaminated, ventilation systems checked, adequate cleaning, it's all part of the jigsaw to keep people safe where there are sick people and germs all over.


I'm pro-vaccination, it's the best way we have out of this, and the best solution we have to stopping people getting covid, but no vaccine is perfect, it's one tactic. So actually, whilst I largely agree with you, they shouldn't be relying on that a staff member is vaccinated to say that this staff member is OK to act without other precautions anyway. And as these precautions would identify if someone is covid positive then they would equally apply to non vaccinated staff. That's sensible really.

Re: Coronavirus
 

But wouldn't reduction of risk be better than the increased possibility of a sick child - suing won't help the child's health.

---------- Post added at 15:17 ---------- Previous post was at 15:15 ----------

1 - have to say, I've not seen anyone going around telling everyone they're vacccinated

2 - You keep posting this, but that does not make it true - being vaccinated reduces the risk of spreading COVID.

Re: Coronavirus
 

1. I meant more banging on car doors of people not wearing seat belts pointing out this fact. Like vaccinated people banging on at unvaccinated people that they aren't vaccinated.


2. Yes. It reduces it but it does not eliminate it, which is what I'm saying :) We are both right.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

In a thread deliberately designed to allow us to share our experiences of the vaccine programme?

This is pretty desperate even for you.

Re: Coronavirus
 

You said There’s actually a lesser chance, not similar, of being infected by a vaccinated person.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I said similarly. The chance exists to get covid from a vaccinated person. As it does from getting an unvaccinated person... ;)
It doesn't mean that the chance is necessarily the same ...

Re: Coronavirus
 

Masks do that (so everyone keeps telling us :erm:).
So front line NHS staff are all still using them (and generally insisting patients / visitors do as well) what's the issue ? or do masks suddenly not work now ?

Re: Coronavirus
 

I think N95 ones are pretty effective, our cloth ones much less so (much less than the vaccine).

With the NHS though I think the unvaccinated staff members take daily tests.

Re: Coronavirus
 

You keep posting this, but that does not make it true. ;)

Is there evidence that vaccinations reduce the actual transmissibility of the virus ?

As I understand it, they reduce the chance of you being ill, and mean your body is better prepared to fight it off quicker, so there may be a shorter period in which you can pass it on, but I dont think they reduce you risk of passing it on while actually infected ?

Re: Coronavirus
 

Here is some stuff on that: https://fullfact.org/online/neil-oli...ccines-effect/

So yes although less so if you're in the same household (which i guess means prolonged exposure to the virus).

Here is some more on it: https://www.newscientist.com/article...re-vaccinated/

And obviously if you have a reduced chance of getting it then you can't spread it at all.

Re: Coronavirus
 

The Foreign Secretary has just tested postive for Covid. Silly girl didn't wear a mask in Parliament today either. Let's hope she doesn't bring down half the Govt. down, actually that might improve things ....

Outbreak at my office too, so much for the muppets that went back !

Re: Coronavirus
 

Zahawi tested positive as well.


And I had noticed earlier the mask wearing is now a bit more mixed, as it is generally anywhere.

Re: Coronavirus
 

she was facing the opposition benches, how far do droplets travel :erm:

Re: Coronavirus
 

2 sword lengths apart apparently, 3.96m, for obvious reasons... Be more worried if I was sat next to her, and in Bozzas little meeting afterwards which she attended with all the Tory MPs. It was after that, she decided to take a test...:dunce:

Re: Coronavirus
 

I was in my house for 3 weeks with my daughter, and then wife, both getting infected - it still never made it past my body's defences. ;)

Re: Coronavirus
 

We're riding that wave now - my eldest has it and the rest of us don't. Her red line came up in seconds so she must be riddled with it! Doing daily testing right now to cover options for a hospital appointment later this week. Touch wood, we will keep getting negative results...

Re: Coronavirus
 

We eventually got a hit too when the daughter (2 jabs) tested positive beginning of January and tested positive for a whole 3 weeks. She works from home, as does the wife, and they share the kitchen table (large kitchen/diner) as a workspace. Neither the wife or myself (both 3 jabs) tested positive during that time.

:shrug:

Re: Coronavirus
 

I have a pretty heavy cold, usual stuff for this time of year, in fact, I rarely pick up anything, must be the red wine :p:
Did I take a test, nope, and have no intention of doing so.

Re: Coronavirus
 

You potentially should if you're off out anywhere as there's a reasonable chance it could actually be covid.


But in the hypothetical sense, where exactly do we draw the line with this ultimately being "over"? I'd personally right now draw the line at asymptomatic testing; though there is a possibility someone has covid with no symptoms at all, it's probably more likely they do have some, even if it's just mild tiredness, headache, a slightly iffy throat, blocked nose etc. If you're not coughing or sneezing all over the place which forces out then any aerosols are going to come from breathing, talking, singing, etc which isn't as much. Longer term we can't keep testing anyone with any symptoms which aren't normal for them because we'd still need to be giving out LFTs and keeping them around just in case. At some point that does have to end.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I think it will just tail off. This summer will probably be the most 'normal' we've had since this started with no restrictions and low rates once again as people are outdoors more.

Next winter is the big question mark now. Can we get through it without another outbreak that leads to hospitalisation? Will there be another booster program in September and if so, who qualifies?

The final stage will be if it just resembles a normal flu season. Testing might stop then?

Re: Coronavirus
 

Cerebral venous thrombosis, thromboembolism and thrombocytopenia are three reasons some quack gave on the radio the other day

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

Why wouldn't you get a test? Surely it's good to know if you could potentially COVID to others?

It's free and takes 15 minutes...

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

What about anyone else you came into contact with? They may be worse affected than you ?

Re: Coronavirus
 

You are more likely to get those from the disease than the vaccine

https://www.bmj.com/content/bmj/374/.../F1.medium.jpg

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

I think you would want to know because then you would also know you've got even better immunity when combined with the vaccine. I wish I had got an antibody test done before getting the very first vaccine to see if I ever had it in the initial wave.

Re: Coronavirus
 

If you know then you have to self isolate upon pain of £1,000 fine. If not then you don't.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

That seems so strange to me. I tested to make sure I was clear to see other people and not spread anything to them (and for work as many of my customers require a clear test to visit their sites) Without knowing who you might meet that is vulnerable, it feels the right thing to do.

It certainly wasn't regularly, only if I had sniffles or a few days after riskier events such as watching the Euros or celebrating New Years down the pub. Looking at the NHS app, up until this week, 11 tests in total (more now as I am a contact to a COVID positive daughter and so testing daily)

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

I knew he was a quack! He was quite assertive in his claims of vaccine embolism effecting his colleagues in hospitals though

Re: Coronavirus
 

Because if it’s positive, you have to isolate.

You don’t do that for flu, so why for omicron, which is similar?

Re: Coronavirus
 

Parroting the Telegraph line, I see…

Re: Coronavirus
 

True though!

Re: Coronavirus
 

It's certainly an argument worth making.


Isolation makes sense, where the risks of having the person out to others are obvious.



Less so when the person being infectious is less of a risk to others they may infect.


So this can go several ways. And it all depends on the exact situation.


If you have something like noro, which usually goes away after a day or so, after making your room look like a scene from Bridesmaids, and in most cases doesn't really make any lasting effects on people, the unpleasantness of the illness is a bit meh but the vast majority will recover perfectly fine, though you'd still be a bit of a dick to infect others which is why a lot of schools and workplaces do prefer 48 hours after last puke or diarrhoea before allowing people back - which is a form of isolation isn't it?


Colds, yeah, they're mild and unpleasant but people don't usually think about stopping when they do get one, maybe they should. Maybe we shouldn't be so phobic of getting mild illnesses, this has only recently become a thing (aside from practising good hand hygiene etc).



Flu kind of forces it because - aside from the serious infections still progressing to more severe outcomes - most people recover but whilst ill don't feel up to doing much. But again the virus itself is forcing the isolation isn't it?


So where did covid sit at various points in the pandemic?


Well, at the start it was a virus we knew very little of besides a fair amount of short term effects, medium and long term effects were not known, it hadn't been around enough, more crucially, we had no idea how to treat it, and nothing to prevent it. We knew it could put people in hospital, we knew it could cause deaths, so isolation to prevent others getting infection was a very sensible policy.


Where were we with vaccination? Well, they always have and still do prevent severe outcomes, and have an effect if not complete on infection and transmission: this effect has waned with various variants with Delta (where you'd need a booster to nigh-on prevent it) and Omicron (where the protection usually causes some illness once infected). Isolation in a vaccinated population makes significantly less sense when the progression to more severe outcomes is lessened.


And Omicron? So yeah, we know by now it's very infectious, we know it can partially sidestep immunity from infection or vaccination, we also know that especially in these situations, the illness which does arise may well be unpleasant but is milder, and NPIs make less effect because of the transmissibility gains. So, isolation is starting to make less sense.


All of this is making covid progress into a more cold/flu like illness, which of course doesn't have mandatory isolation. If the response is proportionate, then something's not consistent there.



FWIW, I do think people should consider - or limit - leaving home if they have any signs of infectious disease, and though the effect is partial at best, should consider a face covering to try and reduce the amount of virus they emit. But, then, if the virus isn't going to cause more than an illness for 2-3 days, how much benefit does this have?

It's a classic case of risk balancing, there's answers, but not a single correct one which suits every situation.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Can't believe you're still spouting that long debunked comparison.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Is it?

Re: Coronavirus
 

Little Jimmy's at it again.

Scottish National Party ministers plan to spend £300,000 chopping the bottoms off hundreds of classroom doors to try and stop the spread of Covid in schools.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics...box=1643821386 (doesn't appear to be paywalled, at least not for me).

Re: Coronavirus
 

It's a skiver's charter, no one should need to isolate for a cold.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Maybe becasue it isnt ' long debunked'.
The symptoms of omicron are similar to flu, making it harder to tell the difference (feel free to use google).

---------- Post added at 01:47 ---------- Previous post was at 01:44 ----------

Its paywalled here.

As i cant read it, it makes no sense, how is it supposed to stop the spread :confused:

Re: Coronavirus
 

It would be cheaper and less hassle if they just left it ever so slightly ajar. :D

Re: Coronavirus
 

New study by John Hopkins university claims "Lockdowns" caused more harm than good and only prevented 0.2% deaths.

https://www.wcjb.com/2022/02/03/econ...hopkins-study/

the actual study paper is here.

https://sites.krieger.jhu.edu/iae/fi...-Mortality.pdf

So it was all worth it then.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Well that's a good question - is there an argument for isolating for flu? There is a strong culture of work presenteeism in this country that you don't see in other countries which certainly has the potential for frankly unnecessary spread of a disease which does kill.

Here is a comparison between COVID and inflenza from the BMJ

How many lives being saved is the limit to justify isolation programmes? 30,000 lives being lost in a bad flu year seems a hell of a lot. The Infection Fatality Rate for Omicron seems to be a bit up in the air at the moment with things slowly becoming clearer. What we have seems to be good news. I do feel a conversation needs to be had on what we as a society are willing to accept as an acceptable number of deaths.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Don't forget that if you've lost someone that's one too many regardless of the stats.


Covid is/was a novel virus. It was bound to cause problems both medically and epidemiologically as we had no natural immunity either as individuals or as a society.


The far east was badly hit by the 18/19/20 flu epidemic hence the tendency there to mask up in flu season. Was that due to it being bad flu or that their population was more susceptible? Maybe both, that flu killed a lot of people worldwide.


The problem is that we can't go back and try again with different approaches much though a number of "residents" of Westminster may wish they could. The approach taken was likely the sensible one given what was known at the time and the effect it did have on health services.


Going forward is going to be interesting. How will the next variant present? How do we deal with that? Remember the concern about household pets being vectors? Dogs are easy but cats? What would happen if cats were shown to be an unaffected vector? Vaccinate all the cats? Cat masks? Isolate your moggie? What if some "cute" wild critter was a vector? Imagine the outcry if need to cull off hedgehogs/voles/otters?

Re: Coronavirus
 

Flu does kill people. But there are vaccines, and the issue is usually pre-empted well enough by vaccinating those at risk of complications if they do get flu. We didn't get that with covid and even now the vaccines are still playing catch up as they were designed for viruses with far less mutated spikes than now.


Hindsight is great and I'm sure a few would have their own ideas how to deal with it. But I think generally speaking they have tried to keep things open as much as possible whilst keeping the virus under control at hospitalisation level.



The first lockdown made perfect sense as we had little idea about the virus at all, but knew it was dangerous enough to be an issue from Italy. However, after then wiping it out to lower numbers they then decided to open up foreign holidays without much control which brought it back. The tiers were a bit of a waste of time (presumably they didn't think people might leave the tiers if the next town had pubs open and they didn't) but again seemed to be down to keeping things open as much as possible. Locking down for Alpha made sense and the lockdown along with vaccination brought the virus down but I think there they might have been a bit slower to open up, and for various reasons, chose to then open up after Delta had come in, which seems to be right. Plan B measures I'm not sure actually did anything much, but at least avoided the Goves etc wanting more...

Re: Coronavirus
 

I think you need to keep up, Grimmy. Omicron is not like the original strains.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Scam email received today regarding NHS passport . . .

"Coronavirus (COVID-19) vaccination - NHS - National Health Service (UK) 2022 04/02/2022

Hard Copy and Digital Covid-19 Passport


Hello 'my email address, not my name'

The NHS is performing selections for coronavirus vaccination on the basis of family genetics and medical history.

Through the certificate, the Commission intends to remove travel restrictions as entry bans, quarantine obligation, and testing.

Those holding such a document will be able to travel throughout Europe without the need to quarantine or test for COVID-19

Please confirm or reject your invitation by selecting an option below:

N H S *UK- ACCEPT Invitation > >


N H S *UK- Reject Invitation > >



Who can use this service

The Passport will be issued to all those who have been fully vaccinated against the Coronavirus, with one of the four vaccines approved by the National Medicine Agency, which are:

AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Moderna and Janssen (Johnson & Johnson)

auto generated id: a80e8612a00d2b7e0416397d012e46

The certificate will prove that its holder has been vaccinated while also containing additional information on the vaccine, as when the doses were administered, who is the manufacturer, etc.

[ 7412d47139M71l ]


You are required to reply to this invitation within 24 hours of this notification."

As you can see, my name isn't mentioned as a recipeint, only my email address.
The email address it came from is . . . NHS News Notification <news337548.181353428@>

Bloody poor show if it's legit :erm:

Re: Coronavirus
 

Just to be clear that isn't legit.

Re: Coronavirus
 

He did start with scam email.

Re: Coronavirus
 

He also ended with this, which would be what Damien was replying to ;)
I got something similar the other day, and just binned it.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Not really leading by example.
https://news.sky.com/story/health-mi...esult-12537038

Re: Coronavirus
 

Hope she's ok.

Re: Coronavirus
 

It's time that rule was changed. It is being broken pretty extensively, and I know that from the people in my circle and in my wife's circle.

Like the social distancing and mask wearing, it should be left to individuals to decide. Covid is no longer the undefeatable menace it once was, and Omicron is weaker too.

---------- Post added at 09:22 ---------- Previous post was at 09:21 ----------

The positive test may well be the only indication she gets of having the virus, papa.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Why didn't she do the LFT at home and wait for the result before meeting others?