Re: Coronavirus
 

Pensions will be reduced by some factor yet to be arranged. State pension age is now 80. House is not that big anyway and being good parents want somewhere to host visits. Don't trust French self driving car not to go all revolutionary and start to drive on the wrong side of the road. Hydrogen fuel much better idea than electric.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Didn't realise the scale of this inquiry.
https://www.itv.com/news/2022-05-18/...-covid-inquiry

Re: Coronavirus
 

A few important words

Think, feel, is said, thought, suggesting

Re: Coronavirus
 

No more clap for the NHS, let's just deny their lived experience.

The evidence is already out there - downgrading of the need for FFP3 or equivalent masks to surgical masks on the basis of lack of supply, as opposed to the appropriateness of their use.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Lived experience, you’re a bit late to the party jumping on that expression.

“Lived Experience” (what other experience is there?) Is subjective. It is a persons perception of an event. A report must deal in facts and only facts.

I don’t deny their experience, but it comes with an articulated lorry full of bias.

If I was in court, I would not want to be convicted on how someone felt. This inquiry could indeed lead to more serious actions if it is found that anyone was criminally negligent.

So, I don’t deny their “lived experience” I just don’t factor it, into any report.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Well, presumably you don’t factor it into any report because nobody is asking you to produce any report.

Which is probably useful given your inherent bias against witness statements outlined above.

Re: Coronavirus
 

And 1st prize to “ignore everything from anyone else and plough on with my own agenda even though I’ve just been called out”………..goes to you. Congrats!

Re: Coronavirus
 

Oh no Pierre I couldn’t possibly take your prize off of you. The tireless effort you’ve put in over the last two years merits it.

It’s quite funny seeing you accuse me of something you provide an excellent demonstration of a mere three posts ago.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I insist

I’m all ears….or eyes……..lay it out for me, so my granny would understand.

Re: Coronavirus
 

No need, Pierre. The thread will only become ever more tedious.

I welcome the public inquiry being taken forward in the traditional form. Witness statements, expert evidence, documents in the public record and trying to establish facts in that way rather than dismissing potentially uncomfortable evidence out of hand.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I insist

Facts! You want facts now? Well it’s good you now ask for facts instead of feelings and lived experience.

You can twist better than Chubby Checker.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Ah bless, Pierre.

Had you not selectively interpreted my initial post (a severe challenge you your “debating” style I know) I already acknowledged the importance of documentary evidence alongside witness statements.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I notice Hunt is now playing "Captain Hindsight" about lockdowns (reported in several places but this was the first on google):



Nothing wrong, in principle, with what he said - except for that we had nothing like the required T&T system at all, certainly not on the scale needed, and certainly not on the scale they had already in the Far East, as a former HS he would know this of course. And even then we had enough issues getting tests in that we were only able to test hospital admissions for months on end, all through the first "lockdown".



So how can you apply a T&T system in the community where it has to be, with insufficient tests and not the capacity to do the required contact tracing - in an environment where you're using this to avoid lockdown restrictions and so people are also able to do what they want (and so may not even know their contacts)? It's just sounding like point scoring. The idea is sensible in itself but it works best off a low infection rate (to keep the numbers down) and if you have the kit to do it.


Though the fundamental idea of isolating those with the virus (and either isolating close contacts or telling them to be vigilant/take tests) whilst allowing everyone else to carry on unimpeded is sensible, it does rely on knowing who has the virus.


Also, I don't recall him saying this at the time - probably because it contradicted the "group think" and banging pans to save the NHS which was going on around this time 2 years back.

Re: Coronavirus
 

You’re stating that as if Government couldn’t have intervened to create testing capacity at an earlier stage (e.g. the wasted weeks pushing the scientifically disproven herd immunity) - something Hunt as PM (the hypothetical scenario he was offered in the interview) would presumably have some authority to push forward.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ng-policy.html

https://news.sky.com/story/coronavir...aster-11965201

A quick Google search throws up Hunt calling for community testing in March 2020, so I think the “Captain Hindsight” insult is unfair in this case. It’s in the nature of the question he was asked and he himself acknowledges the chances are he would have made different mistakes.

Re: Coronavirus
 

The chemicals required for testing were in short supply around the world.
South Korea wasn't initially testing everybody and the people were ok with what was required for Tracing purposes.

Re: Coronavirus
 

You are creating the impression that the title of Captain Hindsight should be passed to you.

I must say that you are a very strong candidate and you have my support. Don't say I never do anything for you! :D

---------- Post added at 19:34 ---------- Previous post was at 18:51 ----------

Whatever the rights and wrongs, I think the government threw everything into this, and those who criticise the initiatives what went wrong are simply Gogglewatch commentators who aren’t much good at anything else.

The government did what they could, and with the Astro Zeneca vaccine - well, they pulled a blinder.

And all you can do is criticise. Thank God you weren’t in charge! We’d still be hiding under the stairs!

Re: Coronavirus
 

Less of your nonsense, OB. Anyone can see that I’ve simply interjecting - ironically to defend a Conservative politician - to show that he had been pushing for a mass testing strategy early on in the pandemic.

I’m not sure you’ll find a post where I advocate hiding under stairs. I can find plenty of yours pushing much discredited “herd immunity”. How’s that coming along?

What’s the Astro Zeneca vaccine do they give that to spacemen to counter the effects of radiation up there?

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

I think you consider it as people having antibodies which reduce the chance of infection and the severity of infection.

Getting the vaccine or having had a previous infection should help stop you from getting COVID, if it doesn't then it should stop you from getting a bad case of COVID, if not then it should stop hospitalisations, if not then at least stop you going into the ICU and if it fails there then hopefully it'll stop you dying. It's a certain % decrease in the chances of all these things depending on the individual.

When this started I remember Chris Witty (or one of them) saying that you would get 'waves' of infection but each wave should be better than the last as immunity builds up, that's what we've seen.

Re: Coronavirus
 

ONS study alert - How coronavirus (COVID-19) compares with flu as a cause of death

This study goes nicely in to 'deaths with' and 'deaths due to' statistics and compares mortality due to COVID and pneumonia/flu since the start of pandemic. At some points, deaths due to COVID were up to 32x the deaths due to pneumonia/flu

Re: Coronavirus
 

There is no chance of antibodies preventing infection and that applies to any Vaccine. Antibodies play no part in preventing infection of the person vaccinated.

I am sure jonbxx can explain it better than me but here goes.

The immune system is very complicated but has a very good memory, there is no such thing as an antibody per se, antibodies are a combination of T cell, B cells (and others) which fight an infection.

So, if a vaccinated person never gets infected then the immune system plays no part.

However, if a vaccinated person gets infected then the combination of T cells etc are already active and know what to do to fight it. This leads to reduced severity, hospitalisation and death because the immune system doesn't have to remember what worked as the solution is still active. This reduces the reaction time before the bodies defenses go into action, they are already there. This is the reason for the booster shots, they keep the solution the immune system worked out active.

So, if you've digested that then let's take it a little further.

I get infected bya non-vaccinated person so the viral load passed on to me is high.

My immune system is prepared to fight back immediately (it doesn't need to refer back to memory) because I'm fully vaccinated and boosted.

Now even though I'm "protected" my immune system gets overloaded due to the viral load and I start feeling ill or "out of sorts" until my immune system brings in the reinforcements it needs. However I may not realise I have contracted covid due to the symptoms.

Then I go and meet up with Seph for whatever, my viral load should be less than the unvaccinated person who passed (perhaps asyptomatic) to me albeit unknowingly.

Now Seph has caught it form me but the viral load is less so his immune system can deal with it easily and wipes it out quickly in his system and no viral load to transmit because my viral load was much less and Seph's immune system wasn't overwhelmed.

This applies to every single vaccine ever produced. There is not one that prevents infection.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Hello!

You are right in that the immune system is horribly complicated and there are still new discoveries being made on the regulation of the immune system...

There are two broad parts of the immune system - the innate and acquired. The innate immune system is you first defence against infection. Once infected, all kinds of signals are produced saying 'something is not right here' and then all hell breaks loose. There will be inflammation and activation of cells which 'eat' microbes and kill virus infected cells. Infected cells will display virus proteins on their surface to mark themselves as infected. The current COVID vaccines produce viral proteins inside cells which are displayed on the cell surface.

Alongside the immediate fight, the acquired immune system will be activated during this process. T cells which recognise the viral proteins will be generated (T cells are the watchmen of the immune system and some have direct cell killing functions) B cells which make antibodies will also be stimulated to find B cells which make good antibodies against the infection (there a mini evolution which happens here)

If you are not vaccinated or previously infected, the innate system kicks in quick (think how quickly you got the typical vaccine side effects, that's your innate immune system kicking off) The acquired immune system takes a little longer to kick in as there is this evolution of finding the best T cells and antibodies. This can take a week to 10 days to really get going. The acquired system is super specific and has the advantage with viral infections of antibodies stopping virus entering cells

After your infection dies down, you will be left with a few antibodies if your blood but will also have T cells and B cells that will recognise the virus and viral infections and will kick in very quickly on a subsequent infection. Bearing in mind that virus needs to go in to cells to reproduce, the only way you can prevent infection is to recognise and stop the virus from getting in to cells. Antibodies which bind parts of the SARS-COV-2 spike protein are very good for this. These neutralising antibodies are like gold dust as they not only help mop up free virus but also stop infection. This was why there was a big panic about variants escaping the vaccines a while back

Re: Coronavirus
 

The next wave is coming folks. Enjoy.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/h...-b2098253.html

Re: Coronavirus
 

Let's have a lock down , dig out those masks,:erm:

Re: Coronavirus
 

:wavey:

Who cares?

Re: Coronavirus
 

Pagel is a mathematician I think and doesn't really know a lot about actual medicine.


We all know how well the mathematical modelling in the pandemic has coped so far. Most of the predictions have been far off in the overestimate scale because they have not been adapting for the immunity already in the population and think that infections will just go up and up. An actual medic like JVT explained how it wasn't in the Christmas lectures.



Also, despite the naming similarity indysage is nothing to do with sage really. They've usually just been a group lobbying for more restrictions, more upheaval, more closures and more economic stagnation as a result of wanting to play Knut and stop a virus in its tracks which you can't really do (though you can slow its course down if you need to, it will invariably not significantly alter the outcome). We have communists, professors who did research into turning whole islands into prison communities, etc etc... I actually think Pagel is reasonable in her views, but it is clear she is thinking about things mainly from the perspective of mathematical modelling not actual epidemiology. (She did talk about mitigations indoors, but without using masks - which we all know about - instead other things like improving ventilation, air purifiers etc which will filter the air and try and reduce the amount of viruses etc.)


Endemic viruses fluctuate anyway. We are still in the transitionary period where the virus is moving from a dangerous pandemic agent which can kill easily to one where most of the population has some immunity either from previous infection or from vaccination. Whilst there is significant evidence that the omicron lineage is able to blunt this and break through infections, these are usually milder (even if still unpleasant) and there's plenty of suggestion the virus itself is milder (though no guarantee that there won't be mutations which change this) on this lineage. We are also at the stage where there is no mandatory isolation, no mandatory testing, and no access to free testing unless you are in certain groups, or have stockpiles of LFTs (which will eventually expire) from when they were freely available.



If there is an uptick in cases and other metrics now, it will be because they are fully open, some people will be going out with covid and not knowing it, or caring, or can't afford to isolate. With all respect to CEVs it should now be allowed to ride naturally. People should be suggested to stay home if they could be infectious, as much as they can possibly help it, in general. Employers should support this and allow WFH in those cases if possible and full sick pay if they cannot. But we have to resist calls for any more restrictions whether this is masks, closing businesses, distancing... It doesn't work anyway and even immunity in its present form is likely to wane either due to new variants escaping it or natural waning.


What we do need is vaccines for Omicron lineage as this is still the best way of protecting a load of the population who shouldn't be expected to live the living dead at home. It isn't a pleasant lifestyle and we should protect them as much as possible. When Omicron broke last year the vaccine makers were all saying it was possible. What happened with this, did they stop bothering because everyone found it was milder or is it still happening and just isn't getting the attention?

---------- Post added at 21:49 ---------- Previous post was at 21:41 ----------

My view is, in the wake of Partygate (and that KS/AR don't appear to be much better) if this lot decided to impose restrictions, they would be ignored as much as possible.



Sure, they can legally close businesses (or could, under the act they repealed) and force people to stay home (also, they repealed this too). But any of this would now require new legislation to pass Parliament, and would it?


We need to make sure that any mitigations applied are proven effective and proven to have the benefits which outweigh the side effects of doing so.



I for one would resist wearing masks as much as possible if they tried to reintroduce them. Not because I'm unwilling to comply, but that the mask rules in their previous incarnations (though last winter made more sense with them not applying at all in some places or activities where wearing a mask was impractical) were really pointless. Cloth and disposable masks do have an effect but only a minor one in relation to wearing proper masks such as KN95 or FFP2. Popping a scarf over your mouth and nose constituted a face covering, but probably did little to stop you spreading covid. How many people then took the mask off and used it again without throwing it away or washing it? Or left it in a pocket or on a table when not wearing it? All of that potentially could do harm more than good. How much worse is not wearing a mask when you go in tesco or to church or whatever if you keep distance and don't go if you're feeling ill? How much of it is also psychology; a visual sign you're in a pandemic, and to steer clear of people?

Re: Coronavirus
 

Herd immunity this time's a charm.

I hadn't picked up a seasonal virus meant a wave every season.

Re: Coronavirus
 

You say this.


But doesn't the same thing happen, to varying extents, with stomach bugs, colds, flu?


Once you've had the chucks and 10 bobs it doesn't stop you getting it again.


And noro is one of the viruses which mutates a lot, and which natural immunity also wanes quickly.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Not every few months for a significant portion of the population, no.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Yet the ONS study is showing that pretty much all adult groups over 99% of people have covid antibodies. The lowest is 16-24 but not by much, and school kids (lower down) 94.5 from 8-11 and 95.5. from 12-15, however none of these three groups are at more risk of the virus than older adults provided they don't have any underlying conditions.


The level of infection we are getting now is low, especially serious ones, with the country fully open to pre-pandemic freedoms. But the levels we are getting are more than the 1% - but then they always said omicron was easily capable of getting through some of the vaccine protection. In any case, this isn't how vaccines or antibodies are supposed to work anyway, they aren't 100% preventing infections in people, they just train the immune response.


We need better vaccines to stop it, but do we need them that much? The immunity from the ones we have is still good enough to significantly reduce infections and serious illness. Right now I seem to recall some scientists saying that the best immune protection now is being 3x jabbed and then infected. Whilst we shouldn't practice covid parties (and should still probably stay home if we might have it) being jabbed isn't enough to stop getting it and getting it, whilst unpleasant, is no longer the serious issue it was for a lot of people.


We should probably stop worrying about it, but those who consider still wearing tinfoil hats, should be respected for their views, as should those not.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Both My partner and myself currently have it and are isolating. Thankfully its relatively mild for us both.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I presume you are aware thats no longer an actual requirement ?

Re: Coronavirus
 

Still best not to spread an infectious disease to others if you know you have it though isn't it?


WFH if you can, and are well enough to, only shop for essentials (and wear a single use FFP2 in the shop and avoid busy periods, keep away from others), avoid public transport... basically if you have to go out keep away from others.


This is where employers/gov should support people who are ill from infecting others and not losing out financially due to isolating.


There are still people out there who would get seriously ill or die if they get covid, either because they can't get vaccinated or because they have and it doesn't work well enough, so yes this would happen with other viruses too, and we can't lock everyone else away to keep them alive or keep them locked at home, but it's common sense really to minimise contacts if you're ill. You might give a virus to someone who isn't CEV but has an important meeting or interview/appointment in the coming days which they would lose out if they got ill... for example.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Radio adverts from the Welsh Arsembly advise 5 days isolation if you test positive (LFT tests still available here).

---------- Post added at 15:47 ---------- Previous post was at 15:40 ----------

The decision to only publish figures Monday to Friday, then only on Tuesday and Thursday seems to have been shelved due to the slight uptick in cases, hospitalisations and deaths.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I'm sure they do, however, as noted, its advice, not a requirement.
Staying at home if you are ill is common sense, but there is no need to treat it like the plague anymore, its just another virus now, treat it like you would the Flu.

LFT's are not available (free) in England, as you probably know.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Mor evidence of the futility of zero-Covid policies and the effectiveness of lockdowns. Shanghai has only just survived another lockdown, and now it’s Beijing.

The world cannot continue to sustain disruption on this scale. They need to get their population vaccinated as a matter of urgency.

https://news.sky.com/story/covid-19-...r-bar-12632929

Re: Coronavirus
 

Not sure which is funnier....

1. thinking we can dictate to a sovereign state how they should choose to act

2. As well you know, It's not all of Beijing, it's an element. From the article you linked 'Beijing is rushing to contain a COVID-19 outbreak traced to a 24-hour bar known for its cheap alcohol and large crowds - with millions facing mandatory testing and thousands under targeted lockdowns.'

Sensationalising to suit your own narrative? Unlike you OB......

Re: Coronavirus
 

I think that one issue that China faces is the quality of its vaccinations. It is declining to licence Western vaccines to support its home-grown vaccines but these are not as effective.

Re: Coronavirus
 

All very sensational, and over the top.
200 cases - wow, its the end of the world.

A 'ferocious' outbreak ? Seriously ..
Its not some wild animal, or an axe weilding maniac.

Zero covid is never going to happen, and completely unnecessary, its like aiming for zero colds/flu, or zero measles.

Re: Coronavirus
 

What he said is right though. Also, I didn't see him dictating anything - just a (correct) suggestion they need to be more effective with their vaccinations.


In any case, a packed bar wherever it is, is going to have potential to cause super spreading events, especially with something as infectious as omicron. But given that the people who had been in the packed bar and had presumably brought covid in had their own close contacts when infected, and could infect others in other places, as well as their households and colleagues - due to the incubation period and presymptomatic phases/milder illness it could have caused a significant outbreak even before this was traced.



Which is where isolation / contact tracing doesn't really work at all as the people wouldn't necessarily know anywhere near all of the people they had been in close contact with and by the time you get symptoms or test positive it's too late to stop it spreading anyway.


The funniest thing I've seen is that some people seem to have the idea they can stop a virus spreading - you can slow it down to buy more time but still need an exit strategy for this.

Even ours aren't really that good now so I'd hate to see what theirs are like.


Though there's an obvious blunting as opposed to them being ineffective, 1 shot was largely enough against original virus and alpha, it was only with delta we needed 2 though this was more down to the transmissibility than the slight escape the variant had. It was only when we got into Omicron that the third shot seemed to be needed... But then if you look at the ONS data, there was still an evident waning of antibody levels after longer than it has been now, so it may be that the 3rd shot was already going to be needed (given that this happened in younger groups too who had already been given mRNA doses).


Even though the vaccines aren't there to prevent people getting the virus totally, I still think even we need ones more specific to omicron, given how much it differs from the original, and that mutations are more likely to make this more so than less.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I'm not going to argue semantics with you. The simple fact is that China is within its rights to react as it sees fit, it doesn't 'need' to do anything.

We might wish or 'need' China to act in a certain way due to our dependencies

Re: Coronavirus
 

Some people just can't wait to pile into OB.

He's not dictating anything, he passing his opinion and if anything is sensationalised it's the sky report.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Again, semantics

The report quite clearly states that Bejing lockdowns are targeted something which OB clearly avoids by attempting to insinuate that the shanghai and Beijing lockdowns as being the same or very similar in nature.

If you can’t grasp the above I have neither the time nor the crayons to continue the discussion with you.

Re: Coronavirus
 

No, having an opinion of a subject is much different than trying to force that opinion on somebody by way of an action.

Lockdowns of any scale are counter productive - you just wanted to jump on him for whatever reason.

If you can't grasp that, I have some crayolas for you.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Brilliant.....:D:D:

Re: Coronavirus
 

Nobody is telling China how to act.


They can do what they like, as you rightly point out.


They could quite easily raze Shanghai to the ground or wherever to burn covid away with the people inside it. It would be unethical to do so. But if they wanted to they would be within their rights to react as they see fit - or would they?


It's not really a question of semantics.


It is really a statement of fact that lockdowns don't work.


We even have the zero-covid zealots from March 2020 like Jeremy Hunt now retconning their stances to say they wouldn't have locked down.

Re: Coronavirus
 

You appear to have accidentally missed out his reasoning…

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics...er-test-trace/

Re: Coronavirus
 

He is still being wise after the event though, and saying different things.


The fact that Mad Nads was able (though she was a health minister at the time) to shoot down his rewritten hindsight a couple of weeks back shows a lot about the transparency of his argument.


OK, so what he said there is totally true. By test and trace you can (provided you don't start when the outbreak is already out of control) minimise infections by testing people promptly and isolating them and their contacts until they are negative testing.



What he is failing to remember successfully, is that back in March 2020 when covid cases were low enough to do this, we didn't have anywhere near the testing capacity to do mass testing on the population, so only hospital admissions were being tested. For sure, we could do it now, but that is because 2 years down the line we have proper supply lines and manufacture of LFTs and PCR testing kits is scaled up to ensure that the world in general can test who they choose to.


But i'm pretty sure Johnson, Hancock etc would have setup test and trace in 2020 - in its later form - had they access.


I seem to remember even in late 2020 we didn't have testing readily available. Liverpool were trialing going into a car park or whatever and this was used to help them get from tier 3 to 2 at one stage. Notts asked for the same and didn't get it, it was hard to get a PCR test then, that only really came later on.


Not sure how you could run an effective test and trace without the testing part.

Re: Coronavirus
 

We've been over this before, lockdowns were a requirement to stop the NHS being overwhelmed with cases whilst a vaccine was being designed, tested and deployed.

Unless there is a new variant that escapes all vaccines and has a very high transmission and mortality rate. there is no need for lockdowns now that we have the vaccines.

Perhaps i was being a tad optimistic about crayons....

Re: Coronavirus
 

Well it's finally caught up with us, we both started feeling crap on Saturday and have tested positive this evening.

Re: Coronavirus
 

You have tests, still ?

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

I’ve had a cough/cold infection this week, had it for about a week, felt very bad necking “max-Strength” Beechams every few hours for a couple of days. Now feeling better. Did I have COVID? No idea, nor do I care.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Have got a pack in stock as you never know when you might need one.

Our daughter built up quite a stock as there are some elderly (90+) and very high risk (transplant) relatives in her husband's family. We were there for tea last Friday so they've done a test and come back negative, so either we picked it up early Saturday and the symptoms kick in pretty quickly or your not contagious until your showing symptoms or the daughter and son-in-law are in that lucky group that just don't seem to catch it?? Must admit I thought I was in the immune group until today. What made me wonder was that we both felt ill together and I can't remember us both having a cold at the same time or either of us passing a cold to the other.

Re: Coronavirus
 

You paid for them ? Wow ... but why bother :confused:

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

Such a waste of £2.

Re: Coronavirus
 

What we need is not vaccines specific to certain spike proteins but closer to the whole virus and variety of proteins - more like an actual infection. That way our bodies get more general antibody protection.


The problem with vaccines made to specific proteins is they don't work (as well) if that protein is what changes. If "whole virus" antibodies can recognise multiple surface proteins, rather than proteins is a specific pattern, then maybe all those proteins need to change to totally escape detection.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Wife had to have a PCR test prior to an op next week. She failed and tested positive.
Son and I have done lateral flow tests and both positive :(

That accounts for the persistent cough these last 2 days.

Apart from that none of us feel particularly off with it.

Me and wife both triple jabbed, son double jabbed.

Re: Coronavirus
 

All the best :tu:

Re: Coronavirus
 

It’s not semantics. You’ve just got hold of the wrong end of the stick.

China needs to do as I suggested if they want to end these episodic lockdown situations. Nobody is talking about making China do anything. They are a sovereign country, aren’t they?

---------- Post added at 19:24 ---------- Previous post was at 19:19 ----------

I said ‘ Shanghai has only just survived another lockdown, and now it’s Beijing.’

Other than the fact that both lockdowns were due to Covid, I insinuated no such thing.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Up 32% in the UK in the last week. We've got complacent. More worryingly hospital admissions are also spiralling. Over reaction to under reaction, we just can't get it right.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-62009230

Re: Coronavirus
 

Most people are just getting a cold symptoms though, a lot of the "hospital admissions" aren't people who have gone in because their covid infection is bad (but other reasons - and yes this does cause other considerations if you need to keep them apart)... So not really any reason to be concerned by anything.

Also, they don't know how many people have it at all. Mass testing is over. Only certain groups of people can get tests, the NHS site even tells people not to test unless they are eligible for them now. They are just using the random sampling from the ONS and extrapolating it.


Doesn't stop the snowflakes having a cry about it again though, despite no-one stopping them wearing certain things.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Are people with underlying health conditions ( and there's a lot of them) snowflakes? If hospitals are disrupted another covid wave , it will make those waiting lists longer. Largely avoidable if we took simple precautions, but still got on with our daily lives.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Did anyone call people with underlying conditions snowflakes?

Re: Coronavirus
 

Some people seem to be salivating at the thought of another lockdown. Not going to happen.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Some people seem to be making shit up…

:rolleyes:

Re: Coronavirus
 

[QUOTE=Mr K;36126681]Up 32% in the UK in the last week. We've got complacent. More worryingly hospital admissions are also spiraling. Over reaction to under reaction, we just can't get it right.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-62009230[/QUOTE

What a load of shite!

Re: Coronavirus
 

As ever, thanks for your insightful and invaluable contribution to the debate.

---------- Post added at 19:48 ---------- Previous post was at 19:42 ----------

No one mentioned anything about a lockdown OB, but it doesn't have to be all or nothing
People just being a bit sensible would do, but too much to ask these days I guess.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Maybe if you got your facts right it might get a reasonable response, hospital admissions are not spiraling.


https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulat...ghts/hospitals

Re: Coronavirus
 

Umm, yes they are. Maybe you should read your own link ! Hospital admissions have doubled in the last month in England.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Maybe you should just read it.

Re: Coronavirus
 

People who contract covid-19 whilst in hospital for something else also count in the figure.


It's really nothing to worry about. Most of the people making noise about it are the indysage types (not surprising when indysage was created to create noise) who have always been in the camp for excessive restrictions we don't need.


Most people have had three doses of vaccine and coupled with a milder variant this is not making most people particularly ill.


OK so the CEV people is an issue but this is an issue with any infectious virus spreading such as cold or flu. What did they do then?


We also only have an extrapolation survey to decide how many people have it.
There are 60 million people in the UK. If the ONS test 60,000 a week and 100 test positive, then does that mean 100,000 people in the UK have covid? Possibly, but you don't know.


The ONS data also still shows (on the "symptoms reported" section) most positive tests report no symptoms at all. Considering how LFT and PCR tests work (presence of a segment of the virus RNA in sample not any indication of whether they are infectious) even this stat is potentially misleading.



The likes of Whitty, Van Tam, Harries, etc (though I know JVT is no longer seconded to DCMO) are not concerned - JVT was interviewed the other day and said as much. Considering how concerned they were when we first had omicron come over here, it is indicative the current situation is not concerning.


We do not need any more restrictions nor should there be any more. We can't keep turning businesses on and off like lights and expecting there not to be other effects. Pretty much everything which is reported as not functioning properly now is due to the consequences of locking down.

Re: Coronavirus
 

No, we just got tired of over-reacting.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Nobody cares. Take a lemsip max strength.

---------- Post added at 21:40 ---------- Previous post was at 21:37 ----------

Which is?

---------- Post added at 21:43 ---------- Previous post was at 21:40 ----------

Yes we’re all shit scared here.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

Not so much "we" as it's now Government policy and not individual behaviour, and less complacency as a fully informed conscious choice.

Most people just having a cold (wasn't that asymptomatic in the first wave and incidental hospital admissions are red herrings. They have always existed in all waves.

I'm glad to see the economy doing so well and cancer treatment waiting times improve.

Re: Coronavirus
 

The "third wave". Some are in hospital for other reasons, but they are still taking up beds.

Re: Coronavirus
 

It is bloody annoying that the virus seems to mutate so quickly and previous infections seem to matter for little. Hopefully, this peaks and we see more evidence that each 'wave' is smaller than the last.

It may be no worse than the flu but we already have the flu so to have two respiratory illnesses for the NHS to handle each year is a bit crap.

Re: Coronavirus
 

71 last Monday where my wife works which was almost double the week before. I think, at the moment, it's the increasing levels of staff of ill with it that should be worrying us.

Re: Coronavirus
 

What little validity the flu comparison has it's at an individual level, not based on the majority of the population catching it, potentially multiple times a year.

Re: Coronavirus
 

On the contrary, previous infections (and vaccination) are the reason why covid is now causing far less serious illness. Memory T cells are among the things that persist in the body and are triggered by reinfection. There’s sufficient lag that this response doesn’t prevent infection becoming established but it is effective at eliminating it thereafter.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Yes, and as they are in contact (and testing) with people who have the virus that is potentially going to go up, even if they wear masks.


I appreciate training to be a nurse or a doctor takes several years, and that importing them isn't really the answer either, but surely the NHS has had years to plan for a solution to their recruitment issues, and that for whatever reason the NHS not adequately being able to crisis manage or plan contingency for staff shortages etc (which are likely, though I'm sure you have better inside info than I do, to be the main reasons something like this puts the NHS under "pressure" aside from the obvious one) isn't really a valid reason to put the general population under restrictions. It's like saying let's close everything in a town because the school is closed as all the teachers and some of the kids have norovirus.


The other thing which concerns me is how the virus can spread in hospitals. Yes, I know it's contagious and I know people can have it before they get ill or test positive, but what precautions are they taking to isolate those with covid so they don't spread it? Are patients with covid being kept apart from those who don't? Are the staff changing PPE enough?

Re: Coronavirus
 

I think Damien was referring to the potency of the illness now rather than the rate of transmission.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Yes, OB and I think you'll find that exactly the point I addressed in my post. Such analysis is at an individual level, not a population one.

---------- Post added at 13:21 ---------- Previous post was at 13:17 ----------

The Secretary of State for Health has been clear about there being no need for extra mitigations in hospitals. To fingerpoint at staff is absolutely laughable.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/202...g-covid-rules/

Indeed the Department for Health and Social Care is now threatening people off with Covid with disciplinary action under pre-Covid rules.

https://inews.co.uk/news/health/paid...s-soar-1719806

It doesn't sound very "learning to live with the virus" to not adapt HR policies to account for a virus that individuals will statistically catch two or three times a year. There's no evidence of learning at all.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I continue to be unconcerned.

Re: Coronavirus
 

True although I was hoping for more immunity from infection entirely.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

Indeed, it was literally the basis for emergency use authorisation for all of the vaccines.

---------- Post added at 23:04 ---------- Previous post was at 23:03 ----------

I'd expect nothing less.

---------- Post added at 23:07 ---------- Previous post was at 23:04 ----------

Well the theory is antibodies prevent the infection spreading. However with 99% of the population having antibodies from vaccines or previous infection it's fair to say it isn't working as the proponents of herd immunity previously planned.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

Herd immunity wasn't insufficiently defined. It's proponents had a very clear definition, Seph. They were simply wrong.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

At the point originally coined - and throughout it’s continued use - it was indeed that sufficient immunity existed within the population that the vast, vast majority of people would be immune from infection at a later point therefore the population as a whole is protected by a collective immunity that prevented significant outbreaks.

The existing immunity meant that small outbreaks would happen, however would fizzle out, because they’d hit the “wall of immunity” in the population at large.

A bit like monkeypox pre-2022.

Re: Coronavirus
 

No, that's not fair. The vaccination programme has significantly reduced pressure on the NHS. Which, of course, was the purpose of the lockdowns.

Herd immunity works, just not as perfectly as you would like.

---------- Post added at 00:48 ---------- Previous post was at 00:45 ----------

Lockdown only delays - it does not spread.

As China is discovering, at great embarassment.

Re: Coronavirus
 

As ever Old Boy you are entirely incorrect. As I say read the basis upon which the vaccines were approved in the United States, European Union or the United Kingdom. Every one referenced - sometimes dubious but now outdated - efficacy against infection. Therefore it's impossible for me to be "unfair" to say they missed stated objectives nor that "herd immunity" has not - indeed will not - be achieved through mass infection nor the present generation of vaccines.

https://www.pfizer.com/news/press-re...didate-against

https://www.astrazeneca.com/media-ce...ii-trials.html

Herd immunity palpably doesn't work hence "waves" of infection.
I bet the Chinese are laughing at us.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Why ?

Re: Coronavirus
 

They’ll perceive their own plan as more economically sustainable.

As much as some pretend we can go back to 2019 the “work from home” workforce aren’t going back to offices en masse with waves every 3-4 months. That creates sub-optimal economic outcomes that aren’t sustainable for us, but nobody wants to wake up to the reality. This drags out the pain because actually “living with the virus” is more than a buzz phrase used by politicians.

Re: Coronavirus
 

We are pretty much "back to 2019" and about as close as we probably will be. We have no restrictions on things opening, no restrictions forcing people to stay at home, wear a mask, be a distance from others, limits in group size, etc etc.



Instead people are advised to stay at home if they think they might have covid. Only a few select groups are advised to test and only in their case if they have symptoms. Everyone else is encouraged not to test.


Working from home is a matter for employers and their staff to decide. A lot of employers are also in favour of some working from home and have reduced office space to account for this (and in the winter months especially this is presumably less heating, lighting costs etc). It's a fallacy to generalise that working from home is less productive and there are some cases where people work better without office distractions and prefer it like there are others who would spend half an hour watching TV instead of working whilst in working hours. Some people may spend some of the time they would have spent travelling to the office and back to work extra hours. But this doesn't need blanket policy and the Government have said people are free to do what they like and there's no reason to restrict going into the office for covid mitigation.



These basically have the same answer.


Ultimately this depends on what your vaccines do and were designed to do.


All three main vaccines were fundamentally based on the same idea. That you could inject the code to an original-strain spike protein into someone, their body would replicate it, and then their immune system create a response. The immune response then means if the body is exposed to the protein again, e.g. via infection, then it will recognise what it is and have antibodies ready or can produce them again.



Presumably this is still the case.


However the spike protein of the virus currently circulating is similar enough to be recognised but only partially. This is due to various mutations which have occurred with other variants too but more markedly with omicron. But the response which is there from either vaccination or previous infection is there still but just not as effective, it's a bit like you saw someone when they were 20 but then not until they were 50, it's the same person but you just take a bit of time to remember who they are because they now have grey hair, wear glasses, and are about 10 stone heavier because of spending middle age in a beer garden after work.



The other specific issue to omicron is that it is more transmissible and in all likelihood requires fewer virus to get infected than previous strains and emits more virus from someone who has it, which is why mitigations such as face coverings have been less effective.



So more virus entering is more the immune system has to cope with at a time when the vaccine memory is a bit suspect because the virus has mutated so the response isn't recognisable.


Vaccines don't usually prevent infection. They just cause an immune response which means that the immune system usually recognises the virus before the body gets taken over by it and you get ill.



It's just in this case we aren't dealing with the same virus as we have been vaccinated against, but a very similar one. This means the body can't respond in time to prevent a milder infection. But the vaccines still cause enough of a response to prevent a more severe one.


Ideally we need a booster with more omicron specificity, which I note Pfizer and Moderna now have, even though that itself is probably for original omicron not BA4/5 which are circulating now. Rolling this out ahead of a potential winter resurgence (even if this is a different omicron as it seems to be) is probably a good idea, rolling out original vaccines is probably less useful.


As for the approval point and preventing disease and transmission, this was probably indeed largely the case on original and alpha, it was only when we started seeing the variants with more vaccine escape mutations such as delta and omicron we started seeing some infection in those who were vaccinated. If the virus hadn't changed we probably wouldn't be talking about that.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Why is it not sustainable for us to have a work from home workforce? My perception is that most large offices are on a hybrid model. Thursday night is the new Friday and city centre pubs and restaurants on Fridays are now full of tourists.