Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

I hope you will be the last person on here to point out that the poor efficacy of Chinese vaccines compared to their Western peers has strongly influenced China's lockdown policy. This point can't be escaped.

Re: Coronavirus
 

As above, we are pretty much back to 2019, certainly for everyone I know - we do all the things we did then, with no restrictions.

I "worked from home" 1 or 2 days a week in 2019 (more in the winter).
Ive done this since around 2009, in 2012 - 2013 I worked from home full time.

The reason a lot more people didnt was that most companies didnt have the remote connectivity, nor a great desire to provide it, the pandemic forced their hand (to the delight of many). Everyone in my team now works from home all week, and are happy to do so, we still do exactly the same work.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Yep, we've gone from 2 days a week in the office to 1 day a fortnight.

Re: Coronavirus
 

What???!

Even you must see that the vaccination programme has drastically reduced the number of people being admitted to hospital.

China is in a difficult place. Too many people remain unvaccinated and this means that the virus will keep coming back periodically, with a dangerously exposed population.

I don’t know why you have a problem with ‘herd immunity’. This is all we have to defeat this awful virus.

Re: Coronavirus
 

People get re-infected as the virus mutates, so attaining herd immunity is a problem. A number of people including your glorious leader have caught Covid on multiple occasions. That hardly speaks to immunity, herd or otherwise, does it?

As Seph has mentioned, the efficacy rates in the Chinese vaccines are the issue in that country.

Re: Coronavirus
 

But if numbers are low, it only takes a small increase to get a big percentage number.

---------- Post added at 09:25 ---------- Previous post was at 09:22 ----------

But as we get infected our immune systems get to recognise Covid type viruses. Unless the mutation is huge there will be some protection and over the herd less dramatic effect.
The common cold was devastating to populations that had never seen it but much less so to most people in Europe or of European origin where it had become endemic.

Re: Coronavirus
 

They key word here being 'some'

The new Omicron variants are being reported to shift their focus of attack back to the lungs, which, could in theory lead to more severe disease.

BA.4 & .5 are also being reported as to being able to escape antibodies.


Now, there's limited study on the above, but, to me, it would make sense to have some degree of preparation. Unlike the lead up to March 2020

---------- Post added at 09:42 ---------- Previous post was at 09:40 ----------

It also allows for a greater chance of significant mutation.... which potentially puts us right back at square one

Re: Coronavirus
 

This all depends on how vaccines are designed. If they are too specific they are great against the one they are designed for and may work on other variants if the target is still present.
I would guess that a real infection would prime the body to multiple targets on the virus and there would need to be a more major mutation to deny any immune response.
So as we progress getting reinfected we get to recognise various targets and target patterns.
Herd immunity doesn't mean individuals don't get covid or don't get seriously ill or even die. It means the herd survives.

Re: Coronavirus
 

indeed, but the % of the herd that survives depends on the efficacy of both the vaccines & antibody response IF we have a variant that can escape both and causes the same degree of severe illness and is as transmissible as the 'first wave' then we're pretty much back to square one.

very initial studies show that the newer variants appear to match three out of four conditions above.

It's therefore not inconceivable that there comes a time when all four conditions are met. At which point we are.......?

Re: Coronavirus
 

Not inconceivable but if there is an interim variant that increases/adjusts immunity we aren't really back to step one. Covid is still pretty novel, we are likely to keep seeing waves for some time and need to respond appropriately.


What we can't do is simply lock down and stay that way.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

China has illustrated that even with the most draconian lockdowns, only possible in a totalitaran state, that the virus mearly goes into abeyance until the lockdown is released.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Vaccine Efficacy
Antibody Efficacy
Transmissibility
% chance of severe illness/death

the above are the four conditions to which i was referring.

https://edition.cnn.com/2022/06/22/h...ine/index.html

'However, Covid-19 vaccination is still expected to provide substantial protection against severe disease, and vaccine makers are working on updated shots that might elicit a stronger immune response against the variants.'

'Expected' being the key word to my mind, good news also on updated shots but again it's a 'might'

I'm in no way advocating a return to the lockdowns we had, BUT dependent on mutations it may well be that they become a reality.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

The reality would probably need another solution than lockdowns. Given that they cause more damage than letting the virus spread in some situations the scenario that we shut the country down for a few months should only ever be used when we don't have an alternative at all.


Knowledge has partially refined since March 2020 but even then we knew that when infected with covid a lot of people had mild or no symptoms which didn't progress and that it was a more severe disease for some, and that those who had certain medical conditions were more likely to be at risk of serious disease.



That scenario is still the case, even with the current mutations of the virus, and with a lot of people having significant immunity to a covid variant which is likely to offer some degree of protection in most people.


Clearly there is a convincing reason not to allow the virus to spread unchecked in groups of people who have no immunity because they can't be vaccinated for some reason or their immune system hasn't responded to the vaccine, and they also have other conditions which may make infection with covid or indeed anything else a severe issue. Likely such people include the immunocompromised who will have had these issues before covid and would have to manage this situation in a cold season or a flu season or norovirus outbreak etc etc. And they will need to continue to take care for the rest of their lives as was also the case without covid, as it's uncivilised to keep them locked up the same way as it's uncivilised to restrict activities of healthy people to preserve them.



There will be covid outbreaks as it evolves and as it transitions to be endemic. Vaccine immunity (even if it doesn't wane) is going to be partial as the virus changes, and it will no doubt reach a point where topping up with original Pfizer or Moderna jabs will not achieve anything further (we may already be there) so if there is a BA.1 booster this is likely to provide better protection against BA.5 or any similar future evolutions so should be offered to everyone (though not mandatory, and to those older/CEV first).



But we will need to deal with it as we stand now realistically as it's not going to stop evolving. Just existing immunity through having it and being vaccinated will make subsequent infections and reinfections less serious.


We have had original vaccine escape on several, Beta variant started this but wasn't as transmissible as others, Delta was and had escape, before Omicron, there were a few others too but they didn't take off either. Fortunately the disease is milder now but even if it wasn't restrictions would only slow it down, you have to have an end point and unfortunately this doesn't look like a lockdown is going to make it go away. We were almost covid-free in terms of test figures by July 2020 but then as we let people go on holiday to places which weren't, it got back in again, you can't stop this really.

Re: Coronavirus
 

It depends what you think ‘herd immunity’ means.

It doesn’t mean total immunity, it means resistance to the spread of the disease. There’s no doubt the the vaccination programme has achieved that.

---------- Post added at 16:56 ---------- Previous post was at 16:53 ----------

Getting our booster vaccines that incorporate the latest variants.

It’s not the end of the world yet.

---------- Post added at 17:00 ---------- Previous post was at 16:56 ----------

Absolutely agreed. I’ve been saying this from the get-go. It was clear very early on that lockdowns only delayed the spread of the virus, but for some reason I can’t fathom, some people scoffed at this at the time.

Re: Coronavirus
 

It must still be spreading as we have 300+a deaths per week from it. That's not immunity.

If it wasn't spreading, it would die out and we would have no deaths. It needs hosts to live in.
https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/deaths

Re: Coronavirus
 

You’re not getting it, Andrew. The vaccinations are drastically reducing the impact of the virus on the population. That is what we are talking about when we refer to herd immunity.

Nobody is saying the vaccinations will make the virus disappear without trace. And nobody is claiming the vaccinations will stop you from getting infected. Indeed, if anything, far more people are infected now than previously. However, the impact is relatively minimal compared with before the vaccination programme got under way.

I think we are actually agreeing on the facts but using different language to describe it.

Re: Coronavirus
 

300+ deaths a week of people who tested positive for covid in the 28 days preceding their death.


They don't have to have died because they had covid.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Correct. Many of them are dying of something else. It’s also worth reminding ourselves that people are catching Covid in hospital while being treated.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I'm referencing Daily deaths with COVID-19 on the death certificate by date of death and not the Testing positive for Covid 28 days preceding their death measure.

Per my attached link, it's currently 309.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Death “with” not death “of”

Still a pointless metric.

Re: Coronavirus
 

It certainly needs more clarification as to whether covid was a major contributor to the death. Unfortunately, this is more subjective to be statistically useful as different doctors would have different opinions.


Hence the blanket cut offs.


It's understandable but context is always necessary.

Re: Coronavirus
 

You're right, it's absolutely not the end of the world yet, but nor as many profess or believe is the situation completely over.

we don't know how long it will take to reengineer and test updated booster shots.

The virus can mutate much quicker than we can react, the more people infected the greater the probability of a mutation....

I haven't seen anything by the government as to what the plans are should there be shift to a vaccine/antibody escape variant that can causes more serious illness and/or death and which either retains it's rate of transmission or has an increased rate of transmission.

To ignore the fact that the above is an entirely plausible is no better than two and a bit years ago when Boris said that it would be over in a few weeks

The government would be wise to remember the 7 Ps but, they won't

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

Boris Johnson announces new Covid vaccine roll-out as cases surge across UK again

What a guy,still putting the people first

A FRESH wave of Covid booster jabs will be rolled out this autumn with Boris Johnson vowing to make sure the virus "can never haunt us in the same way again".


https://www.express.co.uk/news/polit...on-winter-jabs

Re: Coronavirus
 

Suppose they’ll need to empty the fridges for the bodies.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Probably start doing a yearly COVID vaccine at the same time as the flu one I reakon.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I think that'll be pretty much a given. This virus isn't going away anytime soon.

Re: Coronavirus
 

But so far as it has mutated it has generally become milder, even with the increased ability to circumvent immunity.


Now I'm far from being anti-vaccination, but I don't really see how much benefit using the original vaccines again is actually going to have. Yes immunity wanes, but these vaccines target a specific part of the virus which has now changed significantly in the currently circulating variants. From what I've also seen, in various studies (think the ONS show too) the immune response is waning much less after a third dose than after the first two. The reinfections and escape infections we are seeing are presumably because omicron can do this when your protection is against an older variant which is why we need to be using the updated Pfizer and Moderna jabs when we can.


Mercifully, whilst there has been an increase in people testing positive on hospital admission during the current wave stats also show most of these are incidental and that a lot of them don't have covid as the reason why they are there. Whilst this still has its own considerations to make, the admissions are still some way off peaks and the severity of infections is less, the number of deaths has gone down and stayed down, which also means the hospitals are able to treat those admitted (assuming they need it) in most cases. We aren't back to Jan 2021 levels and probably never will be as the virus gets less potent, the vaccines give some protection, and we get better at treating those who do get it badly.


All part of it becoming endemic - most people who are getting it now are usually having a flu-like infection for a week or two most and then get over it. It won't be going away, but it will increasingly be possible to cope with it.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Evidence?

Re: Coronavirus
 

Not so many people in hospital?

Re: Coronavirus
 

Is that the vaccine? Is that because the low hanging fruit have already been offed? As Mick shared the other day 180,000 of the COVID death certificates have other factors on them.

It”s not possible, although often shared by those who seek comforting (if inaccurate) headlines, to support the claim that mutations are making the virus milder in general nor that to be the inevitable trajectory.

Such an evidence based study would require assessing the risk of groups with the same vaccine and pre-infection status (by variant, including multiple) exposure to each incremental variant against the original strain. I’m yet to see one.

And of course are they going into hospital “with” COVID or “because of” COVID. :rofl:

Re: Coronavirus
 

Evidence it isnt ?

Re: Coronavirus
 

I’m not making a claim - I’ve already pointed to the multitude of criteria that would need to be controlled for in any such study to reach any conclusion and that no evidence base exists. I’m sure the worlds greatest behavioural scientists have been working hard at pushing the narrative however, for purely economic reasons.

I’ve similarly got a hunch, which I suspect is all nffc has to offer despite his initial conviction.

Similarly his paradox of dismissing the point of vaccines, but readily accepting one to two weeks sickness per infection seems inherently contradictory. The purpose of any medical interventions or treatments are surely to aim to reduce that further, therefore making it even easier to “cope”.

Re: Coronavirus
 

For many, the biggest risk of catching Covid will come from going to get any booster jabs.
An important thing to note is, even if you're not worried about the number of infections, it does give an indication of the number of people that are infectious and have passed it on.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Source? That's a single annual trip compared to most people's multiple visits to the shops each year.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Are you questioning the obvious, jfman? What exactly is your attraction to that cupboard under the stairs? We have a right to know! :shrug:

Re: Coronavirus
 

Because you’re an absolute stalwart for ensuring everything you post is backed up by evidence…………..

Re: Coronavirus
 

He is a top bloke, haven't a clue why they got rid :shrug:

Re: Coronavirus
 

Was because of cake wasn't it, the cake ambushed him and no one told him it was cake, he was furious about it to apparently

Re: Coronavirus
 

Let them eat cake…

Re: Coronavirus
 

The cake is a lie...

Re: Coronavirus
 

Why is everyone blaming the cake, it was just an innocent cake, in the wrong place, at the wrong time.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

The COVID booster will be offered to:

* Health and social care staff.
* Everyone aged 50 and over.
* Carers who are over the age of 16.
* People over five whose health puts them at greater risk, this includes pregnant women.
* People over five who share a house with somebody with a weakened immune system.

In addition, the flu vaccine in England will also be offered to all adults aged 50 and over, the usual high-risk groups and now to schoolchildren up to Year 9 in secondary school.

Re: Coronavirus
 

..

Re: Coronavirus
 

It was a very fruity cake though. Quite a little temptress of a cake, apparently. The cake was asking for it.

---------- Post added at 17:23 ---------- Previous post was at 17:22 ----------

Seems sensible. But it must contain the capacity to deal with Omicron.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Pointless off topic jibe removed.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

There were 60 new deaths within 28 days of a positive test for coronavirus reported on 15 July 2022, and 908 people in the last 7 days. This shows an increase of 120 compared to the previous 7 days.

Boris said today that we are beating covid.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Did they die because of covid or with covid?

Re: Coronavirus
 

Numbers vary, thats the nature of a virus. Same with colds/flu/measles etc.

Well i suppose that depends on what you mean by beating.
Compared to two years ago, we have beaten it, but we will never eliminate it completely, at least not with current medical technology.

Re: Coronavirus
 

BREAKING: U.S President Joe Biden has tested positive for COVID-19 and is experiencing mild symptoms.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Great excuse to keep him hidden away for a couple of weeks.

I wouldn’t bet against him not seeing out this year.

It will be President Harris and VP pick Gavin Newsome running at the next election.

They’ll lose against Rep. Candidate de Santis.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I think Harris wouldn't be allowed to assume the role of de facto incumbent if she takes over the Presidency and will be subject to a primary. The Democrats are probably seriously looking at 2024 and are hoping Biden says he'll do one term to make that a more straightforward process. Biden isn't popular amongst Democrats, it's not as if he has a base of passionate supporters ala Trump.

Re: Coronavirus
 

In that case, it will be Newsome that runs in 24.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Biden's stepping down has been prophesised ever since he became President 18 months ago. I'm sure a spot of Covid won't stop him seeing out his term.

Re: Coronavirus
 

The 7-day rolling average of deaths is looking steppy as figures aren't been updated very often now.

This is what it looks like since January 1st.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I can’t see him stepping down. I can certainly see him falling down.

---------- Post added at 19:45 ---------- Previous post was at 19:43 ----------

It’s nothing to worry about, Taf. Most of us have had it or have got it. It’s not the danger it once was to most people.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Red herring alert.

Re: Coronavirus
 

How is that a red herring ?

Re: Coronavirus
 

Official figures are that 35% of us have had it, and 0.28% have died with/from it.

And there are those who have not had a single dose of the vaccine....

https://fullfact.org/health/expose-e...on-vaccinated/

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulat...ights/vaccines

Re: Coronavirus
 

“Most” people have never been in danger from Covid. Similarly having had Covid isn’t a guarantee of no unpleasant outcomes second, third or fourth time.

So to dismiss a point on that basis is very much a red herring, distracting from what remain legitimate concerns over healthcare (or indeed economic) outcomes resulting from multiple mass infections of Covid.

Re: Coronavirus
 

According to the official UK site 93.3% have had at least one dose, and 87.5% both.

Its clearly "not the danger it once was" or we'd all still be hiding under the stairs [in total lockdown].

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

Re: Coronavirus
 

Correct, as evidenced by the fact that jfman vacated his cupboard under the stairs a while ago now. :D

In the main, it is really only the extremely vulnerable who are still in danger now, although the unvaccinated are taking a risk, but that’s their choosing.

The number of infections have risen lately it is true, but they now appear to be declining again, and this will almost certainly continue now that the schools have broken up for the summer, as the Scots have already witnessed.

Re: Coronavirus
 

And they’ll go back up with the next variant.

As someone with such concern for the attendance rates of French border officials, I’d have expected you to consider the wider impact of mass sickness multiple times a year on the economy. Likewise how the low tax economy will support the hundreds of thousands who have left the workforce - a figure that will presumably rise with each variant.

https://www.ft.com/content/c333a6d8-...8-eeb1c05a34d2

The binary of 2019 vs lockdown is indeed no longer appropriate, however there’s also little value in comparing death with non-death outcomes. There’s an absence of learning in learning to live with the virus. At significant ongoing economic cost with unsustainable pressures on the healthcare system.

Re: Coronavirus
 

As long as each variant weakens as it mutates, it is a decreasing problem. Until it disappears completely or becomes extremely minor in terms of risk of illness, we just have to live with it.

Re: Coronavirus
 

And if like the going away in the summer hypothesis in 2020 that doesn’t happen? It’s an increasing problem.

So in the same of keeping the economy open at all costs I presume you support higher taxation to support those unemployed by the virus and to put the NHS into position to cope with three to four surges a year?

Re: Coronavirus
 

You have to read the graphic properly. Only 68.9% have received the full number of doses. And from the post I made earlier:

Re: Coronavirus
 

I read it properly, thanks.

As posted, 93.3% have had at least one dose, and 87.5% both - which of those figures do you contest ?

The third dose (booster) was not offered to everyone initially, so obviously that number is lower.

Since 45.13 million is 93.3%, then the 100% figure must be 48.37 million.
Which means 3.24 million (12+) in England have not received a dose of any kind.

I have no idea where you get 11 million from, as above, its 3.24 million.

The 2020 ONS data shows Englands population as 56.5 million, of which about 8.4 million are under 12 (making 48.1 million who are 12+, which basically agrees with the 48.37 above).

Also, I'm not really sure what point you are trying to make anyway ?

Re: Coronavirus
 

as previously posted:

https://fullfact.org/health/expose-e...on-vaccinated/

---------- Post added at 18:53 ---------- Previous post was at 18:47 ----------

I was stressing that there is still a large percentage of people who are not fully vaccinated. One dose was shown not to be sufficient. Then two. And those that have not yet had the third or booster are at far greater risk and have been a source of new mutations.

Between 5.1 million and 11 million. Those are numbers not to be sniffed-at. And evidence is showing that it's mostly those unvaccinated who are laid-up in critical care wards because of covid.

Re: Coronavirus
 

That may well be true.


But a fully open economy (with inherent risks of sickness absence as there always is with people actually going to work) has a much better chance of supporting those who are unable to work whilst ill or to fund the improvements needed in the NHS to improve capacity and cope with the 3-4 waves of covid admissions we will probably get (though this is ever decreasing in terms of severity to expected cases this year compared to last and 2020) usually whenever there's a variant which has significant immune escape for our 2020 vaccines which take no account at all of the virus having since mutated (so the new vaccines which are coming are probably a game changer themselves).


Certainly more so than closing places or restricting the way they trade by reducing their capacity or making people uncomfortable by having to wear masks, check in, install spying apps on their phones etc. There is obviously a reduction in trade in these places when such measures are introduced, after all. And it is things like travel (fuel duty), pubs/restaurants (alcohol duty) and having fun which bring in tax and which if they were not open would make this task harder, not easier - or you would need to completely plan again where and how you taxed people to get the required income.


"support those unemployed by the virus"? I'm assuming here you mean people who are unable to work due to being permanently incapacitated, as opposed to those who the virus response has meant their job no longer exists? In which case, what support do they need other than what incapacity benefits already exist?

Re: Coronavirus
 

If updated vaccines are rolled out, and not two variants out of date by the time they are, then yes they do have the potential to be a game changer.
Sunak as Chancellor had already questioned the expenditure involved, raising the question of whether we genuinely mean learn to live with the virus and not just the pretend it’s 2019 approach. If we won’t even pay for that there’s going to be nothing in terms of improving ventilation in public buildings.

Spying apps? I must have missed those. Masks are fundamentally not a trading restriction, especially in non-optional settings like public transport, healthcare settings, etc.

Where and how you tax people is a legitimate point, and something that needs approached anyway with online trade killing off the high street. Similarly with the virus running unabated a sizeable proportion of the public either will not ever, or for the majority of the time, return to city centre offices. Something we are lagging behind our EU counterparts with. This impacts on the economy if they all take personal responsibility and hide away on Microsoft Teams with an entire service sector under threat - a situation exacerbated by the cost of living crisis.

More people joining that queue after every variant, multiple times per year costs more money. As does the coronavirus health service on a 52 week a year flu season.

Many of the fundamentals that underpinned “running hot” with delta infections to supplement vaccine immunity (e.g. lasting immunity) have been disproven. The rewards (economic growth relative to other approaches) unrealised.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Is this your way of telling us we need another lockdown, jfman? If so, you’re on your own, which is just as well as that cupboard under the stairs is a bit claustrophobic. :rolleyes:

Re: Coronavirus
 

Link to where I suggested any such thing?

I know it's easier for you to put up a straw man rather than engage with the post at hand but it's incredibly tiresome.

We know you are a mug for a hollow political phrase like "take back control" or "Brexit means Brexit". However if "learning to live with the virus" isn't to follow in their footsteps there needs to actually be learning. Otherwise the economic and health costs will be huge in the long run.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Well, it’s you that keeps painting this bleak picture of the virus - how else do we take your posts on this subject?

What would you actually have this government do?

Re: Coronavirus
 

55.6 million is the entire population of England, including children under 12, who dont get vaccinated. So they do not count (they are not 'eligible').

There are not 62.7 million people in England, the whole UK is only 68 million.


Nor are they correct. The figure is 3.25 million.

Re: Coronavirus
 

On the basis of the words written, as opposed to pretending they said something else. I don't consider that an unreasonable proposition.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I think you need to reduce your alcohol consumption, jfman, because this makes no sense. Who is ‘they’?

No, don’t worry, let’s just leave it there. Things to do, people to see…

Re: Coronavirus
 

Anyone you put up a straw man argument against in this post is 'they'. Someone other than you. You are becoming incredibly tedious and tiresome, OB.

If you've anything constructive to state in relation to posts 2076 (or 2075 to which I replied) then I do sincerely welcome it. I suspect you don't.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I would expect the majority, at the very least a sizeable proportion, of the population to ignore any future covid restrictions. That horse has long since bolted.

I think the nation expects individuals to manage illness as they would with any bad cold/flu

Any lockdown zealots expecting a return to 20/21 ………not going to happen.

Re: Coronavirus
 

That doesn't matter - if required the restrictions would just become stricter to compensate. Closing additional businesses, public transport, reducing opening hours or even introducing a curfew would be options. Nobody instructed to work from home is going to rush into an office, for example. If the pub is closed there's nowhere to go. The presumption that the public would act in bad faith has been consistently disproven, and while the Tories credibility is near zero, if hospitals filled up they'd feel otherwise.

It'd be interesting to see if that held up against a more severe variant and waning vaccine effectiveness. I doubt many are in that much of a rush to go out and die on the minimum wage in a cost of living crisis. I'm sure they'd welcome 80% salary to sit at home with their feet up again.

A straw man army!

Re: Coronavirus
 

Two variants out of date isn't much though.


It's certainly much better than two years out of date.


As the virus has evolved the variants have had more and more mutations on the spike proteins where the vaccine response is targeted. For the earlier ones like Alpha and Beta (which had vaccine escape too but was not as transmissible) the changes were relatively few, then we get one where it kind of works but not as good at stopping people getting covid (Delta), then we end up with one which is heavily mutated and appears more like a cold and also the immune system recognises it less because of this so it can swerve the vaccine or immunity response.


So BA2, BA4 and BA5 are all responsible (mainly 2 and 5) for subsequent rises in infection since the original omicron however they aren't seemingly considered distinct enough from it to have their own lineage and Greek letter assigned to them, they're still classed as omicron variants, I don't think BA5 is that different in terms of spike protein from BA1 (to call it that) in order to make a BA1 vaccine markedly different in terms of response against BA5 and anything unless it in itself is markedly different by the time they roll it out. You'd probably expect 2 or maybe 3 more covid spikes due to variants again by the end of the year.



But omicron specific Pfizer or Moderna jabs are definitely the way forward in terms of boosters as the difference between that and BA5 is much less and will probably give a much better top up response than another shot of the same thing which will only really work if antibody/t-cell response has waned in the intervening time period AND topping up the SAME response is considered beneficial. It's a bit like going on the pull wearing the same skirt which you looked wonderful in 2 years ago but you've put on 3 stone since and it's now a bit tight though it still looks great.





Not a real difference though is there? OK some things are going to change more like maybe a few more people wearing masks if they have to go out with a cold or fewer people just not carrying on with everything at all if they're feeling ill, and maybe a few more workplaces being at least some-days amenable to staff working from home not being in the office every day, but I think most things and most people are as close to "2019" as they probably will ever be. And so they should be because unless there's a reason to keep hiding under the stairs then things need to go on.



It's a better solution than anything else.


But public buildings have their own maintenance budget and air purifiers can't be too expensive.


NHS Covid-19 app, tracking people's location and proximity to others to judge if someone might have been close to someone with the virus?



QR Codes and manual check in to businesses?

Did you spend 2021 under a tree?



They are. If people are reluctant to go somewhere because they have to wear a mask, then the masks are restricting trade. If it makes their enjoyment of what they're doing not enjoyable because they have to wear a mask they won't do it.


Like if you pay £20 for a concert ticket or whatever have to wear a mask and can't see it because the mask wearing steams up your glasses and you can't see with them off, or if it means your breathing is hampered by wearing it so you spend most of the time not enjoying it? (Well, of course, that's assuming restrictions allowed concerts).


Or if people don't want to go to London by train because that involves 3 hours on a carriage in the heat with a mask on and take the car instead, the train companies lose out on the money there.


Add into that the stigma and bad treatment people who are exempt from wearing a face covering have had to put up with from people who it is not their business to challenge this and take matters into their own hands, there is a reason why that is illegal and it is because it breaks disability laws, it is none of anyone else's business why someone is or isn't wearing a mask. Some people of course would avoid the argument and not do it. That restricts trade too.


Plus they don't work anyway. Not unless they're FFP2 type masks used properly.




It already has been for about the last 20 years anyway. Amazon especially has killed off plenty of high street book and record stores, and countless more independent ones, it's largely just chains like waterstones these days.


Hybrid working is something companies benefit from too - if they have fewer staff in the office, that can mean they need less office space. And on days when people aren't in the office it saves on the electricity, heating, etc from not having staff physically in the workplace.



A lot of companies will still embrace it even after the virus. It's just sped things up a bit.

That's a management issue.


If staff are underperforming because they are working from home that's down to individuals and managers to sort out.



A lot of jobs can be done equally or better from any location including home.

Re: Coronavirus
 

So they do work?

I'm unaware of a requirement to wear masks at concerns, seated in a pub, or doing anything that could even be considered remotely enjoyable.

For every person who won't go out but for the need to wear a mask that's equally offset by those who refuse to engage with the old economy - continuing to work from home, voluntarily restricting their own activities. So this is not the zero sum game that you claim it to be.

It has indeed, which is why I've stated it necessary in any case. Not just to offset winners/losers in the pandemic.

indeed, but it leaves us some distance from the 2019 economy by simply pretending it is 2019.

It's not solely a management issue - employers have responsibilities to their staff, and 2019 HR policies are wholly insufficient for a pandemic that someone could reasonably catch the virus twice or three times in one year. Nor are business continuity plans based on whole teams being off sick at once.

It's a massive economic issue that pretending it is 2019 will not resolve - hence my questioning of where is the learning.

Re: Coronavirus
 

It's true to an extent, But closing businesses is pretty much all they can do which will be largely complied with (even then we had businesses staying open and defying these orders).



if the pub's closed, why not come round for a few pints tomorrow?



The government wants everyone tucked up by 9pm but some people can't do that and they aren't able to police it anyway (won't the police have to be tucked up by 9 too)?


In fact no-one's going to stop it and no-one's going to care if we cram 20 people into a massive disco party in a terrace right? Well, not at least until after it's happened anyway?



And then what if it was a work gathering?



Such a thing doesn't exist and doesn't show a sign of existing.


Over time the disease hasn't got worse in terms of symptoms, whether by the natural course of the virus, or by exposure to infection and vaccination, it's got weaker if anything. Vaccine escape is always partial especially when we're using vaccines tailored to a variant which was circulating almost 3 years ago.


If they needed to, they could always make another AZ type vaccine with a different spike protein and whack it through the emergency approvals and get into arms quickly.



Plus the previous immunity would no doubt be blunted not eroded.



I'm sure you'd need them to when your bins aren't emptied, your takeaway food doesn't turn up, your Amazon delivery or post isn't there, and there's no-one to open Tesco, because everyone is at home scared of Covid.

Paid for by the government, so more taxes and more increase on the "cost of living" aka inflation caused by covid response making people sit at home doing nothing and being paid for it with nothing to spend it on. That's going to make it better, right?

---------- Post added at 22:24 ---------- Previous post was at 22:17 ----------


Entirely dependent on the equipment and how it's used.


Wearing a bit of old cloth and not washing it between uses or putting it on tables, in pockets with your phone or hankie or whatever when you're not wearing it. That's not benefiting anything at all and even if the slim chance the cloth stopped the virus at all as soon as it touched anything else it'd spread contamination. As would re-using single use masks.



Wearing and using properly including before and after use, a proper surgical device, will have more effect than that, and will probably reduce transmission by more.


But then you have to think about why surgeons wear masks? It isn't to stop viruses.



Except it was where we had indoor mask mandates.



In places of worship, museums, theatres, concert halls, you had to unless exempt.


Pubs were always given special treatment even though it was utter nonsense in that you could always take a mask off when seated. But since they were restricted to seated and table service only explain the benefit of that?



I'm claiming what? where?


I haven't "not" done anything because of covid since, well, we were legally allowed to "do" it again, and certainly not since getting vaccinated.


Working from home is between employees and employers. If a company only wants their staff in the office 1 day a week, then are you saying that working from home on the other four isn't "engaging with the new economy"? Don't forget that working from home also reduces the load on transport and net-zero benefits from people not commuting?

Re: Coronavirus
 

Nobody invites the whole pub round - hence it reduces the number of interactions to closer social circles.

I think you have misunderstood what a curfew is.

The inability of police to police doesn't stop the deterrent effect for the vast majority of law abiding citizens.

I'd be interested in what (if any) scientific evidence implies it's doesn't show a sign of existing. I think it was clear the premise of my post was hypothetical in any case.

Has it?

Is it always partial? Is there a scientific base for that or is it possible a virus mutates to the extent it completely evades all immunity?

Perhaps so, but I didn't state my need I stated their intent.

Yes, you're right, they'd all prefer to go out and die for capitalism and keep inflation low.

The inflation comparison is a red herring - it's up to the Government to use the levers of the tax system to balance things out between the winners and losers.

Then you are not who I was referring to my post - I'd be wary of applying your own personal circumstances to a population of 66 million people with varying working circumstances and health situations.

I'm not saying it's not a benefit - merely that the gap between 'living with the virus' on an ongoing basis and the 2019 economy remains significant, and even attempts to reconcile the two by pretending the virus isn't an issue are doomed to failure.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Not going to happen.

Not going to happen

In short…….there won’t be any more lockdowns, no matter how desperate you are for one.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Three straw men in one post. I challenge you - like OB - to find a recent post (e.g. today) where I advocated for one?

It's not so much learning to live with the virus as learning to read that's the challenge in here tonight. I get it - the butthurt is palpable among the Boris acolytes. His three claimed successes, Brexit, Covid and the other one I forget are failures. The economy is in tatters. However that doesn't entitle you to wilfully misinterpret my posts.

Re: Coronavirus
 

These are just your opinions, not facts.
You cant even remember the third one, yet you tag "it" a failure.

See above.

Ah yes, of course, you are very careful not to directly state it, just imply it.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Even the leading Conservative party candidates for leadership admit - up to two decades - of economic failure. I hardly consider it controversial for me to say so.

I add you to those I challenge to outline where I advocate lockdown (or even where the sum of what I suggest adds up to it). It's just not there - it's a wilful misinterpretation of my posts.

Do I think there's intermediate steps that, from time to time, might be proportionate? That's probably in there - depending on circumstances of course. If not taking action there's an acknowledgement that there's consequences - economically - to that too. Again, I'm not being controversial there. Sick days add up at the most basic level, and that has impact on the provision of public services, essential services provided by the private sector, and others. In particular those sectors already decimated by the end of freedom of movement.

Pierre hypothesised that restrictions wouldn't work - that's the only point where I've directly addressed the subject. Framed proportionately around what the state could do, and that rational actors within it wouldn't be as willing as he suggests to risk themselves in the face of a more severe variant. The reality is the vast majority of human interaction is entirely incidental in a way that restrictions could enforce even if groups of individuals flouted the rules (which Pierre indeed admits he has been since the start - so that's not new).

Re: Coronavirus
 

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/15...hael-fabricant

[EXTRACT]

The study referred to an analytical model that is described as "the most comprehensive assessment of excess mortality due to COVID-19 to date".

After factoring in excess deaths during the pandemic from all causes, the UK is now 29th in Europe and ninth in Western Europe in terms of death rate from the deadly pathogen.

Clinical Epidemiologist Dr Raghob Ali tweeted: "Far from the UK having the worst death rate in Europe, or even Western Europe, as many still think, it is actually 29th in Europe and 9th in Western Europe.

Re: Coronavirus
 

We never imagined needing to lockdown prior to Covid , suggesting it will never be needed again is somewhat ignorant.

It’s entirely possible there will be another variant of covid which means we will need to unfortunately start all over again….

Re: Coronavirus
 

Actual source material from four months ago, like your link…

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/l...796-3/fulltext

https://www.cableforum.uk/board/atta...6&d=1658679393

The report state that it estimates three times the reported number of people died from COVID worldwide.

The actual difference for the U.K. between reported and estimated was 3%…

There is no "league table" in that paper that shows the U.K. was 9th/29th…

If you look at the table from the report in this link, it shows that for Western Europe, there were 15 countries in that table of that had lower estimated rates than the U.K..

https://www.thelancet.com/action/sho...2821%2902796-3

Estimated excess mortality rate per 100,000

Austria 107.5
Cyprus 32.2
Denmark 94.1
Finland 80.8
France 124.2
Germany 120.5
Iceland 47·8
Ireland 12·5
Israel 51·0
Luxembourg 89·2
Malta 89·9
Monaco 74·4
Norway 7·2
Sweden 91·2
Switzerland 93·1
United Kingdom 126·8

Re: Coronavirus
 

Not going to happen.

Re: Coronavirus
 

It is feasible that there could be a variant which not only erodes vaccine or infection acquired immunity equal or more than the current ones; it is also feasible that there could be a variant which produces more severe disease than the omicron lineage (which most experts do now seem to agree is milder despite Whitty initially saying it probably wasn't - when in reality what he was actually saying is that there wasn't enough evidence).



It is possible some or all of both will occur at the same time.


If let's say that the vaccine escape in BA5 makes it infect 100x as many people as let's say Delta, but that the infection was let's say 100x less serious (if you could measure that way), You'd still end up with a roughly similar number in hospital.



But even in that situation you wouldn't be "starting again" because for that to happen absolutely nothing we had against covid would work. Vaccines wouldn't stop people getting hospitalised, we'd see the admissions to tests go up again, we'd see hospitals not be able to treat them as the anti-virals don't work. But on that point I don't think they actually invented any new anti-virals for covid, just tested how to make the existing ones effective. They'd also know how to keep people apart and stop infections spreading more.


There may well be something in the future which does this but it's all hyperbole to predict how the pandemic is going to run or transition to be endemic. Whether this is due to evolution of the virus or that more people simply have some immunity to the virus either through infection or vaccination, the course of the disease in those who do get it is, at the moment, milder, and this has generally been the case, Delta was milder than Alpha in a lot of people, but just got more people. Whether the disease will generally progress to a cold type illness in pretty much everyone, or whether it will at some point throw out a variant which does have more severe effects, remains to be seen and won't be seen until it happens.



And if it does there would probably be some sort of booster roll out to the more vulnerable, maybe some more encouragement to WFH, maybe return of more free testing availability and isolating people who have the virus, What probably won't happen as much is more general-facing measures on people who aren't ill, such as covid passes (pointless if vaccinated and previously infected can get and spread it anyway), mask wearing in the general population, closure of businesses, stay home orders etc, which generally do cause more damage than they solve and probably do little to actually stop the virus anyway.


So I can't really think of any situation where the virus would put us "back to the start" or indeed where we'd get that sort of response from the politicians at all. It wouldn't be an appropriate solution really.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Because….?

---------- Post added at 22:13 ---------- Previous post was at 22:10 ----------

The fact you can’t think of a situation doesn’t meant it cannot or won’t occur.

I’ll bet you a pound to a penny three and half years ago you couldn’t or didn’t think about covid and the destruction it would wreak

Re: Coronavirus
 

It’s not going to happen.