Re: Coronavirus
 

What's so interesting about that?

You could substitute the two names there for any two names on here and get the same conversation :D

Re: Coronavirus
 

Science people love acronyms to look clever and to be able to write something meaningful on teeny tiny test tubes

As Chris said, COVID-19 is a COronaVIrus Disease discovered in 2019 - the illness basically. The virus which causes it is Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus number 2 - SARS-COV-2

Re: Coronavirus
 

If you mean we should head towards being an authoritative police state where we have to show our papers in order to go about our business - is statesmanlike - then yes he is.

Re: Coronavirus
 

You're lucky if you can find police to check your papers with austerity.

Re: Coronavirus
 

https://twitter.com/dpjhodges/status...628847619?s=21

https://www.cableforum.uk/board/atta...5&d=1638890661

Re: Coronavirus
 

Of course, that makes perfect sense..........not.

What if, and I'm being hypothetical just like that graph - you know "imagining", the Omicron strain was so mild it was no worse than a bad cold and didn't kill anyone?


That would kind of make that "hypothetical" graph a load of bollocks, wouldn't it? I mean hypothetically speaking.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

A more transmissible virus will outcompete its rivals for host bodies to infect because it can get to them more quickly. Omicron will be pretty much the only show in town before long. We’re finding it by the dozen this week because we’re looking for it but you can bet it is already far more prevalent than stats suggest, and I suspect it’s been here a little longer than we think too.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

Has nomad hacked your account? Assuming this is Seph and you’re not intentionally peddling non-sequiturs, could you clarify your question? :p:

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

Having COVID wouldn't protect you from getting the flu unfortunately. It would be a bad day at the office if you got both at the same time though.

The measures taken in the past such as social distancing, masks, handwashing and lockdowns would reduce flu levels as a handy side effect though. I suppose if you isolate due to COVID, you are less likely to get flu but that's only a couple of weeks out of circulation.

What we really don't want is lots of people getting the flu while lots of people have COVID. That would clog things up rapidly in hospitals. The double whammy of COVID and flu vaccines is very helpful here.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Does Covid give you immunity to flu?
(I would have thought working from home and wearing face masks would reduce the spread of flu.)

Re: Coronavirus
 

Covid doesn’t even give you immunity to Covid :D

Re: Coronavirus
 

Experts from the universities of Göttingen and Cornell who did the study said their finding 'makes social distancing less important'.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Not everybody is encouraged to get a flu jab. It is recommended for older people and the otherwise vulnerable. Covid-19 is a different matter.

Flu has been around for generations so we have a good amount of herd immunity, which is bolstered by updated vaccines and by good hygiene and self-imposed isolation when ill. None of these measures and factors are enough on their own, and not even 100% collectively, so we lose up to 20,000 vulnerable people a year to flu.

Covid-19 is still a novel virus, a virus where no immunity and no vaccines were present at the outset. Potentially everyone could have caught it in a very short time with devasting results if all the 1%ish (800,000+) of fatalities happened within twelve months and all those that needed treatment needed it during the same period. The measures taken, albeit rather late, prevented the worst case scenario of many more than 1% dying through lack of treatment from an overwhelmed health service.

The situation now, barring highly lethal variants, is getting closer to being comparable with flu, but until we have the virus at a less than endemic level worldwide and until the vast majority have some level of immunity, Covid-19 has to be treated differently.

Re: Coronavirus
 

But it was stated at the very start of the pandemic that exposure to other Corona Virus such as the flu or common cold could afford you some protection against covid and/or other such corona Virius.

restated in this study

https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/art...id-19-severity

Re: Coronavirus
 

Any evidence that it did?

Re: Coronavirus
 

Ask Prof. Alexandra Trkola. He says it does. I haven’t conducted any studies myself.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I remember some saying that flu and cold viruses basically strong-armed their way into our cells, preventing covid-19 from getting in and replicating.

Re: Coronavirus
 

So if it did, and we still needed three lockdowns plus the upcoming one it doesn’t sound like it had much more than a marginal impact. Probably less than masks.

---------- Post added at 20:15 ---------- Previous post was at 20:13 ----------

Haha yes. Optimism lacking in evidence.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Well whether we “needed” three lockdowns is a matter of opinion.

Also the fact that we have had 10.5M recorded cases in the U.K. and probably a more accurate figure many multiples of that and only 146K deaths.

Perhaps the reason COVID is ultimately a very survivable illness is due to a level of pre-existing population immunity gained by exposure to other less harmful coronavirus?

Re: Coronavirus
 

Well what’s the alternative, collapsing the health service? When that rationale is used for the next one I doubt the keyboard warriors will take to the streets.

Deaths within 28 days

Hypothetically. But as you acknowledged above these hypotheses could be bullshit.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Well we didn’t, you can debate if the lockdown facilitated that. You can debate whether two more were required. We built several Nightingale facilities - not used.

not sure of your point here?



Absolutely

Re: Coronavirus
 

Because the NHS is already short of nurses and doctors so couldn't really spread them out any more thinly by moving some of them to new hospitals.


It was, like a fair amount this Gov did (and I'm usually a tory), more hot air and publicity bluster than something which was actually going to make a difference.



They do seem to be responding a lot better with the new HS compared to his predecessor who I never really liked. Javid seems to be more proportionate and considered in his actions and considers more than the "OMG we must get rid of covid" stance. I just wish they would mandate WFH as it's a lot more effective than the things they have done (aside from the travel controls, but they're little use if as is suspected there is community spread now).

Re: Coronavirus
 

There is no debate. The evidence is clear.

As we follow Gauteng and their trends with Omicron the same rationale will justify the next lockdown.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Do you have next Saturday's lottery numbers too?

Re: Coronavirus
 

I just can’t see another lockdown. The initial response to Omicron was the absolute least the government could do, to be seen to be doing something, and they probably didn’t want to do that.

Another lockdown? To quote someone, you’d have to see the bodies piling up first.
Of course the bodies won’t pile up. Because without vaccines it’s a very survivable illness, with vaccines it’s more of an irritation than anything else.

Also, Dishy Rishi isn’t going to pay for you to toss off the new year. No, the U.K. gravy train is not leaving the station. Therefore the economy needs to, and will, stay open.

Re: Coronavirus
 

No but the lottery is entirely random. The growth rate of Omicron is not on the other hand.

---------- Post added at 22:30 ---------- Previous post was at 22:27 ----------

With the best will in the world, Pierre, you didn't see the obvious school closures.- to all but the children of key workers - in January.

You persistently see what you want to happen, not what's happening in reality. Omicron is here and unstoppable. The growth rate is baked in. The vaccines alone aren't enough.

As for the rest of your post - hopeless optimism, quoting a proven liar and petty insults against furloughed workers aren't worthy of reply.

Comrade Rishi will fund what is required when the time comes - it's inevitable.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I didn’t because they were unnecessary. Schools didn’t close. Many schools still had over 50% occupancy just with key workers and vulnerable children. There is no evidence that restricting children attending school helped whatsoever. As a school governor, there is an abundance of evidence that restricting access to school has had a very measurable impact to development of children and the impact is not academic as you might expect especially in KS1/KS2 but emotionally especially in KS1. The kids are just not equipped to cope with school.

If anything comes of any inquiry, it will be that in closing schools the negatives far outweighed any perceived benefit.

Optimus Prime will sort it. Given that there is no real data atm. Your certainty is misplaced. Or is Hypothetical at best

:tu:

Re: Coronavirus
 

So was Thanos.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Semantics up there with OB claiming the original variant went away in summer. Equally every school holiday is correlated with a drop in community transmission.

Not sure what being a school governor has to do with anything other than perhaps explaining an emotive and irrational response to the subject of pandemic management.

As I say, you've been wrong before. You aren't considering the data. You're just opining about a subject you profess to be bored of and not care about. Yet here you are, passionately opining that there's no justification for any restrictions nor lockdowns.

You may claim there's no real data, but unfortunately - as before - taking a British centric approach to data leads to being late to the table.

My certainty is well placed. Give it a month, max. See I consider the data. I care about the subject. And I don't view it through an ideological prism of despising state intervention at all costs - even if it's saving jobs and lives.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Best laugh I’ve had all evening.

You’ve been predicting “lockdown within a month” ever since summer. Even a broken clock is right twice a day - if there’s a lockdown of any sort this winter, you won’t have predicted it based on data.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I’m a school governor, I am seeing the school plans being put in place to try and get the pupils to recover from some of them being restricted from attending for no good reason.

You, however are not.

as have you, regardless of your self adulation, I guarantee many of your recent proclamations won’t age well.

that’s all I’m considering.

if you have data I’ll view it ………..do you have any?…………

I’ve bookmarked it.

You are a wonderful human being. Don’t let anyone tell you otherwise. I believe in you. You can do it!

Not when there’s free money…why would you.

---------- Post added at 23:11 ---------- Previous post was at 23:09 ----------

:tu:

Re: Coronavirus
 

Grateful if you could source a single post where I predicted a lockdown within a month at any point since July.

We both know I've not predicted that - I have said at points if growth rates aren't kept in check, via other restrictions, a lockdown is inevitable as the emergency brake. Growth rates have fluctuated - in particular around school holidays - and finally vaccines for teenagers and boosters with mRNA vaccines are all positives.

However they only push back so much. Against Delta the Government have found it's sweet spot of cases, hospitalisations and deaths that it can live with - R roughly 1. 50k/1k/200.

Yet Omicron is out there - R is at least 2 it could be as high as 4. It throws the whole thing in the bin if the NHS is at 70-80% capacity. That's why this prediction is substantively different from the others.

---------- Post added at 23:22 ---------- Previous post was at 23:18 ----------

Educators looking after educators interests - long holidays on an agricultural calendar. I'm sure they're totally impartial.

I cannot wait. You have no basis to offer any such guarantees other than blind hope. I've ignored the rest of your post - as you've said you don't consider there is a point in bringing in restrictions so pointing to any evidence in either direction is a fruitless exercise.

You're a school governor after all, I'm sure you could source your own empirical data if genuinely interested.

Re: Coronavirus
 

priceless….you on the Buckfast tonight?

well it’s only a few weeks.

well why change a winning formula?

Re: Coronavirus
 

Well Pierre, I think we can substantively leave it there for a couple of weeks at least I'm not lowering myself to your petty insults. Our chips are in.

That said I'm not sure I'd want to be in your school. After all...

Sentences start with a capital letter and end with a full stop. Basic literacy? Public health? Who knows where your interests lie.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Why is "more transmissible" far far worse than "more deadly" ?

Re: Coronavirus
 

I may have dreamt this and therefore may end up looking silly but I'm sure I heard or read that it's hard to catch covid if you have a cold as the cold virus is a stronger virus and physically stops covid invading the already infected cells. I could quite easily be wrong on this though

---------- Post added at 00:07 ---------- Previous post was at 00:05 ----------

Perhaps we had the same dream, worryingly

Re: Coronavirus
 

Because it can infect more people. The virus itself might not be more deadly per person injected but the spread might be more deadly if it hits more people.

Re: Coronavirus
 

At least you haven’t lost your sense of humour, or Irony. See you in a few weeks.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Like the common cold you mean? Well we have learned to live with it why not a more transmissible but gentler version of Covid?All these infections are seeking to get replicated quickly and fast.A gentler version would be much more successful in surviving.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Conjecture & speculation.. but with current ongoings will anyone take note?

https://www.thesun.co.uk/health/1697..._source=pushly

Re: Coronavirus
 

I'm hoping it is just the usual meticulous Sun journalism.

and from same article

and

Re: Coronavirus
 

Also in the FT...

Re: Coronavirus
 

Indeed, but then, this wouldn't be the first time the government have said something and then done a U turn in the space of hours.

We'll see (or won't see) soon enough i guess

Re: Coronavirus
 

Now that I can believe. Because there's certainly no evidential reason to introduce any measures.

Re: Coronavirus
 

& the independent.

Can just imagine the conversation.

'Right then chaps, we need to subvert some of the proles & the media due to getting caught out, anyone got any ideas?

Re: Coronavirus
 

Project Fear stepped up a gear again this evening.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Yep, those 161 reported deaths today were probably just from fear.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Arbitrary bollocks.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Deaths are reported everyday, so whats your point exactly ?

(If you even bothered to watch it, Whitty made a point of not saying they were rising atm).

Re: Coronavirus
 

It seems proportionate at this time. Though again he was as vague as possible.


Masks to be extended - but to where? Eating and drinking is impossible with a mask on, so no surprises there. Exercise is difficult with a mask on, singing is too (if you do it properly - I'm a singer and would find it difficult to sing with a mask on if not impossible, though I suppose people mumbling along to a hymn in church will probably be ok). Are we going to have the mask hokey cokey we had before in hospitality, which directly contravenes the current guidelines on the Gov site? If so why the u-turn? Though the current situation doesn't really go far enough (but covers essential trips). If you're in a museum you don't wear one in the museum itself but do in the shop? And if you're in a theatre, sat around the same people for hours, you don't, but in a shop where you're in for a matter of minutes not around the same people you do?


Vax passports - putting aside how beneficial they actually are, then this was vague too. So he said about venues with certain capacity limits but what does this mean? Any place where 500 people will gather indoors needs one? At least the outdoors places over 10,000 means Derby County don't have to worry about it ;)


And as I said the other day, WFH should have been done first.


It also seems that the testing instead of isolation is a better compromise. If you don't have covid there's no reason why you should isolate and it gets the positive tests quicker.


Early Jan review - for tightening restrictions again like last year?

Re: Coronavirus
 

680 hospitalisations a day in England in not a minor matter, especially when the number of infections is rising so rapidly(doubling every 3 days).


Eating and drinking by themselves are less of a transmission problem, but any talking aspect whilst having a meal or drink, IS more of a transmission problem. Anything that involves expelling more breath is more of a problem. Any contaminated air travels further.

Re: Coronavirus
 

They aren't.

Cases are going up, but not massively so (we are actually in the same territory as when unlocking, with schools due to finish in a week or so).


But we don't know how much of this is Delta and how much is Omicron. The numbers of Omicron are likely to be some multiples higher than the actual figure, this is always true. And we don't know much about this variant yet.


There is also the situation that hospitalisations and subsequently deaths lag cases by weeks. If as some models predict that Omicron cases will hit 100k a day by January, even if this takes over Delta, and has a similar hospitalisation rate, you'd be looking at double the current numbers of hospitalisations. If it's able to defeat the vaccines to the extent it makes this higher, then there will be an issue.


This is simply buying time and makes a fair amount of sense.

Re: Coronavirus
 

If it were project fear wouldn’t the boffins be implying that deaths are rising ?

Wfh vast majority of people will probably be loving that
Masks, hardly a major imposition.
I was however surprised regarding vaccine passports

Re: Coronavirus
 

I think that was the number of Omicron infections, its replacing Delta.
From memory, it was something like 0.9% of all infections on his graph ?
It is rising fast though, as it takes over from Delta, and will almost certainly become dominant, just as Delta took over from Alpha

Re: Coronavirus
 

I still don't think masks are effective enough to consider the inconvenience but it's logical to do what has been and seems to have sensible exceptions. And if it does reduce transmission by a small amount even 5% that still makes a difference in a context of high infections.


Vax passports - well, quite. Given that the vaccines still do work against Delta in terms of hospitalisations, but have a marked drop off with infection against 2 doses compared to original strains or Alpha, then even then there was no guarantee if someone had a vax passport that they weren't going to have covid. And that Omicron has more of a drop off, so there will no doubt be more double jabbed people who get it - not too surprising considering this represents the vast majority here now. It seems that the "alternative" of a negative LFT is ultimately much more useful.

---------- Post added at 19:30 ---------- Previous post was at 19:28 ----------

Ok so the concern here is that Omicron is doubling every 2-3 days, which is a lot.


I'm sure you understand exponential growth, so not going to emphasise what that means.



But if it can overtake Delta, which the signs are that it can (it's more transmissible which seems to be the key) and that if it can infect more people who are double jabbed, this number will no doubt get very high very quickly.


And as we have no idea how many of these cases will reach hospital, if the jabs still work against this, or if the milder illness is the case and they won't get that sick anyway, then they have to assume it will, and try and slow it down.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Deaths and hospitalisations are no higher than they were in Aug/Sep. The rise in Infections has not transposed to a rise in deaths or hospitalisations as yet.

At this moment in time any increase in restrictions is a speculative move, not grounded in any data. The proposed restrictions themselves are arbitrary in nature and are also not grounded in any data.

I haven’t done what I’m told, just because I’ve been told, since I was a child, and I’m not starting again now.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Keep drinking red wine in copious amounts, seems to work wonders.;)

Re: Coronavirus
 

What does 'more transmissable' even mean ?
I'm guessing it means you can catch it quicker ?
As yet Ive not seen a definition, just the phrase thrown about a lot.

Is it more likely to make you seriously ill ?
Is it more deadly than delta, the same, or is it milder ?
Again, Ive seen nothing so far to support it being one or the other.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Sky News has a good explanation

https://news.sky.com/story/covid-19-...sease-12489186

Re: Coronavirus
 

There is also some evidence that the incubation period of Omicron may be shorter, which would result in faster growth even if R was the same.

Re: Coronavirus
 

The graph Chris Whitty didn't show. 0 deaths so far.

https://www.cableforum.uk/board/atta...0&d=1638998875

Re: Coronavirus
 

... so far. But let's not forget that deaths lag hospitalisations lag cases by weeks at a time.


No doubt it's been around longer than it's been detected, these things always are. But let's not also forget that we don't have enough time to assess this yet.


Chris Whitty is an expert in this field and a doctor. It is probably against some moral or professional code somewhere for them to lie about things even if the politicians insist on pushing a certain narrative.



I do not for one second think that reactions should be based on a perceived risk or a potential risk not an actual risk, and there is a fair amount with this still unknown. For example we do not know for sure that this is milder and by how much. Indeed if it is milder the increased transmissibility may still overwhelm the NHS in the short term, if it's not mild enough. We are only getting so far theoretical data on vaccine escape done in labs, as opposed to real world impact on people, but then, there is plenty of evidence people who have had 2 doses can catch symptomatic Omicron. We don't know for sure how much yet nor how much more transmissible it is. By putting the brakes now on a few lower-risk areas (such as working from home) whilst there is still a lot to be determined may be enough to slow it down whilst it is assessed. And I think that once it is assessed if it does turn out to be something which doesn't cause mass hospitalisation or deaths relative to other variants and despite the increased transmissibility they will probably reverse it, but we don't know this yet - by the time we do, if we haven't put some brakes on it (let's not forget even now we don't have a lot of restrictions, there's not a lot you can't do, even if you have to wear a mask) it may be too late.


I suppose the two facts people hold out for are bound to change over time:
1. that no-one in the UK has been hospitalised with Omicron (Javid said so, though that may have changed since)
2. the WHO said no-one has died from it

Re: Coronavirus
 

Thank you Hugh.

So still largely a lot of "if/maybe/might/could" guesswork - until more information on what is actually happening comes along.

I seem to recall this same thing around July 17th when cases were still rising at the point of restrictions being removed - predictions were even more cases, but what actually happened was a fall over the rest of July, much to everyones surprise.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Your 2nd group is more to do with the severity of the disease.


Once it has made someone ill then this is the course of the disease, we don't know this for sure yet, as it will probably take a few weeks. But early indications are that it is milder than delta though this has been measured in a younger population.


Transmissibility is the basic idea of how the virus can infect others. So I suppose there are various factors at play, such as how much virus an infected person can emit, how much virus is needed to cause an infection, and how long it takes. So, i've heard people say recently that omicron can cause infection maybe 2-3 days after exposure, which I think is similar to delta, and less than the 5-7 days for Alpha and the original Wuhan strains. In itself that will make it more transmissible as it will spread through the population quicker. I guess this effect is down to the more optimised binding to the ACE2 receptor where it enters the cells. Not seen anything for omicron but they certainly said somewhere for delta that the viral load in an infected patient was higher, so it got around more, because people simply had more of it in them when they got infected, which means more virus is emitted, and if the infective dose is the same, this means you have a higher chance of getting infected. If it takes less virus to infect someone (e.g. because it is more efficient at entering cells) then that will increase it too...


If you look for example at this (though I suppose you could look at anything on a quick search) you'll see it's a multi-factor thing:


---------- Post added at 21:52 ---------- Previous post was at 21:49 ----------

This is because it coincided with the end of the Euros, Wimbledon, and the school holidays.


Kids are super spreaders of any virus, there is no doubt about it.


If you look closely at the stats the virus has invariably gone down when the schools are closed (whether forcibly, as in March-Sept 2020, and Jan-March 2021, or during normal operations such as Oct 2021 and Jul-Sept 2021).



Whilst they may well be mildly affected by this virus, there is always the risk of breakthrough infections into older age groups, who maybe unvaccinated, or since vaccines don't give complete protection, where the infection escapes existing immunity.



If people think carefully about their Christmas mixing, and get their boosters when called, no doubt we'll see the same effect again.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Schools will be closing down again soon, for Christmas, as will colleges and universities as well.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Yes, such effect was implicit in my post...


I'm totally against closing schools so we have to let this ride. But, this involves acceptance of the inevitable (as you quoted) amongst TPTB, that kids will get the virus and spread it, indeed a milder illness.


Single jabbing secondary kids, or any kids, is unlikely to stop this, not with a more transmissible Omicron.


Whatever is required to statistically reduce transmission of the virus (not just reduce hospitalisation) should be the long term solution.


Now it's been said today that 3 doses of Pfizer or Moderna with omicron is basically the same as 2 doses with Delta. So the boosters need to be accelerated including 4th doses to the more at risk. 2nd doses to primary kids, and 3rd to secondary age kids who let's face it are physically adults in the main. Nothing else will do but given the dose gap and logistics anywhere is a long way off and that protection needs to be more or less global which is the greater issue.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Not really. That is nothing but speculation, guesswork and bollocks, but hey, that’s what passes for analysis nowadays and people just lap it up.

There is nothing of any substance in that at all, but according to you it’s a “good explanation”. FFS.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Plenty of that in this thread so why not add some more?

Re: Coronavirus
 

tbf anything to do with Omicron is basically educated guesswork at the best because it's not been around to assess the impact sufficiently. Give it time.

Re: Coronavirus
 

It’s a good explanation of how exponential growth "could" affect numbers of cases/hospitalisations/deaths, not "would" - the article clearly states that.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Fair enough, but therefore give it time before you make decisions on restrictions.

You can’t make policy that affects your freedoms on “ guesswork”

---------- Post added at 22:23 ---------- Previous post was at 22:21 ----------

Therefore all it is, is a fantastic work of fiction.

Re: Coronavirus
 

It’s an explanation of how exponential growth in infections work.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Well, look at the number of confirmed omicron cases in the UK and then realise the actual number is much higher.


It is suspected to be more transmissible than Delta, so will more likely outcompete it.


It is suspected to be able to evade vaccine immunity.


It is suspected to be able to evade immunity from previous infection.


(though with the latter two points this is going to be partial but no doubt significant).


It is suspected to be a milder illness, though the data is not known as to how much and how much this will affect hospitalisations.


There is enough cause for the WHO to designate it a VOC
There is enough evidence for community transmission i.e. confirmed cases from people who have no links to the affected areas in Africa
There is a possibility that this will cause a high number of infection within days which may lead to a hospitalisation level which could overwhelm the available capacity


By the time you have seen this effect it is probably too late.


I don't see the issue in actions which won't massively affect a lot of people.

Yes chin diapers are annoying but they do have a mild at the most conservative estimate, effect on transmission.
Vax passes at least ensure people have some protection even if it's minimal and let's face it it's in your interests to protect yourself and get the vaccine


If these actions reduce transmission whilst the full facts are determined it could stop the infections etc spiralling out of control. If it's not going to work, they should and probably will relax them.

Re: Coronavirus
 

But not in this specific case………..

---------- Post added at 22:37 ---------- Previous post was at 22:30 ----------

So we don’t know…………

TBF you’ve laid it out, and managed to say nothing we don’t already know

Possibly, may, FFS.

That paragraph was interesting………….should…yes. Probably will……….hmmm

Re: Coronavirus
 

From the BBC ..

Cinemas are a bit of an oddity since you eat and drink while watching the film, so its not practical at that point.
So I guess it would just be inside the building, before you sit down for the film.

(The same possibly for theatres as well ?)

Re: Coronavirus
 

Pretty much the way things are in Scotland, as those restrictions were never lifted. However here you’re meant to have a mask on in a restaurant except when seated at your table so the English rules are still slightly more relaxed in that respect. In cinemas in my experience most people treat them like restaurants and masks come off as soon as people are seated and remain off throughout. As almost everyone is nursing a bucket of popcorn and a large drink it would be very difficult to determine if anyone was really breaking the rules.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I mentioned a while back that the company I work for mandated vaccination for all employees in the US. Well, the results are in - 0.9% of our employees refused the jab by the deadline and are now seeking new employment. I thought that was a pretty good strike rate to be honest. Mind you, this is a healthcare company and is based in the north east US where attitudes are pretty pro-vaccine compared to some other states

Re: Coronavirus
 

how many people is that then?

Re: Coronavirus
 

19 people out of 2110 chose not to have the vaccine without a valid excuse (the valid exemptions are listed under state law)

Re: Coronavirus
 

Do they work with sick or vulnerable people in hospitals or care homes?

Re: Coronavirus
 

It's all about saving the NHS from an unsustainable rise in admissions, whether people die or not. The apparent spread rate of Omicron is phenomenal and unprecedented in Covid terms. Like it or not that will produce sufficient serious illness to overwhelm the NHS again, especially when it hits older, unvaccinated folk.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I now don't take much notice of the Covid stuff spouted by all and sundry, I think I've become immune to it . . not Covid itself (although maybe, possibly, could be, who knows) . . . but the amount of news, updates, expert opinion and analysis thrown about and repeated every 10 minutes.

Information Overload . . .

Just bugger off, take your carefully manipulated graphs, charts and spreadsheets and shove them where the sun don't shine.

Re: Coronavirus
 

The 19 don't work at all now.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Mate, we all know you’re not a rat-licker, just frustrated…

Re: Coronavirus
 

The thing to focus on is protecting the NHS from the new moronic variant, in case it gets overwhelmed by people who aren't getting ill, and let's not forget it has a death rate of zero so it's not to be sniffed at ;)

Re: Coronavirus
 

Nope, mainly office staff. The field based staff who visit pharmaceutical companies and universities almost all got jabbed. My company followed the guidance from the State Government who mandated vaccines for all of their employees.

Re: Coronavirus
 

That's harsh.

Re: Coronavirus
 

With my bold it's probably more accurate :)

Eating and drinking is an exception and always has been.


Taking it off and on when moving around is a bit silly for me in any context. Just distance people and encourage table service.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

The fear mongering has started.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/202...ay-says-sajid/

Re: Coronavirus
 

The softening up process: Get the proles afraid of their own shadows.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Or…

Highlight worst-case scenario, and if it isn’t that bad, take credit for the measures in place…

Re: Coronavirus
 

.... or both.

Get everyone afraid of their own shadows, and then take the 'credit' when the world doesnt actually end.

---------- Post added at 15:54 ---------- Previous post was at 15:50 ----------

According the the BBC reports (about an hour ago) ;

The UK records 249 new Omicron cases, of these, 248 cases were in England and one in Scotland.
What it doesnt seem to indicate is how much Delta [other] cases are falling, which is just as important, is one simply replacing the other, or not.

Re: Coronavirus
 

You think that's harsh, OSHA (the US equivalent of the Health and Safety Executive) is mandating either vaccination or at least weekly testing for all companies with at least 100 employees - https://www.osha.gov/sites/default/f...s/OSHA4162.pdf The state my company is in mainly were ahead of the OSHA initiative.

This is being challenged in court though...

Re: Coronavirus
 

Well, most cases are clearly still Delta given that we registered around 50k in the UK today (down from around 53k last Thurs, but still a high amount).


Though Javid is probably not wrong when he suggests that the amount may be a lot higher. It is always the situation though, people don't get tested because they think it's a cold, or because they don't have a fever, or various situations. Or if they don't have any symptoms at all.



But then the studies in things like zoe have always said that the amount of covid is higher than the testing.



It's too early I suppose, as we have too few omicron cases (you'd expect the vast majority of omicron cases would show the s-gene dropout which isn't usually observed in delta when a PCR test is done) to see if these are just going to replace delta, or have been seen where you don't have a significant delta outbreak, e.g. where people have come back from abroad, isolated and tested positive for omicron on a PCR, then given it to family or the kids have gone to school or something, which leads to a small amount of spread which is localised.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I can put my hand up and say "I have never had a test"

Re: Coronavirus
 

why not?