[nffc]

Originally Posted by jfman

If updated vaccines are rolled out, and not two variants out of date by the time they are, then yes they do have the potential to be a game changer.

Two variants out of date isn't much though.


It's certainly much better than two years out of date.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

Originally Posted by jfman

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.

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.

Originally Posted by jfman

If we won’t even pay for that there’s going to be nothing in terms of improving ventilation in public buildings.

It's a better solution than anything else.


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

Originally Posted by jfman

Spying apps? I must have missed those.

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?

Originally Posted by jfman

Masks are fundamentally not a trading restriction, especially in non-optional settings like public transport, healthcare settings, etc.

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.

Originally Posted by jfman

Where and how you tax people is a legitimate point, and something that needs approached anyway with online trade killing off the high street.

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.

Originally Posted by jfman

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.

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.

Originally Posted by jfman

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.

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.