Thread: Coronavirus
View Single Post
Old 21-02-2022, 18:47   #1667
ianch99
cf.mega poster
 
ianch99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 4,434
ianch99 has a bronze arrayianch99 has a bronze arrayianch99 has a bronze array
ianch99 has a bronze arrayianch99 has a bronze arrayianch99 has a bronze arrayianch99 has a bronze arrayianch99 has a bronze arrayianch99 has a bronze arrayianch99 has a bronze arrayianch99 has a bronze arrayianch99 has a bronze arrayianch99 has a bronze arrayianch99 has a bronze arrayianch99 has a bronze arrayianch99 has a bronze arrayianch99 has a bronze arrayianch99 has a bronze arrayianch99 has a bronze arrayianch99 has a bronze arrayianch99 has a bronze array
Re: Coronavirus

Quote:
Originally Posted by nffc View Post
The question is more that if a person contracts covid what is the likelihood of serious illness (for example requiring hospital, ventilator or ICU treatment) or death, and how does this compare to other viruses including cold viruses, flu, norovirus etc if contracted. Also which viruses also mandate legal isolation for a time period or a testing condition and the proportion of their infections progressing to such a state.


Nobody is suggesting people with covid or any other virus should go round everywhere coughing over people and making everyone else ill. They are just removing the legal requirement for a positive test result (which doesn't even define that a person is infectious) to isolate.


Freedom from legal restriction should always be the case. If a legal restriction is applied, then it should be justified as to why it is necessary. These restrictions were temporary as we had no idea what the new virus was capable of and how we would manage it, the virus is now largely managed by not only the vaccines but also multiple options with antivirals which means that we are not only in a state where there is high immunity already but a much higher chance that people who do get ill will be treated. So does this justify having further restrictions? Why are legal restrictions necessary at this stage?
You have not addressed the central point: if Covid still represents a serious danger to the vulnerable, surely there should be degree of mitigation, enforced in law, in the same way, that people are protected from drunk drivers.

You say "Nobody is suggesting people with covid or any other virus should go round everywhere coughing over people and making everyone else ill". Well, this guy is:

Quote:
No symptoms but test positive? Come to work, says hotelier

If someone tests positive for Covid but do not feel ill they should still come into work, a leading hotelier says.

"If the reality of this is that we’re saying that Covid isn’t a pandemic anymore, it’s an endemic disease and like flu, it should be treated like flu," Rocco Forte tells BBC Radio 4's World at One programme.

“And therefore you don’t test every worker who falls ill with flu. You tell people to stay at home if they’re not feeling well.”

Asked if an employee who tests positive for Covid but does not feel unwell should still come into work, he replies: "Yes, I would say that."
__________________
Unifi Express + BT Whole Home WiFi | VM 1Gbps
ianch99 is offline   Reply With Quote