Coronavirus

[Mad Max]

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

What if you're not ill but infected?

Go to your work, could be infected with a cold.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

Will we know the full facts in future? Only hospital inmates count and excess deaths will provide any form of indication.

Do we need to know? If we knew the daily figures for flu there would be alarm and despondency most winters.

The point is, hospital admissions continue to decline and the NHS is coping. So why obsess about the figures?

It’s pretty well over in this country, thanks to Boris.

---------- Post added at 20:13 ---------- Previous post was at 20:11 ----------

Originally Posted by Paul

People who are ill generally do, and always have.

Same with flu.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Do we need to know? If we knew the daily figures for flu there would be alarm and despondency most winters.

The point is, hospital admissions continue to decline and the NHS is coping. So why obsess about the figures?

It’s pretty well over in this country, thanks to Boris.

---------- Post added at 20:13 ---------- Previous post was at 20:11 ----------



Same with flu.

That statement is so dense my screen is warping around it…

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Hugh

That statement is so dense my screen is warping around it…

Flu can kill 25,000 in the U.K. during the winter, Hugh.

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

What if you're not ill but infected?

If you're not ill, you go to work, just like you always have, obviously.

---------- Post added at 01:03 ---------- Previous post was at 01:03 ----------

Originally Posted by Mad Max

Go to your work, could be infected with a cold.

If your not ill, you're not likely to be "infected" with anything, and have no reason to think otherwise.


If you're going to worry about what you might have, you'll end up in a very deep hole, with lots of tin foil.

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by nffc

The only change is that people would then be expected to use their common sense and do it, as opposed to being legally compelled to.

Wasn't that the case in the past with drink driving and seatbelts?

---------- Post added at 13:10 ---------- Previous post was at 13:01 ----------

The real problem here is that the science element of the Government decision making has been deprecated. I have seen no statement by Whitty et al, underwriting the current changes.

What is more obscure is the knowledge and awareness on the current immunity curve. It would be good to clearly educate people how long their last booster might last to provide confidence in the decision making.

[1andrew1]

Oops!

COVID-19: Cabinet meeting to sign off Boris Johnson's 'living with COVID' strategy delayed over free testing row

Sky's political correspondent Tamara Cohen reports that there is a "big disagreement" between the Treasury and the Department of Health about who will continue to get access to free COVID tests.

https://news.sky.com/story/covid-19-...g-row-12547921

Originally Posted by ianch99

The real problem here is that the science element of the Government decision making has been deprecated. I have seen no statement by Whitty et al, underwriting the current changes.

What is more obscure is the knowledge and awareness on the current immunity curve. It would be good to clearly educate people how long their last booster might last to provide confidence in the decision making.

Indeed. From Sky again:

'Chris Whitty and Patrick Vallance have been notably silent of late'

British scientists and medics have written an open letter to England's chief medical officer Chris Whitty and chief scientific adviser Patrick Vallance, asking them to clarify the science behind potential COVID decisions.

The letter, posted online, references reports that Boris Johnson plans to end free coronavirus testing and self-isolation for positive COVID cases.

It says: "We ask you to clarify the scientific advice underpinning these policy decisions. We do not believe there is a solid scientific basis for the policy.

"It is almost certain to increase the circulation of the virus and remove the visibility of emerging variants of concern."

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by ianch99

Wasn't that the case in the past with drink driving and seatbelts?

no

---------- Post added at 13:36 ---------- Previous post was at 13:34 ----------

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

'Chris Whitty and Patrick Vallance have been notably silent of late'

because nobody is interested in what they have to say anymore

[nffc]

Originally Posted by ianch99

Wasn't that the case in the past with drink driving and seatbelts?

Drink driving and not wearing a seatbelt are against the law. So no. Such comparisons really aren't worth repeating.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Pierre

because nobody is interested in what they have to say anymore

Over 1,700 medical professionals seem to be.

[Carth]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

Over 1,700 medical professionals seem to be.

Of course they do, they're medical professionals

They also like to give people warnings about smoking, drinking, 5 a day, red meat, exercise, chocolate, coffee, drugs, sunbathing etc etc . . . do we (as in the general public) really take notice?

[papa smurf]

Sajid Javid unveils roll out of 4th Covid jab for over-75s and vulnerable adults across UK

https://www.express.co.uk/news/polit...HS-news-update

[nffc]

Originally Posted by Carth

Of course they do, they're medical professionals

They also like to give people warnings about smoking, drinking, 5 a day, red meat, exercise, chocolate, coffee, drugs, sunbathing etc etc . . . do we (as in the general public) really take notice?

Probably not. But then, that is our decision, we know the risks and if we don't live healthily then we will have the effects of this. No-one's stopping you drinking a bottle of vodka a night but if you do it more than not you will probably end up with a ruined liver and who knows what else.


I have a lot of time for Whitty and Vallance and the other scientists and what they think. But it is only one aspect of the response. Scientifically speaking, the best way to stop the virus spreading is still for everyone to stay at home. Yesterday's figure was just under 30k a day which is still a fairly significant amount, it was high for within the Delta outbreak, but looks low since we had much higher at the end of Dec/beginning of Jan, but then, we've had access to more testing than before since then. But everyone has had the offer of a vaccine, and aside for those with good reason not to take it, everyone either has or knows the risks of not doing it. They are never perfect and won't stop you getting covid or spreading it necessarily but they will usually prevent more severe outcomes. The general vaccinated population shouldn't be held back because of people not wanting a vaccine because someone on facebook said it has a 5g in it. But the scientists may well be aware of economic, social, etc effects of continuing restrictions but not necessarily have their focus on it nor be best placed to advise (yes I know CW has a PGDip in economics) because that job is primarily for cabinet to decide.

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by nffc

Drink driving and not wearing a seatbelt are against the law. So no. Such comparisons really aren't worth repeating.

My point was that they both were not against the law at one point and so only required only people to use their "common sense".

---------- Post added at 18:03 ---------- Previous post was at 17:57 ----------

Originally Posted by nffc

Probably not. But then, that is our decision, we know the risks and if we don't live healthily then we will have the effects of this. No-one's stopping you drinking a bottle of vodka a night but if you do it more than not you will probably end up with a ruined liver and who knows what else.


I have a lot of time for Whitty and Vallance and the other scientists and what they think. But it is only one aspect of the response. Scientifically speaking, the best way to stop the virus spreading is still for everyone to stay at home. Yesterday's figure was just under 30k a day which is still a fairly significant amount, it was high for within the Delta outbreak, but looks low since we had much higher at the end of Dec/beginning of Jan, but then, we've had access to more testing than before since then. But everyone has had the offer of a vaccine, and aside for those with good reason not to take it, everyone either has or knows the risks of not doing it. They are never perfect and won't stop you getting covid or spreading it necessarily but they will usually prevent more severe outcomes. The general vaccinated population shouldn't be held back because of people not wanting a vaccine because someone on facebook said it has a 5g in it. But the scientists may well be aware of economic, social, etc effects of continuing restrictions but not necessarily have their focus on it nor be best placed to advise (yes I know CW has a PGDip in economics) because that job is primarily for cabinet to decide.

So, are you saying that Covid no longer represents a serious risk to the vulnerable e.g. immunocompromised, etc. ? If not, then surely mandating that an infectious person remain isolated is the only sensible & moral choice to make.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by ianch99

My point was that they both were not against the law at one point and so only required only people to use their "common sense".

---------- Post added at 18:03 ---------- Previous post was at 17:57 ----------



So, are you saying that Covid no longer represents a serious risk to the vulnerable e.g. immunocompromised, etc. ? If not, then surely mandating that an infectious person remain isolated is the only sensible & moral choice to make.

There has to be a point at which Covid gets treated like flu.
The vulnerable are still vulnerable just as they were before Covid. The Covid jabs will be like flu jabs, updated for the current dominant strain, etc.

It was never previously mandated that people with flu had to isolate; it was guidance.