Main Coronavirus / Covid-19 Discussion Thread

[dazzer6666]

TBF it hasn't been that bad and more importantly not that bad for my 77 year old mother who also had it. When I had my first jab last year I had the shivers that evening and retired to bed and felt fine in the morning. On Sunday evening the same thing happened, which I am assuming was my immune system firing up again.

I start a new contract in a couple of weeks (which will be remote as they don't have an office) but I do wonder if I did have an office to go to, would the expectation had been to drag myself in and potentially infect everyone on the train getting there and the office when I got there? I agree we are getting to the point that legal restrictions can go but they need to be replaced with common sense by us and employers.

I am sure some will but a lack confidence in others to take precautions when they aren't legally obliged.

100%…..just because the legal requirements drop, doesn’t mean that common-sense and decency have to go as well. Expecting to see mask-wearing for a long time yet, even if more sporadic.

 

[Fat Boy Fat]

I was last week…..so close to making it through…….…..but am in the other camp. As long a the vulnerable are protected (or protecting themselves), I think we need to crack on - me, Mrs D and at least half a dozen pals have had it in the last month or currently have it, none were any more ill than they would have been with a ‘normal’ winter cold bug.

Can you explain to me, well actually to my wife, how exactly the vulnerable are going to be protected going forward? We, as a family unit, do protect ourselves, but that protecting largely means not doing the majority of things that most people take for granted.

I know someone, probably dsr Burnley, or similar, will be along to say “what did the vulnerable do to avoid diseases before Covid”, well that’s a good question, but in the main, the big killer - flu - was seasonal, so the vulnerable could take steps of mitigation in the danger winter months. Now, with Covid that moves to ALL year round.

I will be interested to see what powers the vulnerable will be given to avoid situations they are uncomfortable with, like face to face meetings, or strangers from government agencies (i.e. DWP), coming into the family home. At the moment the government seem light on detail, but let’s see what they have to say after their recess.

At present all we appear to be left with is yet another 3 word buzz phrase.

Living With Covid

 

[Yoda]

Things are looking good thanks to vaccines and omicron now.

The way I look at it, the virus would need three key elements of change/mutation for it to be a worry, and as with the triangle of fire, removing one of those elements would see any mutation not get the upper hand on us.

1st key element: More infectious. The virus will need to out compete omicron to become the dominant variant. This will take some doing base on the latest omicron variant that is already out competing the original omicron.

2nd key element: Immunity evasion. The virus will need to evade current immunity levels, bearing in mind omicron already has some of this but also leave behind immunity to previous variants as well, will need yet another massive change.

3rd key element: More pathogenic. The virus will need to mutate to become a more deadly variant on a par with Delta or Alpha.

With one of these key elements removed, any new mutation will not be a cause for alarm. Even a more pathogenic one as we will either have built up previous immunity or will not out complete omicron.

 

[Fat Boy Fat]

TBF it hasn't been that bad and more importantly not that bad for my 77 year old mother who also had it. When I had my first jab last year I had the shivers that evening and retired to bed and felt fine in the morning. On Sunday evening the same thing happened, which I am assuming was my immune system firing up again.

I start a new contract in a couple of weeks (which will be remote as they don't have an office) but I do wonder if I did have an office to go to, would the expectation had been to drag myself in and potentially infect everyone on the train getting there and the office when I got there? I agree we are getting to the point that legal restrictions can go but they need to be replaced with common sense by us and employers.

I am sure some will but a lack confidence in others to take precautions when they aren't legally obliged.

I admire your confidence in human nature. I have lost count of the number of people I am aware of who have either attended work, or a social gathering “with a bit of a cold” which then later after a couple more days transpired to be Covid. It’s going to be very difficult for anyone deemed vulnerable to Covid, in particular those in the recently linked ONS top 10 list.

 

[dazzer6666]

Can you explain to me, well actually to my wife, how exactly the vulnerable are going to be protected going forward? We, as a family unit, do protect ourselves, but that protecting largely means not doing the majority of things that most people take for granted.

I know someone, probably dsr Burnley, or similar, will be along to say “what did the vulnerable do to avoid diseases before Covid”, well that’s a good question, but in the main, the big killer - flu - was seasonal, so the vulnerable could take steps of mitigation in the danger winter months. Now, with Covid that moves to ALL year round.

I will be interested to see what powers the vulnerable will be given to avoid situations they are uncomfortable with, like face to face meetings, or strangers from government agencies (i.e. DWP), coming into the family home. At the moment the government seem light on detail, but let’s see what they have to say after their recess.

At present all we appear to be left with is yet another 3 word buzz phrase.

Living With Covid

Of course I can’t - depends on the vulnerability (and degree of risk) for starters. I imagine more advice will come out over time dependent on various factors. My daughter is slightly vulnerable (degree of immuno-compromise due to a long term condition) but her patients are about as vulnerable as you can get, so she’s still essentially living in isolation to avoid transmission to them.

 

[Tom Hark Preston Park]

Doing away with the legal requirement to self-isolaye following a positive test is just plain irresponsible IMHO

 

[A1X]

[tweet]1491405076631818244[/tweet]

Personally I'm still of the opinion the scientists know better than the politicians.

 

[dazzer6666]

Doing away with the legal requirement to self-isolaye following a positive test is just plain irresponsible IMHO

Possibly, although I'm interested to see what detail sits behind the decision......................with infections now seemingly falling rapidly (although could question the amount of testing now being done) and admission to, and numbers in hospital falling quite steeply, there has to be some element of allowing it to continue to spread (as we've been doing anyway for the last 2-3 months with limited restrictions) in an increasingly less-managed way as the risks subside (but do not disappear) to continue to strengthen immunity generally in the population. Also a third or more of people who have it are spreading it around without even knowing anyway so removing isolation requirements isn't as dramatic as it sounds. In my case - and with hindsight - I reckon I had it at least 4-5 days before I tested positive (I'd had no symptoms at that point), and in that period I went to 2 football matches (including travel), the pub, a snooker club, a garden centre, a cafe and had a cards and curry evening with 6 others at a mate's house.

 

[Tom Hark Preston Park]

Possibly, although I'm interested to see what detail sits behind the decision......................with infections now seemingly falling rapidly (although could question the amount of testing now being done) and admission to, and numbers in hospital falling quite steeply, there has to be some element of allowing it to continue to spread (as we've been doing anyway for the last 2-3 months with limited restrictions) in an increasingly less-managed way as the risks subside (but do not disappear) to continue to strengthen immunity generally in the population. Also a third or more of people who have it are spreading it around without even knowing anyway so removing isolation requirements isn't as dramatic as it sounds. In my case - and with hindsight - I reckon I had it at least 4-5 days before I tested positive (I'd had no symptoms at that point), and in that period I went to 2 football matches (including travel), the pub, a snooker club, a garden centre, a cafe and had a cards and curry evening with 6 others at a mate's house.

I guess you may be right. Covid-wise I appear to have dodged more bullets than action hero Tom Cruise. Including sharing a flying tubeful of passengers from Innsbruck on friday. Gotta love that ping two days later! In reality have prob been asymptomatically zapped more than once these past two years

 

[Fat Boy Fat]

Doing away with the legal requirement to self-isolaye following a positive test is just plain irresponsible IMHO

I guess that’s the point really, people won’t test, as they won’t need to as they don’t need to isolate.

Ergo, the Covid infection figures will drop overnight, job done, Pandemic over!

 

[Fat Boy Fat]

Possibly, although I'm interested to see what detail sits behind the decision......................with infections now seemingly falling rapidly (although could question the amount of testing now being done) and ]admission to, and numbers in hospital falling quite steeply, there has to be some element of allowing it to continue to spread (as we've been doing anyway for the last 2-3 months with limited restrictions) in an increasingly less-managed way as the risks subside (but do not disappear) to continue to strengthen immunity generally in the population. Also a third or more of people who have it are spreading it around without even knowing anyway so removing isolation requirements isn't as dramatic as it sounds. In my case - and with hindsight - I reckon I had it at least 4-5 days before I tested positive (I'd had no symptoms at that point), and in that period I went to 2 football matches (including travel), the pub, a snooker club, a garden centre, a cafe and had a cards and curry evening with 6 others at a mate's house.

Unfortunately, the number of deaths appears to be quite stubbornly high - hopefully over the next few weeks they will start to drop, although I am not sure that anyone in government is that bothered as the Secretary of State for Health has already thrown out the “bad flu year” analogies

 

[e77]

I admire your confidence in human nature. I have lost count of the number of people I am aware of who have either attended work, or a social gathering “with a bit of a cold” which then later after a couple more days transpired to be Covid. It’s going to be very difficult for anyone deemed vulnerable to Covid, in particular those in the recently linked ONS top 10 list.

I think there are some very good people out there and some very good organisations but without a legal mandate it is swimming against the tide. There does need to be a plan in place, enshrined in law, for immune suppressed people. People asking what they did before are basically confirming it is long overdue.

I am a contractor so don't get paid when i am ill, hence the rare occasions I am off it isn't really a problem but I recall when i was a permanent employee you had an interview when you got back and if it happened more than twice in a quarter it was escalated. To be fair a back to work interview also covers what they can do to help you but as someone who used to get migraines having two lots of short term sickness off in a fairly quick succession wasn't unheard of.

If it goes back to the assumption everyone is swinging the lead then we really have learnt nothing.

 

[Yoda]

Unfortunately, the number of deaths appears to be quite stubbornly high - hopefully over the next few weeks they will start to drop, although I am not sure that anyone in government is that bothered as the Secretary of State for Health has already thrown out the “bad flu year” analogies

Latest ONS statistics on death (usually delayed by up to three weeks max) are showing that up to as many as 40% have tested positive in the last 28 days but the certificate does not mention Covid as an underlying cause, and this gap is getting wider. These figures used to tie in fairly accurately to the daily published deaths but even that is now not as a reliable gauge as it used to be.

 

[Fat Boy Fat]

Latest ONS statistics on death (usually delayed by up to three weeks max) are showing that up to as many as 40% have tested positive in the last 28 days but the certificate does not mention Covid as an underlying cause, and this gap is getting wider. These figures used to tie in fairly accurately to the daily published deaths but even that is now not as a reliable gauge as it used to be.

Sorry, let me just clarify. Are you saying that 70% of the daily announced Covid deaths have nothing to do with Covid at the point of death?

I understand the "underlying health conditions" scenario, for example someone with cancer, who would die, but Covid hastens their death, is that "with" or "of", but are you saying that 70% had absolutely no bearing on the person's death, other than the fact they had tested at some point in the previous 28 days?

Please excuse if I am seeming stupid, been a long day!

Ah, I see you have now edited your post from 70% to 40%...

 

[dazzer6666]

I guess that’s the point really, people won’t test, as they won’t need to as they don’t need to isolate.

Ergo, the Covid infection figures will drop overnight, job done, Pandemic over!

The infection figures have been decreasing in relevance anyway....it's the admissions to hospital and ICU numbers that are really key (and will be going forward)

 

[Yoda]

Sorry, let me just clarify. Are you saying that 70% of the daily announced Covid deaths have nothing to do with Covid at the point of death?

I understand the "underlying health conditions" scenario, for example someone with cancer, who would die, but Covid hastens their death, is that "with" or "of", but are you saying that 70% had absutely no bearing on the person's death, other than the fact they had tested at some point in the previous 28 days?

Please excuse if I am seeming stupid, been a long day!

Ah, I see you have now edited your post from 70% to 40%...

Yeah! I got the wrong end of the stick from something I saw on a clip from BBC News on Twitter but then couldn't find it again where they mentioned the 70%, but upon finding this tweet from John Roberts, the line is closer to a 40% divergence on current numbers (although this could still change as incomplete).

https://twitter.com/john_actuary/status/1491023480816832512
[tweet]1491023480816832512[/tweet]

 

[Fat Boy Fat]

The infection figures have been decreasing in relevance anyway....it's the admissions to hospital and ICU numbers that are really key (and will be going forward)

To be a pedant, I think its the number of people who die that is the key metric. Clearly the numbers should follow admission and ICU stays in a downward trend if they've got Omicron right.

 

[dazzer6666]

To be a pedant, I think its the number of people who die that is the key metric. Clearly the numbers should follow admission and ICU stays in a downward trend if they've got Omicron right.

Not really IMO - management throughout has all been about not overwhelming the NHS. What we've been doing for several months is allowing the spread within parameters that don't cause that overwhelming.

 

[Fat Boy Fat]

Not really IMO - management throughout has all been about not overwhelming the NHS. What we've been doing for several months is allowing the spread within parameters that don't cause that overwhelming.

You say tomato I say toomato...

 

[worthingseagull123]

I guess that’s the point really, people won’t test, as they won’t need to as they don’t need to isolate.

Ergo, the Covid infection figures will drop overnight, job done, Pandemic over!

Most people wont want to pay for tests and the government wont provide free ones going forward.