Stealth Omicron

[Noggin]

.
So does flu. But since Covid, no one is mentioning how many are dying from 'normal' flu. Or from all the other life threatening illnesses that now aren't treated because Covid (and the NHS is basically broken due to Covid)

Good point.

Basically, Covid has out competed seasonal flu which is typically the cause of, or implicated in, tens of thousands of deaths every year. It'll be back and when it does you can bet that there will be many voices clamouring for Covidesque [sic] restrictions.

You know the next question -

Has it out competed seasonal flu or is it that the people that would get flu are getting Covid? Because of course there is huge testing for covid but not for flu!

[Yambo]

Basically, Covid has out competed seasonal flu which is typically the cause of, or implicated in, tens of thousands of deaths every year. It'll be back and when it does you can bet that there will be many voices clamouring for Covidesque [sic] restrictions.

Nah, we're used to flu. We'll get used to covid soon enough, probably when the Chinese release another virus on the world.

[wheelnut]

They are pandering to the risk averse when they should be acting for everybody. Once it was clear that COVID is a disease that predominantly attacks the old and otherwise vulnerable, the rest of you should have been encouraged to get on with your lives and those of us who are old or with compromised immune systems should have been advised, and if necessary helped, to shield themselves.

Easy to say. A lot less easy to actually do.

Our whole society depends on social and business interaction, and that includes the old and otherwise vulnerable.

[Supermofo]

They are pandering to the risk averse when they should be acting for everybody. Once it was clear that COVID is a disease that predominantly attacks the old and otherwise vulnerable, the rest of you should have been encouraged to get on with your lives and those of us who are old or with compromised immune systems should have been advised, and if necessary helped, to shield themselves.

I have a feeling that in the future, when it's looked over in full (after the financial implications have been and gone - they haven't started yet) that people will probably be saying that ^

Started already.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/ ... -scientist

At a No 10 briefing in March 2020, cabinet minister Michael Gove warned the virus did not discriminate. “Everyone is at risk,” he announced.

And nothing could be further from the truth, argues Professor Woolhouse, an expert on infectious diseases at Edinburgh University. “I am afraid Gove’s statement was simply not true,” he says. “In fact, this is a very discriminatory virus. Some people are much more at risk from it than others. People over 75 are an astonishing 10,000 times more at risk than those who are under 15.”

“We did serious harm to our children and young adults who were robbed of their education, jobs and normal existence, as well as suffering damage to their future prospects, while they were left to inherit a record-breaking mountain of public debt,” he argues. “All this to protect the NHS from a disease that is a far, far greater threat to the elderly, frail and infirm than to the young and healthy.

“We were mesmerised by the once-in-a-century scale of the emergency and succeeded only in making a crisis even worse. In short, we panicked. This was an epidemic crying out for a precision public health approach and it got the opposite.”


Massive dose of hindsight, but I'm sure they'll be a lot of this.

[Mussels]

If scientists want to keep their credibility they should stick to scientific facts and leave policy to politicians. If they are to comment then they need to explain themselves, risk of what?

[Saga Lout]

They are pandering to the risk averse when they should be acting for everybody. Once it was clear that COVID is a disease that predominantly attacks the old and otherwise vulnerable, the rest of you should have been encouraged to get on with your lives and those of us who are old or with compromised immune systems should have been advised, and if necessary helped, to shield themselves.

I have a feeling that in the future, when it's looked over in full (after the financial implications have been and gone - they haven't started yet) that people will probably be saying that ^

Some epidemiologists and public health scientists have been saying that publicly since 4 October, 2020: https://gbdeclaration.org/ Obviously they were saying it privately before then but that's when it was published. It was obvious by about two or three weeks into the three weeks to flatten the curve.

[irie]

They are pandering to the risk averse when they should be acting for everybody. Once it was clear that COVID is a disease that predominantly attacks the old and otherwise vulnerable, the rest of you should have been encouraged to get on with your lives and those of us who are old or with compromised immune systems should have been advised, and if necessary helped, to shield themselves.

I have a feeling that in the future, when it's looked over in full (after the financial implications have been and gone - they haven't started yet) that people will probably be saying that ^

Some epidemiologists and public health scientists have been saying that publicly since 4 October, 2020: https://gbdeclaration.org/ Obviously they were saying it privately before then but that's when it was published. It was obvious by about two or three weeks into the three weeks to flatten the curve.

I was one of the signatories to the Great Barrington Declaration, and long before that I was saying the same as were very many others far more qualified and distinguished than me such as Karol Sikora and Sunetra Gupta.

They are pandering to the risk averse when they should be acting for everybody. Once it was clear that COVID is a disease that predominantly attacks the old and otherwise vulnerable, the rest of you should have been encouraged to get on with your lives and those of us who are old or with compromised immune systems should have been advised, and if necessary helped, to shield themselves.

I have a feeling that in the future, when it's looked over in full (after the financial implications have been and gone - they haven't started yet) that people will probably be saying that ^

This.

[Horse]

So does flu. But since Covid, no one is mentioning how many are dying from 'normal' flu.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-59909860

Traditionally winter would see around 1,000 admissions a day for all types of respiratory infections.

Currently the NHS is seeing more than double that for Covid alone - although a chunk admittedly are people who are ill with something else, such as broken arms, strokes and cancer for example, and may well have come in anyway.

But even if you discount these patients, you are still well above the 1,000 threshold.

[Noggin]

Cross fingers for you.

A good friend in the valley had the original version when we closed down - although she wasn't as wiped out by it as some. She's had all three vaccines. Boyfriend (that she lives with) tested positive before Christmas. They did separate rooms, masks at home and seriously careful with hand sanitising etc - because she runs a cake shop, so needs to be sure she is negative; to protect customers and to be able to work!!

Tested every day, negative

The day he was allowed out of isolation (10 days) she tested positive So, after being closed for New Year weekend, she couldn't reopen on Weds as planned (days off are Monday and Tuesday). Having to wait today to get confirmation of yesterdays negative test (home test yesterday, official one today) so she can reopen

It's properly random. She had few symptoms the first time and zero this time. But it's impacted her business massively. At least the boyfriend got sick pay as he has a job elsewhere!!

[Bwana]

They are pandering to the risk averse when they should be acting for everybody. Once it was clear that COVID is a disease that predominantly attacks the old and otherwise vulnerable, the rest of you should have been encouraged to get on with your lives and those of us who are old or with compromised immune systems should have been advised, and if necessary helped, to shield themselves.

What does this look like in practice?

Mandatory vaccines for everyone?

Isolation for anyone testing positive?

Who gets tested? How often do they get tested?

Oldies and immunocompromised to stay at home? What happens to the jobs of the people in this category that are still working and need an income?

[Saga Lout]

They are pandering to the risk averse when they should be acting for everybody. Once it was clear that COVID is a disease that predominantly attacks the old and otherwise vulnerable, the rest of you should have been encouraged to get on with your lives and those of us who are old or with compromised immune systems should have been advised, and if necessary helped, to shield themselves.

What does this look like in practice?

Everybody except the old and vulnerable go back to doing what they were doing before the lockdown. The old and vulnerable choose what level of risk they're comfortable with and act accordingly. (Which is, by the way, what should happen if a free country.)

Mandatory vaccines for everyone?

It was April or May 2020, what do you think?

Isolation for anyone testing positive?

No. Test people with symptoms. If you;d gone to your doctor in 2019 and asked to be tested to see if you had flu because a work colleague was off sick with flu and you sat next to him in the works canteen a couple of days ago he'd have thought you were deranged.

Who gets tested? How often do they get tested?

See above

Oldies and immunocompromised to stay at home? What happens to the jobs of the people in this category that are still working and need an income?

Most of us old gits are not working so we collect our pension whether we go out or stay at home. As for the rest, the same as happened to all those who were told to stop working and stay at home on 80% pay (if I remember correctly) but it would have been something like 10% of the number.

And the 90% would have continued contributing to the economy instead of being a drain on it.

[Bwana]

They are pandering to the risk averse when they should be acting for everybody. Once it was clear that COVID is a disease that predominantly attacks the old and otherwise vulnerable, the rest of you should have been encouraged to get on with your lives and those of us who are old or with compromised immune systems should have been advised, and if necessary helped, to shield themselves.

What does this look like in practice?

Everybody except the old and vulnerable go back to doing what they were doing before the lockdown. The old and vulnerable choose what level of risk they're comfortable with and act accordingly. (Which is, by the way, what should happen if a free country.)

Mandatory vaccines for everyone?

It was April or May 2020, what do you think?

Isolation for anyone testing positive?

No. Test people with symptoms. If you;d gone to your doctor in 2019 and asked to be tested to see if you had flu because a work colleague was off sick with flu and you sat next to him in the works canteen a couple of days ago he'd have thought you were deranged.

Who gets tested? How often do they get tested?

See above

Oldies and immunocompromised to stay at home? What happens to the jobs of the people in this category that are still working and need an income?

Most of us old gits are not working so we collect our pension whether we go out or stay at home. As for the rest, the same as happened to all those who were told to stop working and stay at home on 80% pay (if I remember correctly) but it would have been something like 10% of the number.

And the 90% would have continued contributing to the economy instead of being a drain on it.

Do any of your responses give consideration to long haulers? From what I'm reading it matters not if one was symptomatic or not. Almost a 3rd of the COVID-19 positive individuals end up with debilitating illness that can last months. This isn't a binary you either live or die disease. There are those who suffer long term effects and there's the matter of clogging a health care system that has shameful record for a wealthy country like the US.

As a vet I understand the limitations of testing entire populations vs testing symptomatic individuals in most diseases. This is important for statistical reasons related to sensitivity and specificity limitations of all tests as none have 100% sensitivity and specificity. This one poses a problem in that people are contagious before they're ill, so testing will be delayed and spread is enhanced. What made sense to me early on in the pandemic was testing people in areas with known outbreaks.

Mind you, the attitudes in the US may be a bit different from the attitudes in the UK. We've got a fair portion of the population that doesn't want any inconvenience for the sake of controlling spread. That includes old duffers. So they'll be out getting sick and clogging the health care system.

Also consider that in the US, obesity is an issue in all age groups. That renders them more susceptible to falling ill, again burdening the health care system. Not to mention the ramifications on employment. In the US there are large numbers of older individuals that are still in the labor force due to necessity, further complicating matters.

I'm 62 and immunocompromised due to splenectomy. My career puts me in contact with a fair number of people every day. I suspect I'm not alone. Tough shit, Bwana, suck it up?

You downplay vaccines as they weren't available at the outset, no shit. But they're available now and stand to lessen the impact on the vast majority of individuals. So, again, what of vaccines as time passes, why bother or good idea to require it for employment? We've got half the population railing against them after the disease got politicized.

The meatpacking industry in the US was particularly hard hit due to COVID-19. I'm not seeing that fitting in with the keep on working as per usual concept. Folks tend to get a bit work shy when they see their mates dropping like flies. I believe the positivity rate was something akin to 50% of the work force.

Sorry for the rambling nature of this post.

[wheelnut]

Following on, I’m not sure isolation the vulnerable is as practical as SL seems to think it is.

Those in care homes and hospital need to be cared for, those who are more independent still need to shop, to get their car fixed, to see their grandkids.

That’s why the idea was rejected, not because it didn’t make sense in theory, because it’s just to impractical to implement.

[weeksy]

Following on, I’m not sure isolation the vulnerable is as practical as SL seems to think it is.

Those in care homes and hospital need to be cared for, those who are more independent still need to shop, to get their car fixed, to see their grandkids.

That’s why the idea was rejected, not because it didn’t make sense in theory, because it’s just to impractical to implement.

For every solution, there's a minority (or more) that it won't suit... no solution covers 100% of people, there'll always be a certain number who it messes up rather than fixes. That's each and EVERY single solution.

The problem is, people seem to want solutions that fix everyone..... doesn't exist.

[Saga Lout]

Following on, I’m not sure isolation the vulnerable is as practical as SL seems to think it is.

Those in care homes and hospital need to be cared for, those who are more independent still need to shop, to get their car fixed, to see their grandkids.

That’s why the idea was rejected, not because it didn’t make sense in theory, because it’s just to impractical to implement.

We locked down everybody. How would it have been more difficult to lock down only those who needed to be locked down?

[weeksy]

Following on, I’m not sure isolation the vulnerable is as practical as SL seems to think it is.

Those in care homes and hospital need to be cared for, those who are more independent still need to shop, to get their car fixed, to see their grandkids.

That’s why the idea was rejected, not because it didn’t make sense in theory, because it’s just to impractical to implement.

We locked down everybody. How would it have been more difficult to lock down only those who needed to be locked down?

Loads have died who you wouldn't have thought "needed" to be. Are they just collateral damage? How were you deciding who needed to be?

[Saga Lout]

Loads have died who you wouldn't have thought "needed" to be. Are they just collateral damage? How were you deciding who needed to be?

Loads have died because of mental health problems caused by lockdowns.
Loads have died or will die because of delayed treatment because of lockdowns.

I could go on, but how do you strike a balance between these people dying over here or those people dying over there? And people are going to die, you can't keep everybody alive forever.

[Felix]

Loads have died or will die because of delayed treatment because of lockdowns.

Wifes friend lost her brother to cancer during lockdown. Covid had nothing to do with this it was just discovered to late but there was a two week backlog for his Burial. The funeral director told her it was down to the amount of people dying of cancer due to cancelled/delayed treatment.

[weeksy]

I could go on, but how do you strike a balance between these people dying over here or those people dying over there?

I have never said i've got any answers.... do you ?

[Mr Moofo]

With the information that the government had at the time , and the knowledge that was existing in the world, I wonder how many of the pandemic experts on here would have made a fundamentally different decision?
Going on the the basis that most countries did something remarkably similar, they were probably not far wrong.
Hindsight is a wonderful thing - and the powers that be didn't have it - you do now.

There is a point where you have to live with it - and with deaths from omicron being negligible now, now is the time.

The fundamental issue is that the health of this country is woeful - the inhabitants are too fat and too unfit and don't feel that they are responsible - and whilst 12 packs of Wotsits are 1 GBP a bag in Asda that may well not change. Unfortunately the people of Britain are just as responsible for the 150k deaths as the government.
We have a NHS service which is no longer fit for purpose - the front line have done a brilliant job - but the bureaucracy and wasted money behind the front, and it's inability to cope with change is dreadful.

And then there are the really crap government actions on Track and Trace and money for PPE squandered too their mates ...