Covid - coming out of Lockdown 3 - no politics, less opinion and more facts and information.

[boxbrownie]

1 hour ago, Bernard Lamb said:

 

 

A member of my cycling club is arriving from South Africa on Tuesday and has to spent time in quarantine, so he is looking to borrow a smart home trainer to occupy his time.

Bernard

Exactly, it’s inconvenient but not unreasonable.

[Neil]

From yesterday's Guardian:

 

Government urged by some of its own scientific advisers to tell people to work from home.

 

and a follow up piece,

 

Sage scientists seek a balanced response.

 

 

[Crisis Rail]

This...

That...

The Other...

 

Anyone agree It's all becoming a boringly inconvenient faff?

[Hobby]

7 minutes ago, Crisis Rail said:

This...

That...

The other....

 

Thought you'd come across from the "I'm drinking " thread for a minute there! Teme Valley beers

 

http://temevalleybrewery.com/

[AY Mod]

10 minutes ago, Crisis Rail said:

Anyone agree It's all becoming a boringly inconvenient faff?

 

I don't. But that demonstrates that many aren't looking what's happening on the horizon and whether it's sensible to do certain things. Look at the rate of increase in reported cases in SA and ask what the implications of that may be on top of our high spread rate. Map SA on top of what we currently see here and then picture what it may be like when all those people have to isolate for 7-10 days and the consequent impact on the economy, infrastructure and health services overall. 

 

But that's a faff to think about and not important enough to take some no-cost and low-impact precautions .

 

Party like it's 2019.

[Nearholmer]

It’s certainly a boring drudge, in that living through a pandemic involves a steady drip of bad news, along with any “light at the end of the tunnel” announcements, and even at the best parts of this year in Covid terms I’ve sensed a general mild/depression and wary weariness in the air. So, a bundle of laughs it is not.

 

But, it would be bordering on infantile (actually, not “bordering on”, just infantile) to expect otherwise, or to complain and whinge about it, because (a) there are very many places in worse situations with it than the U.K. in general; (b) within the U.K. most of us haven’t fared too badly as individuals, and can always see people who’ve had worse fortune; and, (c) look back not very far in history, WW2 for instance, and people in the U.K. had a lot worse to put up with, and managed it (not without complaining and exhaustion, but they got through it).

 

I could understand a child having a tantrum over it, and I can understand “end of the tether” outbursts from those worse hit, either by the loss of loved ones, or by being in the front line of medical care for instance, but anyone else who has a tantrum about it needs to grow-up, and stop behaving like a toddler.

 

And, anyone who advocates a complete abandonment of all precautions, ought at least to have the courage of their convictions, and follow-through with a clear explanation as to how they would manage the inevitable consequences in terms of very large numbers of people getting very ill, all at once. If they don’t do that, they are guilty of moral cowardice.

 

 

 

 

Edited December 5, 2021 by Nearholmer

[Dunsignalling]

The current restrictions, unless you are a would-be "international weekender", are pretty negligible.

 

However, when it came to lockdown, furlough and working from home, it was bound to affect different people to different degrees.

 

Those who thrive and, in some cases, can only function optimally through frequent face-to-face interaction with many others, will have found it especially difficult. Conversely, those of us who are more "self-contained" tend to wonder what all the fuss was about.....

 

In my case, twenty years working solo in a signal box prepared me well, and I've rarely struggled for something to keep myself amused. The phone having been my primary mode of human contact whilst at work made it easy to slot in to conditions that others had to learn to deal with.

 

I've probably gone a bit too far down the "lone wolf" road, and am actually having to work quite hard at reconnecting with behaviours that others have been so desperate to resume....

 

John

Edited December 5, 2021 by Dunsignalling

[Oldddudders]

A faff?

 

I compare it to getting old. At 73 various bits don't work quite as well as they used to, which is disappointing - but the alternative, not getting old, is probably worse. 

 

So with Covid. We can rant and rage against new restrictions and requirements, ignore recommendations, and risk catching the virus. Or we can accept them, roll with it, and perhaps help limit the spread in a tiny way, for the benefit of all. Perhaps in the 'me, me, me' era, "the benefit of all" no longer exists as a fine objective. 

[John M Upton]

Just been into town for some shopping.  Overall good percentage of mask compliance, particularly from the 40+ age group and practically 100% in Waitrose!

 

Seems to be an air of desperation though, many seem to be rushing to stock up or got to visit relatives significantly earlier as the general consensus seems to be that Boris et al saying Christmas will be fine means that a fresh lockdown and cancellation is in fact almost inevitable...

[Nearholmer]

Yes, masking in shops round here has now shot up, not 100% (except Waitrose!), but very high %, and I too sense something tense and faintly desperate. Mind you, normal christmases in shops seem to have that air about them sometimes!

 

The tension has got something to do with the faint air of drudge, or faff, or pandemic-weariness, or whatever you like to call it …… nearly two years is a long time, and despite my grumpily stoic words above, I fully acknowledge that we are all finding it hard in different ways, and that everyone wishes that the whole thing would magically disappear and allow us all a sigh of relief.

[Bernard Lamb]

Just to lower the tone of the discussion.

I am sure that most of you are aware that our beloved leader Boris has turned mask wearing, or rather incorrect or non mask wearing, into a cross between a political statement and an art form.

Well, it seems that he now has a rival in the form of Ghislane Maxwell. She has managed in the past week to use incorrect mask wearing as a major part of her defence strategy.

If you have a few hours to spare during the coming week you could do worse than watch the performance of these two.

Which one is best or worst depending on how you see it? I could not possibly comment.

Bernard

 

[Crisis Rail]

1 hour ago, Nearholmer said:

Yes, masking in shops round here has now shot up, not 100% (except Waitrose!), but very high %, and I too sense something tense and faintly desperate. Mind you, normal christmases in shops seem to have that air about them sometimes!

 

The tension has got something to do with the faint air of drudge, or faff, or pandemic-weariness, or whatever you like to call it …… nearly two years is a long time, and despite my grumpily stoic words above, I fully acknowledge that we are all finding it hard in different ways, and that everyone wishes that the whole thing would magically disappear and allow us all a sigh of relief.

 

Well the faff did go away to a certain degree -  in Summer -  and how refreshing that was.

 

Winter of course is, and always has been, a different case -  regarding the burden on NHS resource pre pandemic included -  I get enough grief about the situation off my State Registered missus.

 

We're like pin cushions Single  - Double -  Triple Boosted - 2021 Influenza strain fully Strepsil Soothered and vaccinated up seemingly for many years to come thanks to modern medicine of which we should be eternally grateful.

 

I fully agree to all common sense precautions but what more can we do?

 

Summer 2022 -  I can't wait.

 

 

[Crisis Rail]

2 hours ago, Oldddudders said:

A faff?

 

I compare it to getting old. At 73 various bits don't work quite as well as they used to, which is disappointing - but the alternative, not getting old, is probably worse. 

 

So with Covid. We can rant and rage against new restrictions and requirements, ignore recommendations, and risk catching the virus. Or we can accept them, roll with it, and perhaps help limit the spread in a tiny way, for the benefit of all. Perhaps in the 'me, me, me' era, "the benefit of all" no longer exists as a fine objective. 

 

Old - tell me about it.

 

Parents are 95 and 93 Father has Dementia  - Mother going downhill last few months but it's undoubtably  quite a very  good age -  Dad always said "Got to Dee 'o Summat" - I've just come back from a difficult visit this morning.

 

You said:

 

.......Or we can accept them, roll with it, and perhaps help limit the spread in a tiny way,

 

Agree.

[Bernard Lamb]

9 minutes ago, Crisis Rail said:

 

 

 

Summer 2022 -  I can't wait.

 

 

Nah.

September/October is the key period when we all have our second booster to get us protected in time for Christmas parties.

Bernard

[hayfield]

The good news on the front pages today is the first covid pill for home use to be rolled out by Christmas to the most vulnerable (Sunday Telegraph)

 

Sunday Times reports doctors anger over cancer ops being delayed owing to  the high numbers of patients who are being treated in critical care beds for covid with up to 90% being unvaccinated (taken from figures released up to July)  Having said this the UK is now up to 88% of the over 12's having the first jab, and we have passed today 20m having the booster, lets hope the message is finally getting through

 

Whilst some of those who are unvaccinated may not have been either elidable for or advised on medical grounds not to take it. Its a clear proof of the benefits of being vaccinated.

 

 

 

[John M Upton]

I am interested to know if the proposed German policy of compulsory vaccinations (in effect, anyone refusing to be jabbed will find themselves effectively unemployed, unemployable and under house arrest) is an option on the table here?  Whatever the plan, something needs to be done to wind the necks in of the antivax loonies.

[Jol Wilkinson]

6 minutes ago, John M Upton said:

I am interested to know if the proposed German policy of compulsory vaccinations (in effect, anyone refusing to be jabbed will find themselves effectively unemployed, unemployable and under house arrest) is an option on the table here?  Whatever the plan, something needs to be done to wind the necks in of the antivax loonies.

I suspect that would be a step to far for Boris's beliefs on the freedom of the individual. When we can't even stop the anti-vaxxers from bullying teachers and pupils outside the school gates, or Insulate Britain protesters from gluing themselves to major roads, how would you enforce vaccinations without getting into Human Rights issues (although I think we could do with a major rethink about how we get the "wont's" in society to change their attitude).

[hayfield]

15 minutes ago, John M Upton said:

I am interested to know if the proposed German policy of compulsory vaccinations (in effect, anyone refusing to be jabbed will find themselves effectively unemployed, unemployable and under house arrest) is an option on the table here?  Whatever the plan, something needs to be done to wind the necks in of the antivax loonies.

 

John

 

I think the European Court of Justice will be very busy. I am not saying the decision is either right or wrong. I firmly believe we all have a social responsibility to protect both ourselves and others. But somehow forcing medical procedures on others seems wrong. 

 

By all means take measures to protect people, especially the vulnerable. But then there are some for medical reasons cannot be vaccinated !! Glad these decisions are taken by others

[durham light infantry]

2 hours ago, John M Upton said:

I am interested to know if the proposed German policy of compulsory vaccinations (in effect, anyone refusing to be jabbed will find themselves effectively unemployed, unemployable and under house arrest) is an option on the table here?  Whatever the plan, something needs to be done to wind the necks in of the antivax loonies.

 

For those working in construction the, no boots, no hard hat etc, no work has been operating for many years without problems.

 

As I am responsible for organising and supervising contractors to 2 care homes, I now have a new have a new restriction to apply from last Thursday. No Covid pass, no entry to the home. This also applies to visiting health care professionals, a District Nurse was turned away on Friday morning. 

 

Although it is difficult, as I have been dealing with some of my contractors for many years. It is the right thing to do now.

It is coming up to nearly 2 years since I first had a meeting about Covid. I have seen and heard people die, lost friends and shook hands with the grim reaper myself. My colleagues in social care and in health care are worn out.

 

Nothing should be off the table to end this

[Chrisr40]

3 hours ago, hayfield said:

The good news on the front pages today is the first covid pill for home use to be rolled out by Christmas

The bad news it's a supository ?

[Nearholmer]

2 hours ago, hayfield said:

But somehow forcing medical procedures on others seems wrong. 

 

My gut reaction too, but we are already making vaccination a condition of working in health care and care homes, so we've crossed that line already; we clearly believe that it is an acceptable thing to do if the stakes are very high. Many theatres and similar places already ask for evidence of vaccination as a condition of entry too.

 

But, to me, it doesn't feel as if the stakes are sufficiently high in the UK at the moment to make it a condition of, say, shopping in person, or working in the presence of others, or more general things. But, it is conceivable (depressingly) that things could get to that point if (a) a rampant spreading variant arises (it may already have), and (b) vaccination can be shown to be decisive in controlling resultant pressure on health services, and thereby protecting people from the awful situation of being desperately ill, but having no access to health care (perversely, a really nasty "vaccine dodger" might create that situation while rendering compulsory vaccination a bit of a waste of needles anyway).

 

Bringing-in such a measure would provoke a whole load of trouble, a field-day for rabid anti-vaxxers and the people in the background who wind them up, so it could only be introduced either very progressively (the thin end of the wedge is already in, and the logical step would be to tap it in further, a bit at a time, by adding job-roles a few at a time), or by waiting until a horror had unfolded somewhere, the public were outraged, then rush it in as an apparent knee-jerk reaction. In short, it could only be introduced, and the police etc get full public support fot water-cannoning the rioters, if a genuinely overwhelming proportion of the population supported it.

 

If some of the figures now being bandied around about the proportion of intensive care resources being consumed by people who have chosen not to get vaccinated are correct (and I still can't find relevant figures from a solidly dependable source, only newspapers), then the platform for further compulsion must be building.

 

And, FWIW, I think BJ would go that way, rather than be the PM in office when hospitals had to stop emergency admissions due to terminal overload.

 

Fingers crossed we don't get there.

 

[Dunsignalling]

16 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

 

My gut reaction too, but we are already making vaccination a condition of working in health care and care homes, so we've crossed that line already; we clearly believe that it is an acceptable thing to do if the stakes are very high. Many theatres and similar places already ask for evidence of vaccination as a condition of entry too.

 

But, to me, it doesn't feel as if the stakes are sufficiently high in the UK at the moment to make it a condition of, say, shopping in person, or working in the presence of others, or more general things. But, it is conceivable (depressingly) that things could get to that point if (a) a rampant spreading variant arises (it may already have), and (b) vaccination can be shown to be decisive in controlling resultant pressure on health services, and thereby protecting people from the awful situation of being desperately ill, but having no access to health care (perversely, a really nasty "vaccine dodger" might create that situation while rendering compulsory vaccination a bit of a waste of needles anyway).

 

Bringing-in such a measure would provoke a whole load of trouble, a field-day for rabid anti-vaxxers and the people in the background who wind them up, so it could only be introduced either very progressively (the thin end of the wedge is already in, and the logical step would be to tap it in further, a bit at a time, by adding job-roles a few at a time), or by waiting until a horror had unfolded somewhere, the public were outraged, then rush it in as an apparent knee-jerk reaction. In short, it could only be introduced, and the police etc get full public support fot water-cannoning the rioters, if a genuinely overwhelming proportion of the population supported it.

 

 

And, FWIW, I think BJ would go that way, rather than be the PM in office when hospitals had to stop emergency admissions due to terminal overload.

 

Fingers crossed we don't get there.

 

Slight correction:

 

If some of the figures now being bandied around about the proportion of intensive care resources being squandered on people who have chosen not to get vaccinated are correct (and I still can't find relevant figures from a solidly dependable source, only newspapers), then the platform for further compulsion must be building.

 

We have people whose cancer treatment is being delayed until it's too late to work properly and others who are dangerously ill from unpreventable causes waiting for hours in the back of ambulances whilst others are dying  on floors at home because those same ambulances can't be released to attend them.

 

These antivaxxing morons are effectively murdering others and should be at the very back of any queue. They've made their decision and should take the consequences.

 

John

Edited December 5, 2021 by Dunsignalling

[Nearholmer]

My point about not being able to find truly dependable figures is important, though.

 

It would not be a good day if we leapt in a particular direction because of what we think/assume/read in the paper etc.; decisions must be based on solid facts.

 

As I've said, I can't find dependable numbers to support the assertion that "Intensive care is full of vaccine decliners". Can anyone point me to some?

 

It may be correct, but like the similar assertions made a few months ago that "the vast majority of those dying from Covid are un-vaccinated", it may not. That proved to be a misunderstanding of the difference in probability of dying if one caught covide after full vaccination, as compared to catching it when not vaccinated at all.

 

Which isn't to say I have the slightest sympathy with anti-vaxxers, merely that I have a great deal of sympathy for cold, hard numbers.

 

EDIT: This contains dependable numbers, and shows that about a third of covid-related hospital admissions, and about a fifth of covid-related deaths, were of un-vaccinated people in the most recent week (early December). See tables 9 and 10.

 https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1037987/Vaccine-surveillance-report-week-48.pdf

It doesnt anwer the "is intensive care full of vaccine decliners?" question. though. It could be that it is, and that massive resources are being devoted to saving <50yo vaccine decliners. But, that may not be the case.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited December 5, 2021 by Nearholmer

[monkeysarefun]

You dont need to force people to get vaccinated , you just need to make the consequences of not doing  it annoying or costly enough.

 

For instance here childhood immunization is not compulsorary but in the face of mounting anti- childhood vax proponents (this was before COVID, these people were against the other childhood vaccinations) the government made certain benefits dependant on the child being immunised. The major one is Family Tax benefit part A which is worth up to $250 per fortninght per child under 18. Refuse to immunise your children and you lose this per each child.  Theres also childcare implications, but I'm not sure what they are.

 

Similar plans are now being formulated in relation to long-term handling of covid and any future vaccination regimes. In  likelihood as a start the medicare  rebate that can be claimed here will probably  not be available to the unvaccinated, meaning a 'fine' of up to several thousand dollars per year each year.   Here like the UK everyone has access to free health care via the government medicare system -  I cant see restrictions placed on the unvaccinated in regard to getting this free  treatment, that would be morally repugnant,  but I can see blocks  and restrictions placed on any rebates they claim at tax time. 

Edited December 5, 2021 by monkeysarefun

[APOLLO]

Interesting

 

Mandatory vaccinations: Three reasons for and against

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-59506339

 

Brit15