Coronavirus - how is it/has it affected you?

[larmen]

When I said "forgotten" I was inferring some criticism of what seems to me to be an increasing reliance of LFTs to be an absolute proof of infection or no infection.

What I wanted to express is that an ADDITIONAL test on a given week day for all will catch a lot (a few/some/a couple) of infection which otherwise would just go around and stay in circulation. It would also get the never testers (fear of positives) tactually do a test.
Of course, symptoms and such I wouldn't want to change what we are currently supposed to do, just an extra test.

And a test that works at X% is better than no test.

 

[Ethan]

My daughter went into college yesterday for a test prior to returning to school today. Whilst she was negative the college have emailed parents to say a “significant” proportion of students returned positive tests, few, if any, displaying any symptoms. That sort of situation seems to be replicated wherever you turn, including in examples posted here. So it seems omicron is absolutely spreading like wildfire, and then some.

Given the very gradual increase in ICU patients in comparison, as depicted in official data, is anyone here ever going to concede that omicron is nothing like the threat most European governments perceived it to be and that, in fact, the advice of the South African experts appears to have been right all along?

I accept many NHS Trusts appear to have declared critical incidents, but it seems to be that staffing is the primary issue, with huge numbers self isolating, rather than pressure being brought to bear by admissions. I saw a graph this morning which confirmed that the proportion of hospital beds occupied by Covid patients is very small. The proportion occupied by people in those beds directly because of Covid, rather than those who have been admitted for other reasons, must be even smaller.

Maybe the decision makers in England have actually followed the science after all, rather than following the knee jerk decisions of their counterparts in Wales and Scotland? I’m not expecting to be killed in the stampede of replies accepting that full lockdown was not necessary this time round after all.

I think you are mixing up guessing what the true threat will be with deciding what response is prudent. The two are not the same. Even if there is evidence that Omicron is milder, it is unwise to assume that as the affected population changes, then you can accurately assess how it will play out. Taking the right steps will always, i successful, be accused of over-reacting. The SA Doctor Coetzee who bemoaned the UK response, is a GP and head of the SA version of the BMA. She is not an expert in Covid. There is a well known SA expert, Professor Penny Moore from The National Institute for Communicable Diseases in South Africa, who was rather more concerned than Coetzee about the effects of Omicron, not just directly but as a basis for further mutation. Reports have also emerged of people who have Omicron and flu at the same time, not something seen previously at any significant level, and of another Omicron sub-variant.

On NHS staffing, it was already in a bad state before Covid and has been stretched to breaking point. Lots of staff are fed up, exhausted and undervalued and looking at doing something else, or doing it somewhere else. Covid patients have an effect on hospitals beyond their number.

The decision-makers have not followed the science. SAGE, Chris Whitty and various external bodies have advised more caution and greater intervention and the Govt have not done it.

 

[Imurg]

I posted a Twitter thread a while back about the maths..
To summarise it..if Delta was putting 100 people a day in hospital for every 10k cases and Omicron is 10 times weaker but much easier to catch...300k cases puts 300 a day in hospital.
May be a bit simplistic but...it makes you think..

 

[Billysboots]

The decision-makers have not followed the science. SAGE, Chris Whitty and various external bodies have advised more caution and greater intervention and the Govt have not done it.

So maybe they have been bold and got it right?

I’m never going to deny Covid. Not for one second. Nor will I deny people get seriously ill and die as a result. But, as of yesterday if the data I have seen is correct there are just over 17000 people in U.K. hospitals who have tested positive for Covid, with just under 1000 on ventilation - that’s 0.025% and 0.001% of the population respectively, despite an enormous corresponding surge in infections, which we are now almost three weeks into.

There has to be a balance struck between protecting the NHS, limiting excess deaths and safeguarding the economy, the futures of our children and everything else we deem normal in our lives. Maybe the government, in England at least, have finally got the balance right and are making appropriate decisions.

 

[Ethan]

So maybe they have been bold and got it right?

I’m never going to deny Covid. Not for one second. Nor will I deny people get seriously ill and die as a result. But, as of yesterday if the data I have seen is correct there are just over 17000 people in U.K. hospitals who have tested positive for Covid, with just under 1000 on ventilation - that’s 0.025% and 0.001% of the population respectively, despite an enormous corresponding surge in infections, which we are now almost three weeks into.

There has to be a balance struck between protecting the NHS, limiting excess deaths and safeguarding the economy, the futures of our children and everything else we deem normal in our lives. Maybe the government, in England at least, have finally got the balance right and are making appropriate decisions.

This bolded bit is one of the central issues. Some see the public health effort and protecting the economy as being in tension with each other, and others see the two as being inextricably bound together. The first group make choices between the two, the second see effectively fighting the virus as the ket to protecting the economy. Most of the UK Govt are in the first camp, many economists in the second.

On hospital occupancy, 17000 people in hospital with a preventable condition seems like quite a lot to me, but how many people have been in hospital overall? Over half a million. And 150k have died. A pandemic is a time to be careful, not bold.

 

[Hobbit]

So maybe they have been bold and got it right?

I’m never going to deny Covid. Not for one second. Nor will I deny people get seriously ill and die as a result. But, as of yesterday if the data I have seen is correct there are just over 17000 people in U.K. hospitals who have tested positive for Covid, with just under 1000 on ventilation - that’s 0.025% and 0.001% of the population respectively, despite an enormous corresponding surge in infections, which we are now almost three weeks into.

There has to be a balance struck between protecting the NHS, limiting excess deaths and safeguarding the economy, the futures of our children and everything else we deem normal in our lives. Maybe the government, in England at least, have finally got the balance right and are making appropriate decisions.

Showing it as a percentage of population isn’t as pertinent as showing it as a percentage of available beds.

 

[Crazyface]

If, as it seems, Omi causes less health problems, and is speading like the proverbial wildfire, we should be saying, pop a couple of paracetamol and get into work, for those that it is like just a cold.

Also, isn't this the third varient? And it's getting weaker. Maybe the next one, if indeed there is another one, will be not worth reporting on. Lets hope so.

 

[Billysboots]

Showing it as a percentage of population isn’t as pertinent as showing it as a percentage of available beds.

If I can find the graph, Brian, I’ll post it. The proportion is not as big as many perhaps believe.

 

[Ethan]

If I can find the graph, Brian, I’ll post it. The proportion is not as big as many perhaps believe.

In absolute terms, the proportion is not huge, but it has a disproportionate effect on hospital activity.

 

[DanFST]

I'm incredibly uninformed, so may be very stupid.

If nightingales are operational, can we not staff those with medical staff that are isolating? In London there should be an abundance of staff available.

 

[Billysboots]

This bolded bit is one of the central issues. Some see the public health effort and protecting the economy as being in tension with each other, and others see the two as being inextricably bound together. The first group make choices between the two, the second see effectively fighting the virus as the ket to protecting the economy. Most of the UK Govt are in the first camp, many economists in the second.

On hospital occupancy, 17000 people in hospital with a preventable condition seems like quite a lot to me, but how many people have been in hospital overall? Over half a million. And 150k have died. A pandemic is a time to be careful, not bold.

Nothing there I disagree with. And whilst a huge number have been in hospital and have died, and caution has always been an option I far preferred, I do think the signs are that the time is approaching when the economy and a return to normal, whatever that is, will start to take precedence.

 

[AmandaJR]

I'm incredibly uninformed, so may be very stupid.

If nightingales are operational, can we not staff those with medical staff that are isolating? In London there should be an abundance of staff available.

I think France are doing something similar for positive healthcare workers. Seems a decent plan but what about travelling into work etc...

 

[road2ruin]

I think France are doing something similar for positive healthcare workers. Seems a decent plan but what about travelling into work etc...

There must be enough staff who have their own transport that you could make use of though? Granted, if you have to take public transport then you'll probably just have to sit and suffer however if you're going from home to work and back again in the car then this would probably help alleviate some of the staffing issues.

 

[AmandaJR]

There must be enough staff who have their own transport that you could make use of though? Granted, if you have to take public transport then you'll probably just have to sit and suffer however if you're going from home to work and back again in the car then this would probably help alleviate some of the staffing issues.

Agreed. Can't see the NHS going for it though!

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

I wasn't shocked, I must say. It has been "an inconvenient truth " ever since the start of this thing, that people indoors in ordinary ventilated rooms, as in most places- bars , restaurants, etc, breathing each other's expelled air, is what is readily spreading this virus. To be in such a place without a mask is quite risky. If it isn't necessary to do it....then ...???

Yet still a good number who I have spoken with and who would attend my event on the 22nd are OK for it to go ahead…saying we have to get back to normal at some point (as I agree that we must - whatever that normal might be), and so I worry that I am over-reacting.

 

[Foxholer]

...
There has to be a balance struck between protecting the NHS, limiting excess deaths and safeguarding the economy, the futures of our children and everything else we deem normal in our lives...

If folk need to be in hospital, that, to me, takes priority over 'being bold'!
To me, the 'balance' (actually, 'priority') has to be limiting excess deaths #1; protecting the NHS (well, hospitals) #2; economy #3. My reasoning is that #1 is an absolute must, #2 can be managed - and is essential for #1 and #3 economy will recover in due course.
I can't believe anyone is considering different priorities, though planning for when they can is acceptable - and expected.

 

[Foxholer]

If I can find the graph, Brian, I’ll post it. The proportion is not as big as many perhaps believe.

In this doc? https://www.england.nhs.uk/statistics/statistical-work-areas/covid-19-hospital-activity/

 

[D-S]

I am all for caution and common sense as well as personal responsibility, but I would like to know what further restrictions should be in place to prevent spread and the impact on hospitals.
As far as I can see across Europe and elsewhere there are a whole gamut of preventative measures being employed but with the notable exception of New Zealand, cases are soaring everywhere even in places where winter is not a factor (Australia had 60k plus cases yesterday).
What else can we do? The slightly different protocols in our 4 nations do not seem to have made a significant difference to case numbers.

 

[GB72]

Yet still a good number who I have spoken with and who would attend my event on the 22nd are OK for it to go ahead…saying we have to get back to normal at some point (as I agree that we must - whatever that normal might be), and so I worry that I am over-reacting.

I think that you are in an a very difficult position. There are, no doubt, many people who feel that they need to get on with things and would go to your event but they are not the ones who have to carry the burden if there is a serious outbreak or serious illness. To attend is conscience free, to organise is not.

 

[Ethan]

I'm incredibly uninformed, so may be very stupid.

If nightingales are operational, can we not staff those with medical staff that are isolating? In London there should be an abundance of staff available.

There really isn't an abundance of staff in London. There is a chronic shortage. Nightingales increase the overall number of staff needed to cover a given number of patients. The overwhelming opinion of doctors posting on a medical social media site I frequent think Nightingales are a bad idea. There is rarely a shortage of beds as such, there is usually a shortage of people to staff them. The idea of getting people out of hospital as soon as they are well enough is critical.