Coronavirus - how is it/has it affected you?

[road2ruin]

What happens when the next variant comes along and isn't as "potent" even though we are still seeing hospital admissions and daily deaths.

The issue with any future variants is that they're going to come and it's unlikely to be due to what we do with the restrictions. They will come from abroad, probably from countries that have far lower vaccination rates and there will be nothing we can do to keep it out, that's already been proved with every other variant that's found its way across our border. The thing is this might be next month, six months or further down the line however you cannot keep restrictions in place just in case. Personally I have my doubts whether lifting everything so quickly is a good idea however that's not really do to with variants etc, it's just because it's still winter. Maybe wait until the weather warms up, we're all outside more and the transmission will naturally decrease anyway.

 

[HomerJSimpson]

The issue with any future variants is that they're going to come and it's unlikely to be due to what we do with the restrictions. They will come from abroad, probably from countries that have far lower vaccination rates and there will be nothing we can do to keep it out, that's already been proved with every other variant that's found its way across our border. The thing is this might be next month, six months or further down the line however you cannot keep restrictions in place just in case. Personally I have my doubts whether lifting everything so quickly is a good idea however that's not really do to with variants etc, it's just because it's still winter. Maybe wait until the weather warms up, we're all outside more and the transmission will naturally decrease anyway.

Nurses and medical staff are still flat out and haven't recovered from the last two years. This isn't the time. There is still significant staff absence to add to the pressure and we are still in the midst of normal winter pressures on top of covid. When will there return to normality mentally come. As long as everyone else is alright. I agree changes need to be made but this smacks of too much too soon

 

[PNWokingham]

totally agree with the various posts of Billy and Phil so not going to repeat the same points. There is no way the government can continence keeping restrictions much longer as the public and MPs would not allow it. We are in a different place and different rules (i mean lack of them) are needed. As to comments that idiots will be idiots, that is applicable to everything not just covid. Roll back the laws and crack on with life - and that means be as cautious as you want in where you go, with whom and when, and what you wear on your face.

 

[road2ruin]

Rather worrying figures from the ONS about the increased deaths in 15-19yr old males that is potentially linked to the vaccine.

At the High Court on Thursday 13th January, the ONS (Office for National Statistics) confirmed that there has been a significant rise in the death rate for adolescent males over the last eight months, compared to the same time period of 2015-2019. There have been at least 65 extra deaths in England and Wales, though the figure may be higher due to reporting delays for coroners cases. During the same time frame there were only 2 deaths involving Covid.

The concern is that this time period coincides with the rollout of vaccinations to this age group, who are known to be at an increased risk of myocarditis (heart inflammation), especially after the second dose. Far from rushing to investigate these deaths as they have arisen, ONS has stated it intends to undertake that work ‘when more reliable data are available’.

The rollout of vaccinations in this age group was always controversial, with risks and benefits finely balanced, but the Chief Medical Officers overturned the original advice, not on health grounds but to ‘reduce disruption to schools’. Any marginal benefit of vaccination for the young must be considered outweighed by even a marginal increase in mortality. With the reduced risk from Omicron, and with increased risk from second doses, the balance will have tipped still further.

Surely we should be stopping all vaccinations in younger people until it is proved 100% to be completely safe. As above, it's got a marginal health benefit to those ages and a vast majority will have already had it so I personally think it should be halted for the time being and certainly not gone any lower in age that we have already.

 

[Ethan]

A question for those who think that anyone who condones a return to normality is being selfish - at what point will you accept that Covid must become part of our lives?

It’s a serious question, and I’m genuinely interested to hear the replies. There has to be an end to mandated restrictions. I have nothing against those who want to continue to wear face coverings and social distance, but we can’t mandate restrictions indefinitely.

Do you have a figure in mind with regard to daily deaths, infections or hospital admissions? Because we can’t live our lives for ever more using the rather woolly rationale of “just in case”. People will continue to fall ill, with Covid, flu, pneumonia and other diseases. They will continue to die.

But we can’t continue to play sport in empty stadia, restrict foreign travel, make people feel guilty for attending social functions and so on, without some clear and defined scenario when that will end.

All I am really reading here in support of ongoing restrictions and caution is “what if” or “until more is known”. In other words, indefinitely. That’s not really a goer, is it?

The mistake you are making is one that a lot of lockdown-skeptics make - they project the current measures "for ever". I must have missed the announcement that these measures were ever intended to last for ever.

Reading played Luton last night, and the only reason the stadium was half or more empty was because it was freezing and Reading were playing crap and most of the fans correctly predicted they would get beaten again. Foreign travel is not particularily restricted in terms of leaving the UK, other countries may have inbound restrictions, and most of the people I see swanning round Tesco without a mask although they are required to wear one do not look in the slightest guilty.

This notion of 'living with it' that is so glibly tossed around means that you are willing to accept that some people, not you, of course, will get Covid, and if they are older or unlucky may get pretty ill or die. Some people se the outcomes of Covid as either a mild cold for most or very rarely severe illness, but only in people who were probably going to kick it soon anyway. It is a bit more complicated than that. London Covid is much more common than death, well recognised and can be pretty severe, and subclinical (i.e initially unnoticed) inflammatory effects of all variants are increasingly recognised, including damage to liver, kidneys, brain, heart and lungs.

In my opinion, the numbers have not fallen enough to just stop all the measures at once (the masks becoming voluntary is effectively stopping that). We run the risk of kicking those number back up. If numbers did show a sustained fall, I would pull back measures one by one. Covid passports first, work from home second and masks last.

Because case numbers are now unreliable due to limits on tests, we should focus on hospitalisations. Hospitalisations were around 1000 a day through most of November and into mid-December, then climbed to 2000- 2500 in late Dec and early Jan. On 15th Jan, they were 1750. I would like to see them back at 1000 or less for a week before doing anything with public health measures.

 

[DanFST]

Continental Europe has had covid passes, masks etc throughout the duration.

How has that worked for them since the initial wave?

 

[SocketRocket]

Continental Europe has had covid passes, masks etc throughout the duration.

How has that worked for them since the initial wave?

Their vaccination rates may have an influence.

 

[Ethan]

Rather worrying figures from the ONS about the increased deaths in 15-19yr old males that is potentially linked to the vaccine.

At the High Court on Thursday 13th January, the ONS (Office for National Statistics) confirmed that there has been a significant rise in the death rate for adolescent males over the last eight months, compared to the same time period of 2015-2019. There have been at least 65 extra deaths in England and Wales, though the figure may be higher due to reporting delays for coroners cases. During the same time frame there were only 2 deaths involving Covid.

The concern is that this time period coincides with the rollout of vaccinations to this age group, who are known to be at an increased risk of myocarditis (heart inflammation), especially after the second dose. Far from rushing to investigate these deaths as they have arisen, ONS has stated it intends to undertake that work ‘when more reliable data are available’.

The rollout of vaccinations in this age group was always controversial, with risks and benefits finely balanced, but the Chief Medical Officers overturned the original advice, not on health grounds but to ‘reduce disruption to schools’. Any marginal benefit of vaccination for the young must be considered outweighed by even a marginal increase in mortality. With the reduced risk from Omicron, and with increased risk from second doses, the balance will have tipped still further.

Surely we should be stopping all vaccinations in younger people until it is proved 100% to be completely safe. As above, it's got a marginal health benefit to those ages and a vast majority will have already had it so I personally think it should be halted for the time being and certainly not gone any lower in age that we have already.

What was the stated causes of death? A death in a teenager without an obvious cause will be a coroners case and need a PM. It is extremely unlikely that this excess is due to myocarditis. That High Court bit relates to a case brought by a bunch of vaccine skeptics, including a few alternative quacktitioners. At least one of the principals has been repeatedly proven to be utterly wrong with her theories.It seems to use the time-honoured method of carefully choosing an interval in order to amplify a statistical effect. Data varies from year to year, so if you time the comparison right, you can show stuff that actually means very little. Why didn't they include 2020 in their comparator, if they claim that Covid doesn't kill teens?

I have taken a look at ONS 2021 weekly deaths and in the 10-14 and 15-19 age ranges, the numbers across the year (therefore including the period when vaccine was not available to teens, and the period they were, are remarkably similar.

You can never prove a vaccine to be 100% safe. That is trying to prove a negative, the absence of any safety issues. Doctors and scientists don't talk about it being safe, they talk about the benefit-risk ratio.

 

[Ethan]

Continental Europe has had covid passes, masks etc throughout the duration.

How has that worked for them since the initial wave?

Better than the UK in most cases, in some dramatically so, even despite slower initial vaccination rates (although now mostly caught up).

 

[road2ruin]

What was the stated causes of death? A death in a teenager without an obvious cause will be a coroners case and need a PM. It is extremely unlikely that this excess is due to myocarditis. That High Court bit relates to a case brought by a bunch of vaccine skeptics, including a few alternative quacktitioners. At least one of the principals has been repeatedly proven to be utterly wrong with her theories.It seems to use the time-honoured method of carefully choosing an interval in order to amplify a statistical effect. Data varies from year to year, so if you time the comparison right, you can show stuff that actually means very little. Why didn't they include 2020 in their comparator, if they claim that Covid doesn't kill teens?

I have taken a look at ONS 2021 weekly deaths and in the 10-14 and 15-19 age ranges, the numbers across the year (therefore including the period when vaccine was not available to teens, and the period they were, are remarkably similar.

You can never prove a vaccine to be 100% safe. That is trying to prove a negative, the absence of any safety issues. Doctors and scientists don't talk about it being safe, they talk about the benefit-risk ratio.

Agree that no vaccine is ever 100% safe however if the benefits are marginal surely you wait until it is safer than it is now. I know we've gone over this previously and have opposing views but it just strikes me that the benefit for these ages just isn't worth the risk at the moment.

This is the Twitter feed of the Dr who also raised the issue. I know that you would be against the HART lot and I was aware of their opposing view to yours however that doesn't make them 100% incorrect. Why take the risk is all I am saying.

Dr Clare Craig (not one of her impersonators) on Twitter: "The ONS have agreed there is a statistically significant increase in deaths in males aged 15-19 years. An open letter from 80+ scientists and medics calls for an urgent investigation into the cause. Did the ONS try and downplay the problem? https://t.co/fi1qfCutLs https://t.co/vtoxOYvzTZ" / Twitter

 

[SocketRocket]

A question for those who think that anyone who condones a return to normality is being selfish - at what point will you accept that Covid must become part of our lives?

It’s a serious question, and I’m genuinely interested to hear the replies. There has to be an end to mandated restrictions. I have nothing against those who want to continue to wear face coverings and social distance, but we can’t mandate restrictions indefinitely.

Do you have a figure in mind with regard to daily deaths, infections or hospital admissions? Because we can’t live our lives for ever more using the rather woolly rationale of “just in case”. People will continue to fall ill, with Covid, flu, pneumonia and other diseases. They will continue to die.

But we can’t continue to play sport in empty stadia, restrict foreign travel, make people feel guilty for attending social functions and so on, without some clear and defined scenario when that will end.

All I am really reading here in support of ongoing restrictions and caution is “what if” or “until more is known”. In other words, indefinitely. That’s not really a goer, is it?

The figure in mind is when we see deaths and hospitalisation rates reduced to manageable/acceptable levels and were not there now.

I don't understand what this 'We need to live with it' society looks like. Is it where we turn off the ventilators in hospitals, leave those seriously ill with Covid at home to fend for themselves so we can fill football stadiums and night clubs, is it where we decide who should live and who should die by age and vulnerability.

What is it you want to happen because I can't see what it is other than glib comments suggesting were a bit fed up with this so let's ignore it now.

 

[Ethan]

Agree that no vaccine is ever 100% safe however if the benefits are marginal surely you wait until it is safer than it is now. I know we've gone over this previously and have opposing views but it just strikes me that the benefit for these ages just isn't worth the risk at the moment.

This is the Twitter feed of the Dr who also raised the issue. I know that you would be against the HART lot and I was aware of their opposing view to yours however that doesn't make them 100% incorrect. Why take the risk is all I am saying.

Dr Clare Craig (not one of her impersonators) on Twitter: "The ONS have agreed there is a statistically significant increase in deaths in males aged 15-19 years. An open letter from 80+ scientists and medics calls for an urgent investigation into the cause. Did the ONS try and downplay the problem? https://t.co/fi1qfCutLs https://t.co/vtoxOYvzTZ" / Twitter

I didn't say the benefits were marginal for teenagers. I have boys in that age range myself.

Clare Craig has been spectacularly wrong on all the major issues of this pandemic.

• She claimed there was no second wave, it was just false positive tests.
• She claimed that doctors were therefore incorrectly attributing deaths to Covid
• She claimed that the people in hospital did not have Covid (she didn't say what they did have, though)
• She claimed that half the population was already immune to Covid before the pandemic started.
• She claimed the pandemic was over in 2020

All wrong. She should be ignored. She has been disavowed by her professional organisation, the RC Path, and I think she has been sacked by the NHS.

I looked at the list of the 80 scientist and medics. They are an obscure bunch and apart from the 2 leading skeptics, I have only ever heard of 1 other. There are a few alternative medicine people in there who are neither scientist nor medics and variety of people with no apparent relevant expertise, e.g. plastic surgeon or physiotherapist.

 

[bobmac]

Is it where we turn off the ventilators in hospitals, leave those seriously ill with Covid at home to fend for themselves so we can fill football stadiums and night clubs, is it where we decide who should live and who should die by age and vulnerability.

Has anyone suggested we do any of that?
Of course not, what a lazy argument

 

[Billysboots]

The mistake you are making is one that a lot of lockdown-skeptics make - they project the current measures "for ever". I must have missed the announcement that these measures were ever intended to last for ever.

Reading played Luton last night, and the only reason the stadium was half or more empty was because it was freezing and Reading were playing crap and most of the fans correctly predicted they would get beaten again. Foreign travel is not particularily restricted in terms of leaving the UK, other countries may have inbound restrictions, and most of the people I see swanning round Tesco without a mask although they are required to wear one do not look in the slightest guilty.

This notion of 'living with it' that is so glibly tossed around means that you are willing to accept that some people, not you, of course, will get Covid, and if they are older or unlucky may get pretty ill or die. Some people se the outcomes of Covid as either a mild cold for most or very rarely severe illness, but only in people who were probably going to kick it soon anyway. It is a bit more complicated than that. London Covid is much more common than death, well recognised and can be pretty severe, and subclinical (i.e initially unnoticed) inflammatory effects of all variants are increasingly recognised, including damage to liver, kidneys, brain, heart and lungs.

In my opinion, the numbers have not fallen enough to just stop all the measures at once (the masks becoming voluntary is effectively stopping that). We run the risk of kicking those number back up. If numbers did show a sustained fall, I would pull back measures one by one. Covid passports first, work from home second and masks last.

Because case numbers are now unreliable due to limits on tests, we should focus on hospitalisations. Hospitalisations were around 1000 a day through most of November and into mid-December, then climbed to 2000- 2500 in late Dec and early Jan. On 15th Jan, they were 1750. I would like to see them back at 1000 or less for a week before doing anything with public health measures.

Perhaps you’d point me in the direction of the post in which I predicted the current measures would last for ever? Or where I said I was sceptical regarding the need for lockdowns?

 

[PNWokingham]

The figure in mind is when we see deaths and hospitalisation rates reduced to manageable/acceptable levels and were not there now.

I don't understand what this 'We need to live with it' society looks like. Is it where we turn off the ventilators in hospitals, leave those seriously ill with Covid at home to fend for themselves so we can fill football stadiums and night clubs, is it where we decide who should live and who should die by age and vulnerability.

What is it you want to happen because I can't see what it is other than glib comments suggesting were a bit fed up with this so let's ignore it now.

what a desperately poor, dramatic response

 

[RichA]

I see both sides.

MiL has effectively been shielding since March 2020 and continues to do so, to some extent. She has heart disease and COPD and a dose of COVID is probably only 50/50 survivable, even fully vaccinated. Going forward, that probably means that she and we just have to continue being extra careful and keep our fingers crossed. Having said that, her mental decline and related physical decline resulting from continued isolation over the last 2 years have done as much damage as a serious illness anyway.
She badly needs heart surgery, but it keeps being delayed by the knock on effects of COVID throughout the NHS. I'm sure there are many thousands of elderly or chronically sick people in similar situations.

Meanwhile anyone who now develops a condition that's survivable if treated early might not get an early diagnosis, never mind an early treatment, due to 2 years of enforced tunnel vision.

I just can't see that the decision on where to focus is as simple and binary as some suggest, on either side of the debate.

 

[Ethan]

Perhaps you’d point me in the direction of the post in which I predicted the current measures would last for ever? Or where I said I was sceptical regarding the need for lockdowns?

Is that it? Only responding to two words?

I didn't say you would 'predict', but you and others of a like mind often 'project' your dislike of measures which you bemoan can't be used 'for ever', even though nobody has suggested they should. You did it in the post I quoted.

Ironically, people pushing back against stuff because they can't tolerate it 'for ever' have probably made them last longer than needed.

 

[Billysboots]

The figure in mind is when we see deaths and hospitalisation rates reduced to manageable/acceptable levels and were not there now.

I don't understand what this 'We need to live with it' society looks like. Is it where we turn off the ventilators in hospitals, leave those seriously ill with Covid at home to fend for themselves so we can fill football stadiums and night clubs, is it where we decide who should live and who should die by age and vulnerability.

What is it you want to happen because I can't see what it is other than glib comments suggesting were a bit fed up with this so let's ignore it now.

I will stress at the outset that I certainly do not liken Covid to flu - far from it. But the number of daily deaths of those with Covid is not dissimilar to the number dying every day with flu during a typical winter, and it is this I am struggling with.

You say you want the number of deaths reduced to “acceptable” levels. That, in essence, means you want the Covid death toll to be lower than that attributed to flu before measures are eased. And yet the only measure we have to combat flu is an annual jab which is largely only given to the over 50’s and those who are clinically vulnerable.

It really does seem to me that we are becoming obsessed with Covid, and measures to prevent infections and deaths, whilst we are prepared to live with tens of thousands dying with flu. Why are we not bringing in stricter measures to combat flu? Or are flu deaths less important?

As for what I want to see? A response, and measures, that are proportionate to the ongoing threat and risk.

 

[Ethan]

I will stress at the outset that I certainly do not liken Covid to flu - far from it. But the number of daily deaths of those with Covid is not dissimilar to the number dying every day with flu during a typical winter, and it is this I am struggling with.

You say you want the number of deaths reduced to “acceptable” levels. That, in essence, means you want the Covid death toll to be lower than that attributed to flu before measures are eased. And yet the only measure we have to combat flu is an annual jab which is largely only given to the over 50’s and those who are clinically vulnerable.

It really does seem to me that we are becoming obsessed with Covid, and measures to prevent infections and deaths, whilst we are prepared to live with tens of thousands dying with flu. Why are we not bringing in stricter measures to combat flu? Or are flu deaths less important?

As for what I want to see? A response, and measures, that are proportionate to the ongoing threat and risk.

Cool. What is the ongoing threat and risk?

 

[Billysboots]

Is that it? Only responding to two words?

I didn't say you would 'predict', but you and others of a like mind often 'project' your dislike of measures which you bemoan can't be used 'for ever', even though nobody has suggested they should. You did it in the post I quoted.

Ironically, people pushing back against stuff because they can't tolerate it 'for ever' have probably made them last longer than needed.

I’m not going to engage any further, as the outcome is always the same, and you are already trying to lead the discussion down that path. I’ve said what I wanted to say and am not going to be goaded, yet again, into an exchange which will result in this thread being locked for the umpteenth time.