Coronavirus - how is it/has it affected you?

[Ethan]

Detention is a form of isolation.

The suggestion that there is no law to suggest you isolate with a notifiable disease was wrong.

Isolation of infectious people, e.g. TB or others, has been on the books for years, as is enforced and supervised treatment if deemed necessary. There is a law, rarely used, called The National Assistance Act, which allows people to be removed from unsafe conditions, for their and others' protection. It is intended for people who fall outside the Mental Health Act but who live in squalid conditions. I remember we considered using it once for an eccentric but not mentally ill old guy who lived in a complete tip with vermin and troublesome smell, in a Northern town that shall not be named. Mental Health legislation obviously allows removal of people from their homes for mental health reasons, as well as treatment without their consent including medicinal and ECT.

 

[Blue in Munich]

Detention is a form of isolation.

The suggestion that there is no law to suggest you isolate with a notifiable disease was wrong.

No it wasn’t; that is not a suggestion to isolate, it is detention, which is a completely different matter.

 

[greenone]

I just can't see how people with Covid could simply mix with the general public and how it could be considered good news.

when's the next election?

 

[SocketRocket]

But what is your definition for “very well understood”? That seems to be the key to your argument for keeping restrictions in place, since we seem to already have extremely effective vaccines available, which have prevented the NHS being overwhelmed despite a massive number of infections.

You advocate waiting for the summer before easing restrictions, but what do you suggest when autumn and winter come around, and your rather unquantifiable suggestion that Covid is “very well understood” has not been met to your satisfaction? More restrictions? Another lockdown?

What you are effectively suggesting is a life of indefinite restrictions, and whilst I agree most are trifling, the ongoing requirement to self isolate most definitely isn’t.

I don't believe he or anyone is suggesting 'a life of indefinite restrictions' rather that we should wait a little longer untill the timing is better.

 

[SocketRocket]

No it wasn’t; that is not a suggestion to isolate, it is detention, which is a completely different matter.

It's only a detention where the infected had refused to isolate. That's fair enough and in line with most forms of public protection. Surely you must understand that.

 

[SocketRocket]

I would have agreed with you re mask wearing to protect the vulnerable, but as stated earlier in this thread I have two old/elderly family members who contracted Covid from in one case visiting a fully masked and tested outpatient clinic and in the other via two visits to a fully masked supermarket. So, if you are very vulnerable everyone wearing masks in these public areas is not good enough protection as there is definitely risk in visiting such places.

Nothing is going to be completely safe, it's more a matter of mitigating risk through sensible precautions. If it saves a small number of lives it's worthwhile.

 

[D-S]

Nothing is going to be completely safe, it's more a matter of mitigating risk through sensible precautions. If it saves a small number of lives it's worthwhile.

My point is that mask wearing does not ‘make it safe’ for those who do want to have zero chance of catching the virus. If you are vulnerable or are unvaxxed you need to take more precautions - everyone else doing their bit and wearing masks isn’t enough.

 

[SocketRocket]

My point is that mask wearing does not ‘make it safe’ for those who do want to have zero chance of catching the virus. If you are vulnerable or are unvaxxed you need to take more precautions - everyone else doing their bit and wearing masks isn’t enough.

But it's better than nothing. There is no completely safe option so like in most life situations we take the best option available.

 

[Hobbit]

But it's better than nothing. There is no completely safe option so like in most life situations we take the best option available.

Just because it isn’t a rule anymore doesn’t mean you aren’t allowed to wear a mask if you want to. I’ve just been into the village. Current rule here is masks are no longer required outdoors. People are still wearing masks.

People can just make their own choices.

 

[Swango1980]

Did you not read/understand the bit about 'not allowed to talk about'?!

I read it as "they are announcing it now to distract us from other issues they don't want us talking about (e.g. investigations into office parties)". That was one of the arguments in the press in the morning news today. Apologies if it was in reference to something else.

 

[SocketRocket]

Just because it isn’t a rule anymore doesn’t mean you aren’t allowed to wear a mask if you want to. I’ve just been into the village. Current rule here is masks are no longer required outdoors. People are still wearing masks.

People can just make their own choices.

My post was relating to the one I quoted where the poster was suggesting masks don't make it fully safe for vulnerable people. I was attempting to point out that nothing will be completely safe but it's better than nothing, also it's only been compulsory indoors.

 

[Hobbit]

My post was relating to the one I quoted where the poster was suggesting masks don't make it fully safe for vulnerable people. I was attempting to point out that nothing will be completely safe but it's better than nothing, also it's only been compulsory indoors.

I think transmissibility is, almost, a bigger issue. The number of deaths is obviously something that should never be ignored nor forgotten but…

Two previous versions are worth considering, if only for context going forward. SARS has a mortality rate of 9.5%, and MERS has a mortality rate of 35%. Freakingly frightening but not highly transmissible. Covid’s mortality rate is less than 1%, but highly transmissible in its current variant.

If its highly transmissible but (now) rarely fatal in all apart from the vulnerable, just like winter flu, I’d be tempted to say the biggest problem now is fear.

 

[Billysboots]

I don't believe he or anyone is suggesting 'a life of indefinite restrictions' rather that we should wait a little longer untill the timing is better.

My point, though, is how long? SILH suggests waiting until Covid is “very well understood”, a point which is totally subjective. We are learning more about various illnesses all the time - cancer, MS, motor neurone and now Covid. At what point do we say enough is known about it to release the shackles?

In much the same way those like me are being accused of being rash in wanting restrictions eased, it could equally be argued that those who don’t are being unnecessarily cautious. Waiting until Covid is “very well understood” is not exactly a compelling rationale given the vagueness of it.

 

[SocketRocket]

My point, though, is how long? SILH suggests waiting until Covid is “very well understood”, a point which is totally subjective. We are learning more about various illnesses all the time - cancer, MS, motor neurone and now Covid. At what point do we say enough is known about it to release the shackles?

In much the same way those like me are being accused of being rash in wanting restrictions eased, it could equally be argued that those who don’t are being unnecessarily cautious. Waiting until Covid is “very well understood” is not exactly a compelling rationale given the vagueness of it.

But it's not easing restrictions that's causing concern, it's removing them too early. We would expect infections to become much lower as the weather improves and this seems like the right time to reduce them. Personally I have concerns about infected people not isolating, I can see a case for contacts not isolating if free from symptoms and having a negative test. It would be interesting to see the views of SAGE.

 

[ColchesterFC]

My point, though, is how long? SILH suggests waiting until Covid is “very well understood”, a point which is totally subjective. We are learning more about various illnesses all the time - cancer, MS, motor neurone and now Covid. At what point do we say enough is known about it to release the shackles?

In much the same way those like me are being accused of being rash in wanting restrictions eased, it could equally be argued that those who don’t are being unnecessarily cautious. Waiting until Covid is “very well understood” is not exactly a compelling rationale given the vagueness of it.

Personally, I would have kept mask wearing until middle/end April by which time it's hopefully warming up and there's likely to be less indoor mixing as people move outside. Would also probably have kept isolation for those showing symptoms but apart from that drop the rest of the restrictions.

 

[Billysboots]

But it's not easing restrictions that's causing concern, it's removing them too early. We would expect infections to become much lower as the weather improves and this seems like the right time to reduce them. Personally I have concerns about infected people not isolating, I can see a case for contacts not isolating if free from symptoms and having a negative test. It would be interesting to see the views of SAGE.

But again I say, clarify what you mean by “too early”.

We’ve all been totally brainwashed by the daily figures. Thousands upon thousands of infections, a couple of hundred deaths, however many in hospital who have tested positive. And it is precisely because of those daily figures that so many people are now absolutely bricking themselves about the easing of restrictions.

I would be really interested to see if the reluctance to see restrictions go was the same if we no longer saw these daily figures published. Whilst I accept the data is out there for those who who want to dissect it, the daily figures quoted in the news (infections and deaths) have long since lacked context and, to me at least, are largely meaningless.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

My point, though, is how long? SILH suggests waiting until Covid is “very well understood”, a point which is totally subjective. We are learning more about various illnesses all the time - cancer, MS, motor neurone and now Covid. At what point do we say enough is known about it to release the shackles?

In much the same way those like me are being accused of being rash in wanting restrictions eased, it could equally be argued that those who don’t are being unnecessarily cautious. Waiting until Covid is “very well understood” is not exactly a compelling rationale given the vagueness of it.

I didn't say that. I said that most common viruses that have been known for a some time - some for a very long time- are very well understood - as are the treatments and vaccination regimes for them. This coronavirus is new and is - almost by definition through limited experience - not as well understood, as neither can be vaccination regimes and treatments for covid and long covid. So maybe let's just be a bit cautious for a while, and not quite so complacent as it seems we are about to become.

 

[Billysboots]

I didn't say that. I said that most common viruses that have been known for a some time - some for a very long time- are very well understood - as are the treatments and vaccination regimes for them. This coronavirus is new and is - almost by definition through limited experience - not as well understood, as neither can be vaccination regimes and treatments for covid and long covid. So maybe let's just be a bit cautious for a while, and not quite so complacent as it seems we are about to become.

That’s pretty much exactly what you said!

You referred to other viruses having effective vaccines. Covid now does. You mentioned there being effective treatments to counter other viruses. I think even the most hardened sceptic would agree the medical profession is infinitely better at treating Covid now than it was in 2020. And we are adding to our knowledge of the virus all the time, just as we are with all illnesses.

You say we should be cautious for “a while”. I simply ask you, how long? Given we have the vaccines, treatments have improved massively and will continue to do so (in common with other serious illness), and we are learning about Covid all the while (in common with other serious illness), what, precisely, has to change for you to agree that releasing restrictions is appropriate?

 

[HomerJSimpson]

In simple terms we have to move on even in hospital and mitigate as best we can for infection rates especially from variants. If you are worried wear a mask and get vaccinated. Other than that, there has to be a point, which seems to be now, to simply start moving on. How long do you want to wait for the "data" which invariably can be interpreted many ways to fit any scenario

 

[larmen]

In simple terms we have to move on even in hospital and mitigate as best we can for infection rates especially from variants. If you are worried wear a mask and get vaccinated. Other than that, there has to be a point, which seems to be now, to simply start moving on. How long do you want to wait for the "data" which invariably can be interpreted many ways to fit any scenario

What did you guys do with people that were positive with SARS? When I was in hospital a few times from 2015 to 2017 I always had a test when arriving for stationary treatment.