Can anyone explain to me how this is different to flu now please?

[musicalfrog]

Apart from the overseas thing, I get that other countries don't have as much protection as we do.

So -

Covid is a respiratory disease as is flu.

We now have our most vulnerable population fully vaccinated (as with flu).

Covid mutates. Just like flu. So we change the vaccine every year, same with covid.

So why are we still in this situation, wearing masks and distancing and all the other bollocks we're going for covid but don't do for flu?

Agree we will have deaths every year from Covid.

What concerns me about this is no one in government is yet discussing long term extra resources to deal with the reality of that - because for every death there are associated other outcomes e.g. how many in ICU who then recover?

If the government accept x deaths, they either have to put in the resources to cope or we will have to limit other surgery/healthcare in winter months. Presume the NHS will be completely fucked again in winter 2021/22, as we are expecting quite high covid deaths - so will be reducing other surgery to ensure the space?

@strangeshapedpotato

"Utter crap.

Only for very young children is flu more serious.

For your typical healthy 40 year old, covid is about 1000 times more serious."

Have you looked at the ONS data? Covid deaths for a typical healthy 40 year old are incredibly low. Last time I checked, deaths of under 45s equated to around 0.05% of the total deaths, and a lot of those had underlying health conditions.

"How much health care does this use?"
Do you mean with or without 'masks and distancing and bollocks?' Where is a good point from which to start the count up (seasonal behaviour of waves, hours, ££, beds, oxygen, Nightingales, vaccine research, vaccine storage, vaccine drive...)
Would be good to be able to have a degree of confidence in where to stop and to put behind us a few bits of that inventory, as otherwise we look to be in a great position to prolong all of it.

@Ormally

"How much health care does this use?" Do you mean with or without 'masks and distancing and bollocks?' Where is a good point from which to start the count up (seasonal behaviour of waves, hours, ££, beds, oxygen, Nightingales, vaccine research, vaccine storage, vaccine drive...) Would be good to be able to have a degree of confidence in where to stop and to put behind us a few bits of that inventory, as otherwise we look to be in a great position to prolong all of it.

I more meant how much capacity does long Covid use. I know I’m being blunt but let’s face it NHS has resourcing decisions every day, no reason we can’t discuss it.

Being ill at home doesn’t put as much strain on the system.

On that blunt note we have a fair few things that put enormous strain on NHS which I’d love to be addressed - another thorny issue.

Then there’s private which people might turn to more or semi private models (Aus for example for those who can)

@Sirzy

And if we pick a number of acceptable deaths we also need to remember that for every death their their will numerous people left with serious complications or with long covid.

It really isn’t as simple as dead or alive when it comes to covid

Absolutely but the line of thought is that if we can reduce fatalities then levels of serious illness/infection in the population will also reduce due to the same factors. For instance one of the dangers of an overwhelmed health system is that people who would have otherwise survived won’t because there aren’t the physical resources available to treat them. If we can maintain a level we can cope with (and I agree health services will likely have to expand) then every case can achieve the best possible outcome because there is provision available.

This is an issue with levels, at the moment we’re tackling the most immediate problems and I agree that there will still be a long road ahead for many still living with the consequences.

Covid deaths may replace some flu deaths, but it's unavoidable that lithe expectancy will be slightly reduced if we want to return fully to normal. I think that's a reasonable goal, but even the young among us will be old eventually and will be losing grandparents then parents earlier by that decision, so we don't want the reduction in life expectancy to be too great. Given that cases are still circulating that implies actions are needed before restrictions can end:

1. Every adult and vulnerable teenager needs to be offered and those wanting it be given two vaccines,
2. Hospitals need to be set up to manage covid, flu and antivirus isolation areas with the extra capacity needed before winter,
3. Health services need to be set up with extra diagnostic equipment and staff to manage the increase of needs from long covid; scans and treatment for clots / heart disease / etc, test and treatment for diabetes / kidney dysfunction / etc, occupational therapy for fatigue etc.
4. Children need vaccine options for the future.

@musicalfrog I too have spent the time since the first lockdown trying to understand. I believe that this will be a very interesting time for historians to look back on, and that history will decide that much of our response was dangerous and misguided.

www.cdc.gov/flu/symptoms/flu-vs-covid19.htm

I agree health services will likely have to expand
I second that☝️
however this runs directly counter to the government's long-term goal for our health service:
we need a proper health service that can wrap it's arms around every citizen
they want a health service which functions for the benefit of wealthy corporations, they were trying to achieve this by the back door while we were distracted with our normal lives but now we are all looking at what they're doing 👀👀👀👀👀👀👀👀👀👀👀

Not sure about your first point there sash I've never heard that. I certainly wasn't immune when I caught it a few years ago and had two weeks off work.

It depends on the strain of flu, there is some interesting research around the flu that is circulating in your first 2 years of life.

There are 4 types of flu, A, B, C and D some humans can get, some animals can get particularly type A which is bird flu. The vaccine is normally to 2 type A and 2 type B strains.

There are multiple sub strains which is where the H and N come in.

You were not immune to the particular flu you had, but you may be immune to a different strain.

www.ecdc.europa.eu/en/seasonal-influenza/prevention-and-control/vaccines/immunity

There have been some informative replies here but I hate the sarcastic and dismissive ones. If you don’t think the question was genuine then just move on.

I thought it was clear that the OP wasn’t saying flu and covid were the same condition and were identical but more about the effect on the population if they have similar death rate etc currently due to vaccine.

I think it’s also useless to post links from before there were vaccines as obviously the current low death rate due to vaccine etc is what prompted the question.

godmum56
"acceptable deaths per day" which dystopian TV show have I wandered into here?
Marshabradyo
"Not TV bit Chris Whitty talks about this."
Delatron
"Well exactly. Scientists talk about acceptable levels of deaths. Not on hysterical Mumsnet though. It’s dystopian to mention that.
There will always be deaths from Covid. Every year.'

here is what Chris Witty said talking about precautions in the future. Nothing about an acceptable number of deaths
"Chief medical officer says Government and society will have to decide how many deaths they would 'tolerate' each winter."

More like the government will attempt to gaslight us into accepting whatever level of death best fits into to their crony-ist ideology🙄

Covid is much much more infectious. As well as all the other sense talked on this thread. Oh, and if too many people are ill at once your Amazon delivery won't arrive. And nor will your water, food, internet, electricity etc etc.

The sillybitch types with the same understanding of science as Paltrow (I e. None) should be embarrassed at their stupidity and ignorance, not proud.

"I thought it was clear that the OP wasn’t saying flu and covid were the same condition and were identical but more about the effect on the population if they have similar death rate etc currently due to vaccine."

In the effect on the population, it's about more than deaths.
Infection rates and contagion rates of the 2 diseases = completely different, and uncharted. Sheer numbers alone are no joke.

Background immunity in population to seasonal flus, compared to immunity to novel coronavirus that is 2 years old and mutates and develops in a very different way to flu) = much more developed for flu.

Effect on body and organs = again pretty different with emergence of long covid. The longer covid spread gets the upper hand (deaths not relevant here), the more long covid cases.

Interventions that can be said to cure or turn a corner in a case? There are currently some for flu. The CPAP mask has proved to be something that helps for severe covid but this works only to alleviate a very distressing symptom, nothing actually fighting. RNA vaccines are preventative.

If you put your HCPs through that day after day, week after week, you break them

Thanks for saying that. It isn’t acknowledged enough .

@godmum56

godmum56 "acceptable deaths per day" which dystopian TV show have I wandered into here? Marshabradyo "Not TV bit Chris Whitty talks about this." Delatron "Well exactly. Scientists talk about acceptable levels of deaths. Not on hysterical Mumsnet though. It’s dystopian to mention that. There will always be deaths from Covid. Every year.'

here is what Chris Witty said talking about precautions in the future. Nothing about an acceptable number of deaths
"Chief medical officer says Government and society will have to decide how many deaths they would 'tolerate' each winter."

So it wasn’t the word deaths you were talking about but acceptable v tolerate?

Not that much difference and same concept

Also he uses acceptable here and numbers dying

“Just as we accept that in an average year 7,000 people die of flu, and in a bad flu year, 20,000 people die of flu. We accept that as that is what happens biologically.’

"We now have our most vulnerable population fully vaccinated (as with flu)."

That isn't true. Some in groups 1-9 are still having their 2nd vaccine and then need a few weeks to build up full immunity. I'm in group 6 and am only 2 weeks post 2nd vaccine.

@godmum56

godmum56 "acceptable deaths per day" which dystopian TV show have I wandered into here? Marshabradyo "Not TV bit Chris Whitty talks about this." Delatron "Well exactly. Scientists talk about acceptable levels of deaths. Not on hysterical Mumsnet though. It’s dystopian to mention that. There will always be deaths from Covid. Every year.'

here is what Chris Witty said talking about precautions in the future. Nothing about an acceptable number of deaths
"Chief medical officer says Government and society will have to decide how many deaths they would 'tolerate' each winter."

Please explain the difference between accepting and tolerating additional deaths. Use a thesaurus and dictionary as needed.

@hazelnutcrackers

Less serious for the young. That's one difference. There's certainly nothing that makes it worse than the flu.

Really? Blood clots, stroke, kidney damage, liver damage, pericarditis, postural tachycardia which renders patients wheelchair bound, neuropathy, hearing damage. That's just a few covid complications. Not worse than flu?

@Greentrees2021 except they excluded all babies with existing nut or egg allergies from the trials so the data tells us nothing about how to avoid allergies in this super vulnerable group.

[quote Flyonawalk]@musicalfrog I too have spent the time since the first lockdown trying to understand. I believe that this will be a very interesting time for historians to look back on, and that history will decide that much of our response was dangerous and misguided.[/quote]
I disagree but it will be interesting to see.

What I think what historians will look back on and study is the long term impact of multiple and continual lockdowns.
I don’t think our response will be judged favourably in the future but that’s for many reasons.

It's not like flu, so you can't treat it like flu.

@Delatron

What I think what historians will look back on and study is the long term impact of multiple and continual lockdowns. I don’t think our response will be judged favourably in the future but that’s for many reasons.

Good for thought.

I think a lot of focus will be on the strategies used (mostly favourable) and the psychology behind delays/public opinion (I would sway towards unfavourable if pushed). I think no matter where your opinion lies this has undoubtly revealed a very ugly side to our society.

I’m presuming some people would disagree, but when there’s no common, physical, enemy it’s apparent we are very quick to fill the void and turn on each other.