What would happen if everyone stopped testing?

[duckme]

Just that really.
I fully understood the need for constant testing at the beginning of the pandemic. But I wonder, now that the vaccine rollout is thoroughly underway, what would happen if everyone just stopped testing.
So people who had the classic symptoms no longer tested, people no longer took lateral flow tests on a regular basis, close contacts of confirmed cases weren't encouraged to get tested, that sort of thing. People would only be tested if they were unwell enough to need medical attention.

Obviously the number of confirmed cases would drop, but since a lot of the restrictions are being eased from next week anyway, what difference will the testing make, other than to give an idea of the number of people with coronavirus at any given moment (whether they're actually unwell or not)?

@covi

I would love people to stop testing so that cases numbers would drop and there would be no more panic or fear. This way this country wouldn't be on the red list for so many other countries. The other benefit would be going back to normal life. But there are people out there like the scientists/ people on full pay working from home who otherwise would have to return to offices/ gps that really do not want practice and want to control their work flow without the pressure of seeing patients... the list can continue. Unfortunately these people are keeping us in lockdown/ partial lockdown. I have an example in my family of people not wanting to go back to normal as they would have to return to the office. So I blame them for the situation we are still in!

What? Cases would drop if we didn't test? Is your name Trump?

@duffeldaisy

"You really wonder how people think we coped all the other years before asymptomatic testing and genomic sequencing."

What, like in the times of Spanish Flu, when 50 million people worldwide died and a quarter of the UK population were affected?
We didn't. Or not very well.
I'd imagine the people affected back then would have desperately wanted the chance to test, to be vaccinated, to keep track of what was going on.

Well, no. We had the swine flu pandemic in 2009 and we’ve had plenty of bad flu seasons between 2018 and now.

@loulouljh

The whole saga will go away!

I agree with you OP, all the time mass testing is in place, the lockdown will continue.

1918* not 2018 clearly

When you say most people have been vaccinated, you are forgetting that under-18s need to be included properly in the vaccination programme.
Only then will the UK approach herd immunity.

Mass testing of an unvaccinated section of the population (LFTs in school children) is driving the rise in cases, which is confusing given that most children won't get seriously ill (although do risk long Covid) but suffer pretty draconian consequences of this low-risk positive test result (sit at home for 10 days).
Government has two sensible options: if they continue to refuse to vaccinate children (over 12s who have an approved vaccine) then they also need to stop this mass testing of this group.

Or just get on like other comparable countries and vaccinate over 12s.

That would be more ethical and logical (obviously it would not be compulsory so if you don't want to vaccinate your own DC you don't have to).

Jenny Harries has said that this is one of the things they are looking at. They are looking at the stats now to see if there really is a clinical benefit to asking everyone to do two LFT tests a week, and if there isn't then the free tests for everyone program will be discontinued but not before the end of August. The plan is to continue testing in schools though. This link is kind of misleading. The gov.t is NOT going to start charging for LFT tests but if people want them they will be for sale from private companies. www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9769509/Lateral-flow-Covid-tests-free-end-August-health-boss-reveals.html

Sorry, this is simply insane - and the people wanting no testing are either trolls or seriously not thinking this through.

Are you aware what other countries are currently thinking of our lifting of restrictions? We would be absolutely cut off, pitied, and unable to travel or trade if we start allowing the kind of complications to occur that would come with no testing. The current plans are pretty much democide, and it would be hundreds of times worse. The state of the economy, the NHS, everything would be in tatters and there would be no-one coming to help because they don't want to risk unregulated, untested strains, and it would go on for years.

You want to get back to normality? Then we need far, far tighter restrictions, a lockdown to get cases right down, we need to complete the vaccination plan. We do not want this running wild, or it'll get past the vaccines and then we will have huge amounts of deaths again.
It's so obvious that I really can't believe anyone is even seriously suggesting it.

@chaosrabbitland @bumbleymummy
exactly!
The vaccine doesn't mean that you can't get Covid. It just reduces transmissibility and the risk of severe infection.
I got Covid twice (first time asymptomatic, picked up just because family member asked me to get a PCR before visiting. Second time symptoms after a single jab).
I also know several people who have tested positive after having been double jabbed.
No vaccine is 100% effective.

We will never be able to eradicate Covid just as how we will never be able to eradicate the flu.
Therefore there is no chance of ever returning to normal if case numbers are anything to go by.
As long as hospitalisations rates are the same or less than the normal flu I'd consider it under control.

@duffeldaisy

"Sorry but I’m over protecting the elderly - they are vaccinated, it is what it is now."

How about protecting those who are clinically extremely vulnerable, or undergoing chemotherapy, or pregnant, or not born yet, or have some reason they can't have the vaccine or make enough antibodies? Or is it just what it is now for all of them too?

Probably pretty much it is.

To be blunt, the difference between covid being “quite” prevalent (as was earlier in May/June) and very prevalent (as will soon be) is probably moot for that group.

The good news is that the vaccine is very effective for most of them. And we are better at treating and managing symptoms now than before.

But should the vulnerable take responsibility for themselves? I don’t think there’s anyone that would argue it’s anything but a good idea.

Is it unfair? (Maybe.) But it’s irresponsible to suggest otherwise.

@duffeldaisy

Sorry, this is simply insane - and the people wanting no testing are either trolls or seriously not thinking this through.

Are you aware what other countries are currently thinking of our lifting of restrictions? We would be absolutely cut off, pitied, and unable to travel or trade if we start allowing the kind of complications to occur that would come with no testing. The current plans are pretty much democide, and it would be hundreds of times worse. The state of the economy, the NHS, everything would be in tatters and there would be no-one coming to help because they don't want to risk unregulated, untested strains, and it would go on for years.

You want to get back to normality? Then we need far, far tighter restrictions, a lockdown to get cases right down, we need to complete the vaccination plan. We do not want this running wild, or it'll get past the vaccines and then we will have huge amounts of deaths again.
It's so obvious that I really can't believe anyone is even seriously suggesting it.

There is no scenario, 120% vaccinated which results in a low level of infection. Vaccines reduce transmissibility and risk of severe infection. All over Europe cases are increasing, The ONLY way to reduce transmission completely is to have lockdown forever . I don;t want that

@examina

Or just get on like other comparable countries and vaccinate over 12s.

That would be more ethical and logical (obviously it would not be compulsory so if you don't want to vaccinate your own DC you don't have to).

I don’t think it’s ethical at all to vaccinate such a low risk group when there are so many high risk people that can’t get vaccines in other countries.

Herd immunity might not be possible anyway.

www.wired.co.uk/article/covid-19-herd-immunity

@puppeteer The vulnerable in fact could also die from the normal flu.. nobody's suggesting we lock down to protect them do we..?

also to add i agree with you!

I would love people to stop testing so that cases numbers would drop and there would be no more panic or fear.

😂😂 please tell me you are joking.

"But should the vulnerable take responsibility for themselves? I don’t think there’s anyone that would argue it’s anything but a good idea."

I'd argue. And I think a lot of others would too.
It's simply not possible to do this on an individual level. There needs to be testing to protect everyone vulnerable. And yes, it might be a minority of people, but a minority of a population as big as ours is still a huge number.

Sorry, but we're going about this in the wrong way and I am truly sickened that this euthanasia-happy attitude is becoming normalised.
It's not good enough. We can demand more from our society and our government.

@duffeldaisy

Sorry, this is simply insane - and the people wanting no testing are either trolls or seriously not thinking this through.

Are you aware what other countries are currently thinking of our lifting of restrictions? We would be absolutely cut off, pitied, and unable to travel or trade if we start allowing the kind of complications to occur that would come with no testing. The current plans are pretty much democide, and it would be hundreds of times worse. The state of the economy, the NHS, everything would be in tatters and there would be no-one coming to help because they don't want to risk unregulated, untested strains, and it would go on for years.

You want to get back to normality? Then we need far, far tighter restrictions, a lockdown to get cases right down, we need to complete the vaccination plan. We do not want this running wild, or it'll get past the vaccines and then we will have huge amounts of deaths again.
It's so obvious that I really can't believe anyone is even seriously suggesting it.

jesus christ , if we had you in charge we would never ever get back to normal would we ? . i cant believe what your seriously suggesting , the general public myself included have had enough of restrictions and bloody lockdowns , and the economy is already in a state /tatters .because of restrictions /lockdowns but you would have more of it , beggars belief , some people just never ever want this to end for living in fear . i dont want to live in fear thank you , theres more to life than worrying about dying of covid , especially now we do have a vaccine programme that is going well , but yet for some people even thats not enough

Well, no, because I would have taken the approach that Jacinda Adern took from the beginning, and NZ is doing pretty well and hasn't been through this hell. And then there'd hopefully be a large majority of the 128,000 people still alive, and over a million without long covid symptoms.

i think we need to be looking at death rates and hospitaliations ,rather than how many test positive

The numbers of hospitalisations and deaths don't help much if you don't know how many cases there are. If a community has 100 deaths out of 150 cases, that's very different from 100 deaths from 100,000 cases. This information is worth knowing. You wouldn't know how dangerous a particular strain is, how transmissible it is, how the vaccines are holding up, all important information if we want to get out of this.

Imo, the real problem is that western cultures lack societal responsibility as a concept.
It's always about "me", the individual.
It's not. If we want to function on a society level, all of us have to take responsibility and do what we can.
You know, the old argument: seat belts, speed limits, baby seat,.... etc.

As a vulnerable person I do feel as if I -and my family- has been thrown under the bus, because I know for a fact that I cannot count on simple decency and common sense from others, thus putting us at more risk than needed.

Also re:vacc. As long as it is not a choice to get one, but more like some weird form a privilege*, it is not good enough. When we can go and get it as we do with the flu jab, then it will be a bit better. Atm I had to take my teen son to a EU country to get vaccinated. And it makes me lucky that I have an EU citizenship and can do it. But how protected will he be in Sept going back to school with no mitigation measures and only him being vaccinated?

I had to wait for months to get the proper vacc (Pf.) for my condition and it was by sheer luck that I got it. Otherwise I'd be still unvaccinated. And I have no idea how effective the vacc was in my case, but will find out in a few weeks. A lot of vulnerable ppl don't react to vaccines too well and/or don't develop proper immunity.

[quote CastawayQueen]@puppeteer The vulnerable in fact could also die from the normal flu.. nobody's suggesting we lock down to protect them do we..?[/quote]
Certainly hope not!

Although i think it’s fair to say covid will have opened some people’s eyes as to the risk of transmitting infection to vulnerable groups.

I think that’s generally a good thing to be aware of, and arguably one of the better consequences of all of this.

@crocidura I don't really see how cases add any real data tbh as cases don't mean illness or hospitalisations or deaths. It just seems to drive the MSM hysteria. This was all supposedly about the NHS being overwhelmed, well that narrative has changed and given the amount of football drunks/fighting etc on Sunday no one gave two hoots then about the implications on a stressed NHS

Given what's been exposed on the poor testing accuracy again I don't see why we are still testing for everything. Other than some mate of Bojo needed a big contract and payout.

It could still be tested for in hospitals, just like they do for things like MRSA. At the point of A&E it should really be assumed patients are contagious when they walk in off the street if we really wanted to protect the vulnerable. Same with emergency services.

It's true, we need to take a common sense approach. Common sense tells my mates if they have a cold they stay the fuck away from me. It also tells them the same if they have a dicky stomach, their children have things like impetigo etc.

I detest CEV as it gives this daft idea to people that we are only extremely vulnerable to this. Anyone who in in close contact with me follows the nhs guidelines for infections. Over the years people have found out the hard way when they have turned up with a cold, I have no fucks to give how long you have travelled, you aren't coming in.

www.nhs.uk/common-health-questions/infections/how-long-is-someone-infectious-after-a-viral-infection/

As vaccine uptake increases, testing will decrease as there's also a daft assumption that once your vaccinated that's it, you won't get it nor will you pass it on. Some people really cannot understand that they still can catch/pass it.

You only have to look at the easing of restrictions that testing is being slowly phased out.

We're removing restrictions on 19th, and the government's own scientists are expecting Covid-19 hospital admissions in England to rise to between 1,000 and 2,000 a day — and deaths to 100 to 200 a day.

That's not hysteria. That's easy-to-predict figures, based on all the data that we've been collecting by measuring infection levels in the community. But apparently that's all okay and we can just happily carry on anyway.