To think the Gov’t are ‘letting it rip’

[Tillsforthrills]

The rules that double jabbed household members of a positive case don’t need to isolate when more and more people are being reinfected even with boosters.

The rule that children don’t need to SI if their parents have it: spreading to teachers, early years workers and their families as well as their peers.

If they truly wanted to halt the spread, they would not have those ridiculous rules.

I thought we left phrases like 'let it rip' in 2020.

@Tabbacus. Agreed, although it describes what’s happening quite succinctly.

I dont think they are, but I think it's impossible to balance the risk to health of people against the risk to the health of the economy successfully. Another lockdown would massively damage the UK's financial.health.

No - they're trying to make sure we still have some kind of functioning economy.

We need an economy sadly

'Let it rip' sounds so 'scaremongery' so it needs to stop being used. So done with lockdown lovers. You sound like you want schools closed and everyone locked in their homes again.

The adults you mention that our apparently germ ridden kids are infecting should be vaccinated. If they aren't through choice (obviously excluding those who can't be vaccinated before anyone gets funny) then more fool them.

My family have had our vaccinations, including my 13 year old who is being booked in for her booster when I can. I'm not making any more sacrifices.

Even better… teachers in Scotland have been told they can ‘volunteer’ to NOT self isolate, even if you’re supposed to, to prevent staffing issues…
I shit you not.

There is no halting the spread of this. It’s not under our control. We can only slow it (and ability to do that is debatable). There is no stopping it, it’s just not an option. The sooner people accept that, the better.

The implications for most people of the disruption that would be caused by so many healthy (ie non covid positive) people being out of action for 10 days is much worse than the impact of covid on them.

Sorry my question wasn’t about the economy - although in a way it answers my question.

The Gov’t know by the time a household member or child incubates and tests positive, they’ll have infected a lot of people already.

It seems that the economy is being put first, so why can’t they just say that and stop pretending they’re trying to halt the spread.

@Unanananana

Massive assumption by you there. I don’t want a lockdown. I want sensible rules around SI. Please try to stay balanced.

@Lucifersleeps
That’s what I mean and clearly teachers and Early years workers are being thrown under the bus as usual.

We have (so far) 2 positive cases in the household.

We are all isolating including my two children. One is positive, the other is negative. Technically, the negative child can go back to school, but we decided as a family to start their Christmas holidays early.

We know there is COVID in the household. So why would I send anyone out to infect anyone?

I’m not sure that’s the explicit intention although it is (one pejorative way of describing) the effect - this is part way to “learning to live with it”. If we had the same SI rules as last year, we would have the same issues again with staffing, supply chain breakdowns, closures of businesses/services/schools even more than we are currently facing just with staff isolating due to their own symptoms.

There is no easy answer; lockdowns don’t stop infections, they just postpone them, elongate the pandemic so health services can cope (better) with the level of need at any one time.

The government have been clever here knowing the havoc that will be caused by letting it spread freely with no SI rules and letting people have parties, attend events.

Lockdown by stealth so that they don’t have to help any businesses or industries financially.

That’s what it’s really about.

It’s not putting the economy first, it’s putting society first. Unless you think it would be ok for public transport systems to collapse due to lack of staffing (because they’re all isolating at home even though they don’t have covid) meaning hospital workers can’t get to work. Or power supplies. Or delivery networks. Or utilities. Or people’s wages getting paid. Or people’s ability to get money from the bank. Or their bins to be emptied, their streets to be cleaned, their dead to be buried.

It’s not March 2020. The harm/benefit judgements have changed and isolating causes more harms.

If you want stricter SI measures the other huge problem will be delivery of essential services

It already will be, but worse than that

Yabu. We already had a lockdown as long as we could possibly have one for, we still have covid around. The government don’t have the power to completely stop the spread no matter what they do. We are human and we will always get viruses. They are trying to keep the country functioning. Healthy people should not be stuck in isolation.

teachers in Scotland have been told they can ‘volunteer’ to NOT self isolate, even if you’re supposed to, to prevent staffing issues…

What really?! I haven’t seen this.

What exactly do you want? Every other person self isolating with a mild flu like symptoms. Are this hysterical about everything in life?

www.tes.com/magazine/news/general/teachers-scotland-can-volunteer-not-self-isolate

I'm honestly not sure how much more I can take. I lost my mum last year, to the day having not been with her because she was in a care home. Then had covid for Christmas. A year later, double vaxxed I'm doing lft tests every day because people at work are testing positive.

My DD is exhausted, she's doing A levels and I cannot bear the thought of her trying to self teach this like she did her GCSE’s.

I can't do this anymore

I think it might be a lose lose situation.

As if it spreads as fast as they say then all of the above "workers can’t get to work. Or power supplies. Or delivery networks. Or utilities. Or people’s wages getting paid. Or people’s ability to get money from the bank. Or their bins to be emptied, their streets to be cleaned, their dead to be buried." Is going to be the case due to workers off with covid. Chris witty has alluded to as much - particularly the effect on health care with so many ill at once.

Just carrying on is going to affect us all, even if covid won't affevt us badly, the effects of so many ill at once is going to be huge. The bideo of the WHO Uk envoy makes that clearer even than Chris Witty. It really will be an interedting next few weeks. I cannonly hope it "lets rip" fast and then is over maybe?!

@RobinPenguins

It’s not putting the economy first, it’s putting society first. Unless you think it would be ok for public transport systems to collapse due to lack of staffing (because they’re all isolating at home even though they don’t have covid) meaning hospital workers can’t get to work. Or power supplies. Or delivery networks. Or utilities. Or people’s wages getting paid. Or people’s ability to get money from the bank. Or their bins to be emptied, their streets to be cleaned, their dead to be buried.

It’s not March 2020. The harm/benefit judgements have changed and isolating causes more harms.

Out of interest how are all those things you've mentioned going to function if they are all off with covid at the same time?

I think they tried to open the taps a bit in the warmer months to let it spread a bit so we weren't all infected at the same time in winter. However it hasn't worked due to omicron.

@sst1234. Hardly hysterical to think it’s a good idea for members of a household of positive cases to SI.

Same old ‘scaremongering, hysterical’ boring responses for a sensible question adults should be able to consider calmly. If you don’t agree that’s fine.