Work sending messages pleading for help

[whenwillthemadnessend]

My work has sent out an email this morning pleading for help today. I expect it will be
Like this for a few weeks now.

It's not an essential service likely but if my Work is doing it how are the essential services going to cope

This is why I think we will
End up with some restrictions soon.

@flowerycurtain

Where in the world is common sense.

I'm on day 8 of isolation and I've been absolutely fine, just picked up on an LfD before seeing a vulnerable relative over Xmas. . I work either in an office by myself. There is no rhyme or reason why I shouldn't work. I have staff that work in huge sheds or open fields. Again, if they feel ok why shouldn't they work.

Nurse ion a cancer ward? Fair do's have it off. Back office physio who can delay patients and catch up on paperwork. Crack on.

We are losing the ability to think for ourselves and with nuance.

I take it maths is not your strong point and therefore you just don't understand:

A) exponential growth with an R number of between 3 and 5. That's you going to work infecting another 3 to 5 people who each infect 3 to 5 more.

B) that given above exponential growth even a very low rate of hospitalisations is still a very big number.

Repeat - It is not a cold.

There are 0 clinically extremely vulnerable DC in the UK, so there is no benefit whatsoever to health outcomes for any DC whatsoever

It's shocking that posters resort to referring to something which must obviously be untrue to bolster a spurious argument .

Do the staff never associate together ? Nowhere they can have a hot drink together ,put their coats on ,go to the loo ?

Could you work from home ?

The point of lockdown was never to prevent people getting covid but to stop everyone getting it at once. The exit allows the next phase of people to get infected when there is space to accommodate them in hospital.

Wrong. The actual point of lockdown was supposed to be to slow the rate of infection, to test, trace and isolate those who had it and to ultimately stop the spread. Unfortunately that middle bit fucked up right from the start because they hadn’t resourced it properly and we lost that opportunity so lockdowns then became about protecting the NHS.

Wuhan properly locked down and tested the entire city. Their lockdown lasted around 3 months and they went back to normal. The cornerstone of their lockdown was testing 11 million people.

@BoredZelda

The point of lockdown was never to prevent people getting covid but to stop everyone getting it at once. The exit allows the next phase of people to get infected when there is space to accommodate them in hospital.

Wrong. The actual point of lockdown was supposed to be to slow the rate of infection, to test, trace and isolate those who had it and to ultimately stop the spread. Unfortunately that middle bit fucked up right from the start because they hadn’t resourced it properly and we lost that opportunity so lockdowns then became about protecting the NHS.

Wuhan properly locked down and tested the entire city. Their lockdown lasted around 3 months and they went back to normal. The cornerstone of their lockdown was testing 11 million people.

Where did you get this idea?

No one thought stopping the spread was a very likely possibility even in the beginning, and it quickly became apparent that it was not. The most hopeful possibility is that it might turn out to be a bit of a dud like the original SARS.

Covid doesn't have any of the characteristics that lend themselves to eradication as a goal.

Wuhan is not a good example. For one thing we don't really know how accurate their information is with regard to cases. Secondly it is not likely true that they have been living normally, we know from reports from Hong Kong that reports of normalcy are inaccurate. Thirdly the kind of lockdown that can be done in an authoritarian state like China is not something that anyone really wants to emulate. And fourthly, there is no reason to think places like Wuhan won't have more covid, especially since we know it can be passed by many kinds of animal hosts. In fact this makes the story that there haven't been cases since the initial lockdown seem even more unlikely to be true.

You do realise that it’s the RCPCH, not me personally saying that there are no CEV children?

I suggest you take it up with them, the most eminent paediatricians in the country if you somehow think they have got it wrong.

Nice try Sheikh ,but the RCPCH didn't say there were zero CEV children in England and Wales but that the CMOs had decided that they will no longer be seen as CEV for the purposes of shielding .
The RCPCH is the is a professional body for paediatricians ,they were updating their profession on a decision made by the government's CMOs .

They didn't make the decision ,they were passing information on .

The RCPCH say that there are a very small number of children and young people with severely compromised immune systems who are more vulnerable than the rest of the population to being very unwell from all infections, including SARS-CoV-2. They report that rather than shielding ,the CMOs were asking paediatricians to provide advice on a case by case basis to those children.

To be clear they don't say there are no CEV children in England and Wales -you chose to say that and to base your argument on that belief .

Ok, so let’s say we fit air filtration systems in all classrooms.

There are 0 clinically extremely vulnerable DC in the UK, so there is no benefit whatsoever to health outcomes for any DC whatsoever.

No one in their right mind would believe that there were no CEV children in the UK ,it says a lot to me about how you formulate your arguments that you should choose to believe this without thinking about the distinction between their removal from a shielding list and their existence .

No one in their right mind would believe that there were no CEV children in the UK ,it says a lot to me about how you formulate your arguments that you should choose to believe this without thinking about the distinction between their removal from a shielding list and their existence

This.

@Blubells

Maybe the 7 day isolation rule should be scrapped for those who feel well enough to work?

Ooh - like the chicken pox parties as of old 🤭. I guess that’s one way of building up herd immunity

Lots of workers taking advantage of isolation rules especially those that get full sick pay!

I've said it before and I will say it again, people need to starting taking responsibility for their own health. That means if a vulnerable person is worried they will catch covid, they make a decision on how to manage that risk, whether that be getting on with life as normal, or never leaving the house again - that is up to them. Expecting the whole country to sit indoors indefinitely so very few individuals are protected until most likely as soon as restrictions ease again is not a logical way to run a nation

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: if the vulnerable become infected and flood tbe hosoitals, it’s the ‘I’m healthy / not old / no pre existing medical conditions’ tbat will suffer when they / their family can’t get treated for a broken leg, appendicitis, accidental burns
It’s really not rocket science

@toomuchlaundry

If I was ill in hospital I’m not sure I would want someone knowingly positive with COVID looking after me

Same here. Especially as I have cev people at home.

I think the definition of mild doesn’t mean well enough to work .
I know 2 healthy double jabbed adults who have had what they describe as mild covid , they were in bed for 5 days and it was 14 before they were able to return to work . Both rarely take time off sick both had omnicrom confirmed .

The trouble with covid is how easily it is transferred and how difficult it is to predict who is going to be hit badly by it . Also the severity of the disease does not relate to the likelyhood of long covid . I know of 3 previously fit and healthy people who got covid who are still struggling 2 yrs on myself included .

While I understand eventually we will live with it I don’t think we are there yet

My friend 's mil went into hospital for surgery, caught covid in hospital and died.

I will hold my hands up and confess to feeling completely confused by the whole shebang
I get that the Omicron variant is highly transmissible. I get the risks of transmission especially to the more vulnerable who may not get it mildly and therefore the need to isolate, with the inevitable impact on staffing numbers and the ability of businesses to fully operate.
Where I get confused is when it comes to the ongoing impact. If you have a load of staff off isolating having tested positive, the majority (except those whose symptoms are more severe and those who might be swinging the lead) should surely be back in a week. Okay, others may then be off but you have to reach a point in the not too distant future where most are at work because either they haven't caught it or they did but isolation is now over and they are well enough to go back. Or maybe I am among the ranks who just don't get it; certainly the more I think about it the more I end up tying myself in knots......

The vunerable should shield, and the rest carry on as normal

what - all SEVEN MILLION of them?!!!

😂😂😂

Or do you mean ‘merely’the 2.2 million who are clinically extremely vulnerable?

You crack me up with your breathtaking naïveté

[quote WonderfulYou]@SheikhMaraca where did you get the number 14 from?[/quote]
Think it may be here

assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1042543/20211220_OS_Daily_Omicron_Overview.pdf

(albeit now out of date)

My work is begging people to come in. There's too many calls not enough people to answer them, wait times increasing. People should never be on hold for an ambulance.

People giving up and going to a&e instead putting them under even more pressure.

How do you know which virus you are transmitting if you go into work because you don’t feel ill , someone who has a long term illness may react badly ad risk death. Last week in my area a 40 year old with diabetes died with covid , doesn’t matter which vRient he died !

On the 'there are no CEV children in the UK' - I don't think I am the exception in saying that's odd, because I know one, who has been told (as indicated above, by their paediatrician, on a case by case basis) that they (and their family) must isolate at present because of the state of the pandemic.

I'm completely certain that they are not the only child in the UK to have been told this. Whether they are given the label 'CEV' or not is not the point - they have been told to isolate (home schooling along with siblings, who must also isolate) until further notice from their paediatrician.

@BoredZelda

Yes, you’ve missed this update from RCPCH

Which says CEV categorisation has been removed for children in England and Wales. It has been retained in Scotland. So there are not “0 CEV children in the U.K.” as you stated.

Thank you!

There are no health threats to DC from the virus, this has been quite clearly established. Therefore there’s no need to fit air filtration units

Eh? Even if that were true, it’s not all about the children. Do we really want little petrified dishes of infection and omicron incubators infecting their teachers , families etc?

[quote Autumndays123]@BeLessMe ok then, tell us what is the alternative? Do you really think we just shut down society forever and everyone sits indoors until death? No? Because that is unfortunately the only thing that would maybe protect those who will eventually succumb to covid anyway. No different to the millions of people who die from flu, cancer and other illnesses and deaths each year. We cannot completely destroy society, watch people lose their houses, jobs, mental health, livelihood and continue to not properly educate our children, who by the way were being abused during lockdown at unprecedented levels (along with DV)

Yes, maybe in rainbow land where everything is shiny and happy and money grows on trees shutting down the country indefinitely would work, but in reality you have to be pretty dense to even consider it a viable option.[/quote]
Yep, this.

I don't understand the false dichotomy between 'do absolutely nothing' and 'lock down completely'.

'Mitigate sensibly' seems to be completely forgotten.

So 'no lockdown for New Year's Eve' doesn't mean 'Party with thousands indoors and then go and stay with your most vulnerable relatives'. It would sensibly mean 'Meet up with a few people; wear a mask if travelling with many people in crowded public transport; lft beforehand; ventilate well; don't meet anyone vulnerable afterwards for a few days'. That doesn't reduce the risk to zero, but t does reduce it.

Similarly with schools, we have 'Pretend nothing is happening' vs 'Lock down completely', rather than 'Vaccinate; lft regularly; ventilate well and adapt uniform / heating accordingly; wear masks; separate groups wherever possible indoors; evaluate risk vs benefit for all additional 'nice to have' activities'. No, the latter won't be perfect; yes, many teachers and children will still be ill; no, it probably still won't be a fair playing field for summer exams BUT it is a middle way between the two extremes.

@Siameasy

FGS how do people with this line of thinking get through the day?

This makes no sense - I get through the day absolutely fine. I have no anxiety and am generally pretty content.

How is spreading it to more people going to help with the numbers at work? One person off for 7 days, even if feeling 'ok' or 10 people off after getting it from number 1

Most people forced to isolate are otherwise well enough to work, many are asymptomatic and are only isolating because they picked up a positive by obsessively testing for the bloody thing.

Do you have any stats for that @Siameasy?

"Most people forced to isolate are otherwise well enough to work"

Anecdotally I know of primary school children who were asymptomatic.

I also know of lots of adults who had what would clinically be described as a mild case ie not hospitalised, plus 2 hospitalised. I don't know ANYONE who met the colloquial definition of mild. We all had the technology to do a limited version of our jobs wfh, but were incapable, often for longer than the 10 days isolation. At least 3 have long covid.