No new measures in England before New Year

[Jourdain11]

Has just been announced by the Health Secretary and reported across BBC etc.

@rrhuth

Not really with the data re waning waning makes delay more useful, not less.

Treatment in hospitals is going to be very stretched through January.

Not if it hits more people with lower protection due to this

You have to see them New Year’s Day what’s happened in the months running up to Christmas

many had to work Christmas Day because leave is cancelled and will have to work New Year’s Day again because leave is cancelled and working more shifts than they should be

It’s one day (Christmas I get and it’s passed but NY now too )

We are so stretched (more so that at anytime in regards to staging) services are not coping (in London) that is not just hospitals

What about the overwhelmed community nursing services, mh services, the emergency services, the hostels, the charities that help those that are living on the streets

@MarshaBradyo I disagree but again, CBA to argue!

Goodo

Even if we don’t have more people needing hospital treatment as we did Pre Covid (which will absolutely not be the case) ICU is always stretched at this time of year

And that is one areas of healthcare … it impacts every public service

Becuase now we have with the added issue of so many staff off it simply can’t cope

But that’s fine it’s better to appease to public who have Covid fatigue and want to pretend life can be back to Pre Covid

But that’s fine it’s better to appease to public who have Covid fatigue and want to pretend life can be back to Pre Covid

Someone got out of the wrong side of bed today!

I’m certainly very tired

That does not impact my opinion

@OhWhyNot

You have to see them New Year’s Day what’s happened in the months running up to Christmas

many had to work Christmas Day because leave is cancelled and will have to work New Year’s Day again because leave is cancelled and working more shifts than they should be

It’s one day (Christmas I get and it’s passed but NY now too )

We are so stretched (more so that at anytime in regards to staging) services are not coping (in London) that is not just hospitals

What about the overwhelmed community nursing services, mh services, the emergency services, the hostels, the charities that help those that are living on the streets

Was that to me? If it was, of course I've seen them in the months before Christmas. What do you think I do, ignore them 364 days a year? They are elderly, I have very little family left so why wouldn't I want to spend Christmas and/or New Year with them?

If the rest of your post is aimed at me I have no idea what you want me to say. Me seeing family at New Year really is going to make no difference one way or another.

@cantkeepawayforever

I don't agree. What you are saying is that e.g. Australia will eventually have the same death toll as us, which is clearly untrue. By keeping cases so low for so long, they have missed a whole load of the pandemic while the rest of us worked out treatments and vaccines and mitigations.

Even in a much smaller way, thinking of my particular elderly relatives - if they catch Omicron in 2 weeks time, their local hospital will have no capacity. They will receive worse treatment at all points from ambulance to ICU, and are much more likely to die.

In 20 weeks time a) they may not catch it, because they will be able to meet others outside, b) their local hospital will have capacity, c) if numbers are spread out, there will be more doctors and nurses working, d) the variants may have mutated further to be even more mild, and treatment will have moved on further.

I'd absolutely take them catching it in May not January, thanks.

Yes if we spread it out they will get in ICU this time and might survive. Go forward 12 months the next variant is around that has escaped the tweaked vaccine + immunity they aren't going to survive another ICU stay so they pass away anyway. Yet the lockdown that saved them 12 months ago cost our kids billions of pounds. The cycle will continue for many years unless we chase zero COVID.

The first lockdown saved lives but we were too slow rolling our jabs (vaccine trial started in April once it was proven safe (48hours) we should have vaccinated the CEV and elderly not waited for more data), we ended shielding before we knew if they were protected, we didn't shield households only the vulnerable person we also failed to mandate jabs which is impossible now we know how mild omicron is. We could have flattened the curve for the NHS in a month if we made shielding a legal requirement.

Now we have vaccine that reduces symptoms to the point it's a go to bed disease for the majority of the population yet we are still restricting ourselves to save those even science can't save.

I would argue that those who face vaccine failure for severe disease are going to die of this regardless of what we do other than zero COVID. I am not game for zero COVID I would rather risk my vulnerable relatives (and my own life if necessary) than my son pay that bill.

I am not a soft person obsessed with living to 90 I'm a realist who looking at all the data including the bill thinks restrictions need to end the cost of saving the lives we can save is too great for our kids to pay. Call me cold, call me selfish I don't mind, I think anyone wanting more restrictions at huge economic cost to save arguably very few lives is selfish towards our kids paying the bill. It isn't a bottomless pit that can be used to save everyone it needs to be cost effective even if that isn't fair (god even my 8 year old knows not to twist life isn't fair)!

Very serious concern given the 10 week waning protection issue.

10 weeks is when the booster starts to measurably wane, not when protection disappears. They would still be well protected against severe disease regardless.

My point is softer measures are only ever designed to flatten the curve not change the area under it (I.e. the number infected). If you are calling for a lockdown or mitigation sufficient to prevent the cases ever occurring the your calling for a zero COVID strategy. This is what a zero COVID strategy looks like. It's not masks, it's not testing, it's not social distancing. It hard lockdown until your cases reach zero, then mitigation repeat every time you get a break through infection.

This is an excellent point that many who advocate for more restrictions just don't get for some reason. If you want to stop Covid, you need Chinese style severity... and even then, with Omicron, that probably won't be sustainable.

Those who are anti lockdown are not having to work extra hours/days/having their holiday cancelled to help look after others/keep others safe

Many are they work in food production power, electricity ect.

Or is NHS only thing that matters.

I am not calling for a zero Covd strategy.

I am saying that approaches that spread an unsustainable peak of cases are entirely worthwhile, because they spread the load on services, on the employers who employ the people who are cases, and on the NHS.

Spreading the load reduces the number of deaths for a given number of cases, as well as reducing deaths from other causes, because it allows more treatment to take place - both for Covid and for other things.

It may also postpone some cases altogether, because if a meeting that would cause infection takes place in January, that is most likely to be inside. The same contact outside in June won't cause infection, because it can be outside, so some chains of infection will simply stop.

It also allows boosters, treatment development, and new vaccine tweaks.

@treeflowercat

Very serious concern given the 10 week waning protection issue.

10 weeks is when the booster starts to measurably wane, not when protection disappears. They would still be well protected against severe disease regardless.

These variations matter at population level with the most at risk already 8-10 weeks past their boosters.

I guess a decision on a fourth jab will come soon.

@cantkeepawayforever

I am not calling for a zero Covd strategy.

I am saying that approaches that spread an unsustainable peak of cases are entirely worthwhile, because they spread the load on services, on the employers who employ the people who are cases, and on the NHS.

Spreading the load reduces the number of deaths for a given number of cases, as well as reducing deaths from other causes, because it allows more treatment to take place - both for Covid and for other things.

It may also postpone some cases altogether, because if a meeting that would cause infection takes place in January, that is most likely to be inside. The same contact outside in June won't cause infection, because it can be outside, so some chains of infection will simply stop.

Right so say you have 3x case which will result in 3k deaths with mitigations. You get 1k deaths in this peak, 1k in august and 1k in December. The same 3x cases without mitigation will result in 3.3k deaths I am saying I don't think the cost of restrictions are low enough to save those 300 people vs getting this over and done with. Because in my opinion those deaths are likely to happen in the next 5 years regardless because of the age distribution of the deaths, the availability of vaccines (if your unvaccinated and die I don't think you should be counted in the stats at all) means those deaths are due to vaccine failure which seems to only be occurring in those already elderly or seriously unwell.

What you need to look at is excess mortality in this wave it is largely hovering around 10% above averages for this time of year not bad considering we are meant to be in a global pandemic. If you look at excess deaths it's around 1250 excess deaths per week so around 65k per year if cases remained this high all year (unlikely) not too dissimilar to a flu epidemic. I would punt that if you made shielding and vaccination mandatory you could shave a good chunk off this.

If we cut isolation to 5 days or not at all we could cut the other areas of disruption such as schools, power etc to a minimum.

I guess a decision on a fourth jab will come soon.

Hooray.

@cantkeepawayforever

It also allows boosters, treatment development, and new vaccine tweaks.

We won’t delay for this

@cantkeepawayforever

I think my issue is that many that call
for more restrictions never seem to be satisfied, and I expect never, ever will be... For instance, back in summer 2020, we had fewer than 1,000 cases per day, and few deaths, yet people were still saying 'eat out to help out' was a bad idea because it may have contributed to some case rises, with no regard for the leisure industry - Covid trumped anything and everything.

vs getting this over and done with

This is the fallacy - that by 'getting lots of deaths done now' we will somehow be finished.

That was what gave us this autumn's high constant case and death count, that never came down...and then had omicron added on top.

'Living with it' means just that - keeping a level of mitigation going. Not pretending it doesn't exist and that those who die now are a worthwhile sacrifice because somehow we will all then reach the sunny uplands of 'after Covid' on the back of their deaths and illness and long-term disability.

treeflowercat

I think there is a difference between lifting some restrictions on critical services such as education and dentistry, watching the results carefully, releasing some restrictions, repeat (so e.g. opening close contact services such as hairdressing, opening gyms and swimming pools, allowing children's activities to restart etc) vs actively spending money on something that artificially boosts demand for a higher-risk activity (which is what eat out to help out did).

I also think it is easy to overlook how desensitised we have become to cases and deaths.

Back in the summer of 2020, 1000 cases and associated deaths were still seen as shocking - and without vaccines yet being available, a rapid surge in cases would lead to a predictable, high number of hospitalisations and deaths.

It's very easy to look back now and say 'pah, 1000 was nothing, we have 100,000 now and over 150 deaths per day, we don't care', but that wasn't the value system in place at that time.

@cantkeepawayforever

vs getting this over and done with

This is the fallacy - that by 'getting lots of deaths done now' we will somehow be finished.

That was what gave us this autumn's high constant case and death count, that never came down...and then had omicron added on top.

'Living with it' means just that - keeping a level of mitigation going. Not pretending it doesn't exist and that those who die now are a worthwhile sacrifice because somehow we will all then reach the sunny uplands of 'after Covid' on the back of their deaths and illness and long-term disability.

So how long do you want these mitigations to keep going on for?

treeflowercat

I think my issue is that many that call for more restrictions never seem to be satisfied, and I expect never, ever will be...

Its not about wanting restrictions, its about having mitigations in plae that work.

My dentist has restrictions in place. hand sanitiser, all masked up, full clean down of surgery (15 minutes) before the next appointment, It works very well and runs a lot smoother than it did before.

In schools the government could have put in ventilation, something that has been proven to reduce infection.
But here is the thing better ventilation in schools would not only make it more likely that schools would stay open but would be of benefit for reducing other viral infections throughout the year.
A good investment if you actually care about education.

So how long do you want these mitigations to keep going on for?

That's a bit like asking 'how long do you want there to be speed limits', isn't it?

If you think about it like a variable speed limit motorway, I would say very much like that. Available to be turned on and off (in sections) at all times, and closely adjusted to the condition of the road ahead. Much of the time, national speed limit applies. Occasionally, a lane is closed if there is an accident up ahead. Sometimes, the whole road is slowed down to make the road safer for everyone while keeping things moving.