If you've never said "Covid iS jUsT ThE FLu," but do think "Covid is becoming more flu-like, and therefore it's reasonable to gradually treat it more and more like flu" you might be a Covid centrist.

[greenteafiend]

I've heard the phrase "Covid centrist" being tried out for size quite a bit on Twitter and think that we could do with mainstreaming the term a bit more.

The great majority of people I know, including myself, have always understood that Covid has represented a significant threat to the world, have (mostly) stuck to the various rules and restrictions, albeit with some grumbling, and have happily had our vaccines and encouraged our friends and families to do the same.

We do not, however, wish to engage in a pointless "ever-war" against Covid, and believe that as the threat from the virus diminishes and tails off into the endemic phase, that the way we handle and treat Covid should respond in the same manner and that we should gradually start moving towards treating it more and more like seasonal flu.

It's therefore extra frustrating when the people in the public sphere speaking out the risks or harms of allowing restrictions to drag on for years on end tend to be the Laurence Foxes and Toby Youngs of this would, who have a lot of really unpleasant politics in general and who seem to have a lot of really stupid and unscientific beliefs about the virus itself, including being openly or covertly anti-vaccine. Whenever I've tried to point out the risks of being to quick to do things that damage children's education, for example, I feel like I'm being lumped in with those people. And I'm not one of them!

Pro-vaccine, pro-most-restrictions-while-getting-the-jabs rolled out, but anti-living-with-endless-restrictions-that-drag-on-forever people... are you there? Do you feel the same way? I feel like we need a label for ourselves if we want to make traction!

There are lot of people for whom the "The virus is not going away" penny has not dropped yet.

These are the deniers. The original 'its only the flu' brigade, who when the truth finally dawned on them, grasped the 'its not going away' banner but then twisted it into 'well we might as well just let it happen with no restrictions then'.

They want a lot of restrictions to carry on until the virus basically vanishes, like the original SARS did, but Covid 19 seems to be a very different kind of beast.

People, rightly, at times of high transmission want restrictions because they want to protect health sevices and keep them open. Its as simple as that.

I think people are more sensible than we give them credit for and will act accordingly

I think longer term Sweden will have got it right by getting the balance right between restrictions/closures and keeping vital services and the economy open

They also treated their citizens with trust and outlined risks

Whereas we are all exhausted by it now and i don’t think any would comply with a new lockdown. There is fury in Scotland at cancelling the football crowds for example

I don't like the label but the sentiment reflects where I am at now

I am an NHS Dr and I have seen the sharp end of this and have complied with all vaccines, lockdowns, PPE and LFTs twice a week forever. Increasingly now though I am seeing the very serious non Covid harms to peoples mental and their physical health, not to mention the harm to peoples livelihoods, childrens education and things that just make life better sport, the arts, travel.

Last Christmas I was incredibly sad about lockdown and school closures but I thought it was necessary and supported it. This Christmas we are in a different place post vaccine rollout and with Omicron being a milder variant and these measures are not needed.

In particular I am sick of the LFTs and picking up asymptomatic cases and I find it hard to see why isolation and all these extra measures are now needed for an illness that is very mild for the vast majority of people. The NHS is not going to be overwhelmed now any more than it usually is in winter. What is disabling it currently is actually the anti Covid measure not Covid itself. All the extra precautions etc are slowing us down and reducing bed numbers and worst of all staff having to isolate is reducing the workforce to critical levels. Somehow we need to back off all this stuff and go back to not caring about asymptomatic or mild illness.

I feel like I've been "centrist" the whole way through. It feels like, on this board, people are either shouting "we need to get on with our lives" (meaning I don't care if you die, I want to live mine free of inconvenience) and people shouting "we need to stop the spread, what aren't people getting?" (who don't seem to get that people are losing their jobs, minds and education in greater numbers than people are losing their lives, and will have real and long-term consequences on people's lives). I don't disagree with either viewpoint and I don't know what the answer is.

This is perhaps less Covid centrist than Covid 🤯

Useful to get views from the field, @CovoidOfAllHumanity.

So do you think that staff could be released back into the active workforce if they didn't have to isolate? Could they work in a care setting?

Or are you perhaps thinking mostly of administrative roles?

Personally, I've thought it reasonable that they could (in both cases). But I'm not a practitioner.

I've always been there.

@breadwidow

This is def my stance on covid. I think it's also far more common than the OP suggests - in fact may even be the dominant position. Most people I know are of this view, this includes those who work in the NHS (earlier this evening I picked up my daughter from a play date at a friend's house - both friends parents are both doctors and seen a lot of the grim side of it and they were reflecting views exactly like those the OP has outlined). I do have a few slightly cautious friends, interestingly none of whom work in healthcare. Small sample of course, but interesting.

I agree with what the OP is says on around finding that views critical of lockdown means you get lumped in with the mad covid deniers. However, I think there is a bit of a shift. Some of the (more cautious) scientists are talking about the cost of some of the restrictions (see [[https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/dec/24/omicron-britain-schools-remain-open-children-covid?CMP=Share]]iOSAppp_Other but o advise looking at the comments - the covid doomsayers are out in force, or at least they were yesterday)

Oh there's definitely a shift. There's more understanding of and willingness to articulate the fact that restrictions cause harm too and that harm is disproportionately felt by those who were already disadvantaged. And we're seeing the Overton window in politics move too.

The best evidence of this is the way some of the leading Labour politicians in England (Wales and Scotland are different) are much more cautious about calling for restrictions. Andy Burnham started it the other week. Wes Streeting made a statement yesterday acknowledging that many people will be relieved that there are no new restrictions for NYE. Obviously one can agree or disagree with their stances, and this isn't a pro or anti Labour point, rather it's about the significance of them taking these positions.

@Aimeehedge

Ok so let’s say Covid is like the flu… and just became a very transmissible flu with the omicron variant.

That means we need to go with the flu pandemic plan for a super transmissible flu right?

Not do nothing.

But the flu pandemic plans were always about managing it until you could roll out vaccinations. Not keep all those measures in place forever after vaccines and once it’s become endemic. Which is the OP’s point, no?

The best evidence of this is the way some of the leading Labour politicians in England (Wales and Scotland are different) are much more cautious about calling for restrictions.

Yes I’d noticed that, and also reflected in left-leaning media like the Guardian and New Statesman. It does feel like quite a shift away from the “Tories not locking down enough” approach.

Not sure re label but fine if people want to use it

But yes pro vaccination and changing view on restrictions as the situation changes

But the flu pandemic plans were always about managing it until you could roll out vaccinations. Not keep all those measures in place forever after vaccines and once it’s become endemic. Which is the OP’s point, no?

Correct, but only up to a point.

Flu does not cause anything like the number of excess deaths, and there are a number of good and affordable retrovirals which further bears down on the severity.

We also have a population in which the most likely strains have been vaccinated against in enough of the population to seriously dinisinisg transmission. It is quite rare for a flu strain to develop off-season, though it did in 2009 with swine flu. It takes a minimum of 3 months to develop a jab against the new strain. If that flu had caused anything like the excess deaths of covid, then we wouid have been in restrictions then.

So yes, it's the aim, but if people think that means no restrictions when there are huge cases of a new variant (and in the early weeks no-one will know how far it evades previous vaccine or which age groups will be hit with what severity disease).

Learning to live with covid does not mean 'ignore it and crack on'. It means finding the best ways to contain rapidly, effectively and with minimum disruption

I kind of know what you mean OP. I'm pro vaccine (work in the life science/pharma industry) but anti restrictions and think the notion of controlling a virus by changing human behaviour was/is ridiculous.

So I see these anti lockdown marches being labelled as anti vaxxers etc and I just wonder how many people are pro vax but anti lockdown.

I agree with pp I don’t think shutting down parts of society is a good response now

I did think differently although changed views especially wrt children quite quickly

Having such fast vaccine development is incredible though, and I’m all for using that

@GoldenOmber

The best evidence of this is the way some of the leading Labour politicians in England (Wales and Scotland are different) are much more cautious about calling for restrictions.

Yes I’d noticed that, and also reflected in left-leaning media like the Guardian and New Statesman. It does feel like quite a shift away from the “Tories not locking down enough” approach.

I think the lockdown impact assessments the government was forced by the ICO to publish earlier this month made a difference too. Also Starmer getting monstered even by the pro lockdown left for willingly supporting further restrictions without demanding more financial support as the price of cooperation.

I might have said it was like flu in the early days but I also acknowledge that flu is a serious illness that keeps you in bed for a few days. I always laugh when the Strictly contestants say things like they missed a couple of days training because they had "flu". No, you had a cold.

Flu kills lots of people too. And leads to cancelled operations if there is no space for patients after their operations.

Hopefully covid will become milder than flu, a lot milder.

I think a shift will come over next few weeks/months where it becomes more acceptable to not follow testing, isolation guidelines etc to the letter.

I know a few people who are not currently testing for every symptom, sticking strictly to isolating etc, and I strongly suspect there’s loads more out there doing the same. But it feels as though it’s not quite socially acceptable to admit this (yet). Especially when we still have some people arguing for more restrictions, constant testing etc.

But I suspect the guidelines will soon be treated like eg the guideline to drive less than 70mph (ie the rule is there but you won’t get ostracised by society if you drive at 75mph). Whereas previously not sticking to the covid guidelines was seen by some people as akin to drunk driving.

The CDC switch to 5 days isolation if no symptoms feels like a shift too

@Pumperthepumper

I think the trouble lies in the idea that there are people who want the restrictions to go on forever, and I don’t think that’s true. People just want to feel safe, that’s it.

But what is the end game? None of us will ever be completely safe from this virus, because it’s here to stay. We need to have a reasonable discussion about where to draw the line- that’s the point.

The “left” has definitely shifted. They’ve realised they’re going to be on the polls very soon if they don’t. Some still haven’t got the memo of course (Keir included) but he’ll pivot 180 soon.
I occasionally look at the tweets of a very left week corbynista and the other day he was tweeting about the guardian using cases per million to give the (false) impression that europe/U.K. is worse affected than say Africa and he pointed out an excess deaths chart basically says the opposite. This guy was “worse in the world” “ plague island” “ Boris is committing eugenics!” a few months ago
So if even he has changed his position then it’s over for further restrictions now imo.
The left should always have been anti lockdown, that they were more pro than anyone else is a failure of traditional labour politics imo.

It’s completely unsustainable for society to act at the rate of the most cautious voices.

In my mind the first lockdown in 2020 was justified as the nhs needed time and space to reorient to deal with a new virus, researchers needed time to study it etc. The lockdown in early 2021 was justified as the numbers in hospitals was high, and also as there was an endgame - get those most vulnerable vaccinated by springtime.

Now - none of these justifications exist. Everyone who wants to be vaccinated (and boosted!) is. I would much rather see the money that would need to be used for any future furlough scheme to instead be used on generally making the NHS more robust and able to deal with potential future threats.

@Pumperthepumper

I think the trouble lies in the idea that there are people who want the restrictions to go on forever, and I don’t think that’s true. People just want to feel safe, that’s it.

I agree.

I've never met one or encountered one online.

I've seen anyone who suggests perhaps saying "fuck this I'm not complying" is not a great idea and is ok being cautious a bit longer accused of wanting it to go on forever.

I don't have a"cushy job" where i am WFH by the way, because that's also what they're accused of...

I've seen loads of people who want to pretend nothing is happening at all, and loads who are happy to get on with some minor restrictions to reduce the spread of infection. Plus conspiracy theorists who think it's all to control our lives and there are microchips in the vaccines etc etc.

Literally no one i can think of who wants to continue restricting their normal movements, wearing masks and being fucking tired of it all forever. Nope. :(

I don't think it's about feeling safe for me either. Not my personal safety, so much as reducing the overall risk as much as possible for more vulnerable people and reducing the load on the NHS so all the normal stuff doesn't end up being postponed to make room.

I'm sure the policies in place in hospitals and various other services aren't perfect, but I can understand why there's an aim to balance "normal" workload and capacity Vs covid created problems. :(

Flu does not cause anything like the number of excess deaths, and there are a number of good and affordable retrovirals which further bears down on the severity.

The latest figures for omicron suggest IFRs that are already similar to seasonal influenza. And good drug treatments are being mainstreamed now.

I'm not saying we are actually at the "it's now about the same as flu" stage. But I do think we might be getting into that stage by the time this winter is over.

I think the mistake is conceptualising dealing with Covid as a war.