Get rid of all restrictions

[AnEpisodeOfEastenders]

I think it's time for all restrictions to be removed. There has been plenty of time for people to be vaccinated / boosted that want to, those that can't or don't should take their own precautions.

If we test positive then we shouldn't need to isolate, shouldn't need to declare it and should just treat it as a normal cough / cold / illness. If you feel up to going to work, out to the pub, seeing friends or family then do so. Everyone I know who have had it say they feel fine.

Life has been disrupted for far too long, the costs associated are astronomical and will be a crippling debt for generations to come.

Media reporting today that 40% of covid cases in hospital in England are incidental i.e. they were admitted for another reason. This is much higher than earlier in the pandemic. We would expect to see some rise in covid hospitalisations as covid cases rise regardless of whether covid is actually what is causing people to be admitted, because more of the population in general are infected. Clearly that doesn't account for all of the increase but it's part of it. Hospitals do seem to be in a terrible state but relatively speaking there are not actually that many patients in hospital due to covid.

I think it's time for air filters to be installed in every classroom. Please sign the petition here
petition.parliament.uk/petitions/595205

[quote whittingtonmum]I think it's time for air filters to be installed in every classroom. Please sign the petition here
petition.parliament.uk/petitions/595205[/quote]
What about the fact that cutting respiratory infections in kids has been linked to acute leukaemia.

Can you pop up a link @vickyc90

It's not something I've heard of, or could find in a quick Google.

@PrincessNutNuts

Can you pop up a link *@vickyc90*

It's not something I've heard of, or could find in a quick Google.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4206105/

It's the delayed infection hypothesis so if you cut infections in school age kids you will stop them passing it on to younger siblings etc hence why kids should get disease.

www.icr.ac.uk/news-archive/leading-uk-scientist-reveals-likely-cause-of-childhood-leukaemia

www.nature.com/articles/s41568-018-0015-6

@vickyc90 and if they dont have younger siblings?
Or if they are vunerable in others ways?

Is it still better for them to get an illness?

I just clicked and skimmed on one @vickyc90 thank you,

But it seemed to be saying that it's childhood respiratory infections that one particular scientist thinks leads to childhood leukaemia.

And that it's the first year that it's a mistake to be "too clean".

I'll read on tomorrow to see where schools fit in

Thank you for the links.

It's not just respiratory infections - its exposure to all sorts of pathogens.

And it's only in DC who are predisposed (possibly from uterine environment)

So the message is about not being overly sterile - which is somewhat broader than pandemic control measure. If DC are out and about, playing outdoors, maybe interacting with animal, their immune systems will be getting the right sorts of challenge.

Was just saying the same OP... I’m done.... there’s no cure, it’s a virus, just like there’s no cure for the common cold... yes I’m aware the cold doesn’t kill people, however...how long must we go on with restrictions, how long must people’s lives get disrupted... flu was a killer, still is actually.. We’ve not worn masks for flu... it’s been most 2 years and 3 variants later, the last of which is a lot milder. It’s time to crack on..

@Rupertgrintismyguiltypleasure

Was just saying the same OP... I’m done.... there’s no cure, it’s a virus, just like there’s no cure for the common cold... yes I’m aware the cold doesn’t kill people, however...how long must we go on with restrictions, how long must people’s lives get disrupted... flu was a killer, still is actually.. We’ve not worn masks for flu... it’s been most 2 years and 3 variants later, the last of which is a lot milder. It’s time to crack on..

Completely agree. I am a teacher and the kids are supposed to wear masks in class! I do not police it.

@nether

It's not just respiratory infections - its exposure to all sorts of pathogens.

And it's only in DC who are predisposed (possibly from uterine environment)

So the message is about not being overly sterile - which is somewhat broader than pandemic control measure. If DC are out and about, playing outdoors, maybe interacting with animal, their immune systems will be getting the right sorts of challenge.

Yes it's all pathogens but if you start with air purification and pathogen control for a pandemic (masks, lockdowns etc) you also reduce exposure to all pathogens. What about the young babies living in flats who haven't been exposed as they didn't leave home for months by which time it was summer. The Californian study clearly found a link between spring and summer babies having higher incidence of ALL, we have just transferred multiple winter born kids into this risk category.

We know solid organ recipients and HIV patients are at a higher risk of malignancy due to immunosuppression. Even stress (lack of social contact, home schooling etc) has been shown to cause immunosuppression, asking teenagers to wear masks when they don't want to, or keeping windows open so they are cold and unhappy could contribute to this.

@Covidworries how we as a society manage the CEV and their risks is a difficult question as I would argue protecting them has the potential to have massive social, health and economic impacts for the healthy.

What about the young babies living in flats who haven't been exposed as they didn't leave home for months by which time it was summer

Well the only people who were advised against daily outdoor exercise were the CEV, do if they really were staying in then it was because only caregiver was at exceptional risk.

Shielding which excluded daily exercise was only the first 8 weeks or so, and that's not a long enough gap to make any difference. Because once outdoors, there are lots of non-airborne pathogens to encounter and that will do the job just fine.

But yes, parents in those circumstances have to weigh up which is what is worse for their family - potential increased risk of cancer v increased risk of severe disease/death to themselves or one of their other children.

how we as a society manage the CEV and their risks is a difficult question as I would argue protecting them has the potential to have massive social, health and economic impacts for the healthy

And other ways of providing sufficient protection that really don't.

It's not a binary choice on this, and there is no reason to shut away millions of people.

@nether

What about the young babies living in flats who haven't been exposed as they didn't leave home for months by which time it was summer

Well the only people who were advised against daily outdoor exercise were the CEV, do if they really were staying in then it was because only caregiver was at exceptional risk.

Shielding which excluded daily exercise was only the first 8 weeks or so, and that's not a long enough gap to make any difference. Because once outdoors, there are lots of non-airborne pathogens to encounter and that will do the job just fine.

But yes, parents in those circumstances have to weigh up which is what is worse for their family - potential increased risk of cancer v increased risk of severe disease/death to themselves or one of their other children.

It wasn't that they were forced to stay in the house more everything was closed, shopping was a nightmare, play groups closed, soft play closed, couldn't meet up with big groups of other mams, everyone scared of a cold etc they weren't exposed which was actually reflected in the drop in kids admitted with RSV etc. It's no miracle we had very little flu last year.

I would shield the vulnerable until we can tweek the vaccine and look at giving them the new one that doesn't target the spike protein but a conserved unit (Washington University). For those who fail to mount a vaccine response then yes "locking them away" as you put it is the only option. What I wouldn't do is put in interventions such as masks, social distancing etc that have even a tiny increased risk of our kids getting cancer or mental health issues. I would much rather gamble with losing my vulnerable Nana!

@Rupertgrintismyguiltypleasure

Was just saying the same OP... I’m done.... there’s no cure, it’s a virus, just like there’s no cure for the common cold... yes I’m aware the cold doesn’t kill people, however...how long must we go on with restrictions, how long must people’s lives get disrupted... flu was a killer, still is actually.. We’ve not worn masks for flu... it’s been most 2 years and 3 variants later, the last of which is a lot milder. It’s time to crack on..

Although I agree with most of what you're saying, just need to point out that colds most definitely do kill people.

I would much rather gamble with losing my vulnerable Nana!

It's easy to make other people's lives dispensable.

What if it was your child who had a cancer that they would otherwise be expected to survive? Happy that hospitals might be too unsafe to treat them? Or that you would be also 'shut away' if that DC was of an age to still need a caregiver?

Or might you think masks in hospitals and on public transport were a good thing during times of hugherbtransmission, so that hospitals were as safe and as accessible as possible for all patients?

Do not BTW make the mistake of thinking the most vulnerable are synonymous with the elderly.

Or that anyone should be easily written off.

You do not need to get RSV to have enough exposure to pathogens to be at risk in the ways Prof Greaves describes.

I agree OP. The timing is right for restrictions to ease.

We don't want to wait for this wave to "peak" first?

@PrincessNutNuts

We don't want to wait for this wave to "peak" first?

Looking at numbers it's possible that it peaked at the start of the week. Of course we won't know for sure whether the numbers will start going up again with schools back (not all schools are back btw, my eldest doesn't go back till monday).

Not in London, not a million miles away, in fact about as far away as you can get while still being in Essex numbers here also peaked at the start of the week. We were over 2000/100000 start of week, now down below 1600.

Since measures apply nationally, rather than just in London, should we wait for the peak to pass pretty much everywhere, and for us to be sure that returns to school and university don’t re-fuel it, before we remove them?

@cantkeepawayforever

Since measures apply nationally, rather than just in London, should we wait for the peak to pass pretty much everywhere, and for us to be sure that returns to school and university don’t re-fuel it, before we remove them?

We all know that London is the only important part of the country. If for example Bolton or Leicester have high numbers of cases then they have to be in lockdown for months. If London does then any restrictions apply to the whole country.

Especially since the Government website only shows hospitalisation up to 3rd January, so there are several days (corresponding to days of rapid growth in cases) not yet shown in theses figures.

Locally, cases still rising rapidly and last 7 days reported (not last 7 days) hospitalisation up over 60%. If you are saying ‘the peak has passed’, we’re not seeing that here….

@BambinaJAS mentioned a few weeks ago that she wanted to resurrect the thread in coming weeks to show us what idiots we were and how intelligent and insightful she was

Interestingly, it turned out that her intellectually superior predictions were rather wide of the mark shall we say. The only part that is accurate is the very sad non-covid illness impacts (and those have been apparent since 2020). Too many people have missed diagnosis and treatment because the health service has become so focused on the pandemic. That is the real tragedy.

So I’m here to remind you that - despite what Bambina told you about having an inferior or irrelevant opinion because you’re not an expert like her: you are not an automatic idiot and it is ok - in fact encouraged - to have diversity of thought.

Also - thank Christ my company employs better actuaries than Bambina or we might not have underwritten anything all this time 😂

As a reminder as to Bambina’s predictions - here you go: 😂

@bambinaJAS:

“Here is my view based on a variety of factors:

1. Pandemic fatigue and poor messaging from the Govt have caused a material increase in multi-household interactions over the last few weeks.

1. When combined with the increased transmissability of Omicron, this is materially increasing the number of infections.

1. Booster shots (while helpful) were started too late, and while the NHS is doing better than predicted in delivering them, they are only going to have a small impact on the coming weeks as they are at about 50% (at 90% they would have had a moderate impact which is why it was so important to have started them earlier).

1. Total (reported cases) will peak on/before mid January 2022. I see about 250,000 to 300,000 reported per day based on current projections.

Hospitalisations will start rising slowly this week, and ramp up beginning of Jan 2022, which is when they will start increasing more.

Late Jan/early Feb 2022 we will likely see 2,000 to 3,000 hospitalisations per day.

This will be a sharp spike of 2-3 weeks.

The big ? Is whether the NHS can cope with 50,000 hospitalisations in 3-4 weeks given an estimated average hospitalisation time of 5 days (vs 10 for Delta).

Of course, this is completely geographically dependent. If you are not near a healthcare facility and you get seriously ill from Omicron, you are bang out of luck. Same issue with non-covid care like cancer treatments and other in patient care. This will not be a good time for you as it will be very likely your treatment will be delayed or cancelled outright.

School wise?

They will likely open up in person early Jan 2022, but as infections surge, they are likely to transition to virtual at end Jan/early Feb (likely due to staff absences due to infections) so I would prepare for this if I had a child in school.”

Testing is completely saturated and England does not count reinfections.

A reinfection is somebody who tested positive for Delta, and then got Omicron. In England, these people are still not counted. They are only counted starting Jan 31st.

Additionally, the positivity rate is over 20% for England. Highest ever recorded.

www.gov.uk/government/news/positivity-rates-highest-ever-recorded-in-react-1-study-but-prevalence-plateauing

The only scenario were I overshot (so far) was the link between infections and hospitalisations. The vaccines/boosters + restrictions (Plan B) had a larger effect than predicted. This is fine by me, as this is what you want (under-shooting is the real risk).

Interesting how you conveniently forgot to mention my prediction about schools further down, which is coming out as predicted.