To be horrified at kids being 'labelled' like this ?

[espressotogo]

DD senior school age goes back tomorrow - no exemptions and she will be masked up as requested despite my absolute disgust at the policy. The school has asserted that children with exemptions will need to provide proof and will be made to wear a badge or lanyard to show their exemption on school property and transport.
AIBU to be horrified that children will be 'badged' like this - surely not wearing the mask is sufficient to show their exemption for a policy that is advisory and with zero proof of efficacy ?

Completely agree with you. Unnecessary, given the mildness of Covid in the majority of people, not least the children. Most of the population are vaccinated, including the most vulnerable. The hospital rates are lower than expected and deaths are also low so I'm not sure why this is such an issue still.

The disruption to every day life and schooling is because of mandatory isolation which is stopping people attending work, not people being too sick to work.

I religiously followed all the rules ( and still do even if don't agree) from the very start when it was clear the risk to some people was unimaginable. We all made sacrifices to protect the vulnerable. But our children made the biggest sacrifice, both educationally and socially.

I have not been in an office for almost 2 years and that is having a significant impact on my mental health and social skills.

Countless businesses have suffered, Cancer treatments delayed, routine screening set back, the cost that we will all have to pay back at some point. This is going to have a knock on effect for years.

Most of the population are vaccinated

Except for children.

'We all made sacrifices to protect the vulnerable.'

Incorrect.

@SoupDragon secondary children are approved for vaccines

But again, children have never been the vulnerable group so they don't really need a vaccine anyway, do they?

The vaccine doesn't stop transmission

@MilesJuppIsMyBitch

Ok, maybe you didn't but I certainly did and most people have had an adjustment made to their life they didn't want

No. You made sacrifices to protect the NHS.

If lots of vulnerable had got very sick, they'd have taken up lots of hospital beds, meaning that hospitals would be potentially unable to treat everyone who needed it.

So if you'd broken your leg, or had a heart attack, you may well have been stuffed.

Making out that you have made sacrifices for the vulnerable is an incorrect and harmful narrative, and is contributing to the slightly psycho backlash the the sick and disabled have been on the receiving end of ever since.

Cancer treatments delayed, routine screening set back, the cost that we will all have to pay back at some point. This is going to have a knock on effect for years.

Lockdown hasn't caused a delay in cancer treatments. Covid itself has done that as evidenced by the fact that things are even worse for people with cancer now that COVID rates are high and hospital capacity is even more limited. It's also a bit of a joke that you think not protecting the vulnerable will help people with cancer. Who do you think the "vulnerable" are??

[quote cabsavpls]@SoupDragon secondary children are approved for vaccines

But again, children have never been the vulnerable group so they don't really need a vaccine anyway, do they?

The vaccine doesn't stop transmission [/quote]
Yes, I know. I have a secondary aged child. She is not fully vaccinated yet and I bet this is the case for the majority.

The vaccine being approved doesn't equate to being vaccinated.

The vaccine doesn't stop transmission

I was under the impression that is does make you less likely to transmit it (whether through a lower level of infectiousness or shorter time of being infectious I have no idea.)

@SoupDragon you’re right - the vaccine does have a huge effect on the transmission rates.

@cabsavpls think that depends on which data you’re looking at - I’ve seen figures much higher than that.

Cancer treatments delayed, routine screening set back, the cost that we will all have to pay back at some point. This is going to have a knock on effect for years.

We know 7 friends & family members who have been hit with cancer in the last 2 years covid aside it's been a shite few years. Not a single one of them has had treatment delayed in anyway & have been more than happy with the care they've received, especially considering covid. 1 uncle sadly died as his was a late diagnosis, which was nothing to do with covid & too late to treat it successfully, though they tried anyway in the hope it would extend, if it couldn't save his life. All the others are thankfully doing well & the prognosis is good. The pandemic has not affected the quality of care any of them received, but of course has made some aspects more difficult for them due to quarantine etc, as it has for us all.

I'm sure if we searched hard enough we can all find some confirmation bias.

It's been widely reported the delays in some treatments for serious illness. I personally have been ok, but I know of a family friend who died as a direct result of being delayed a face to face appointment. But your scenario and mine are circumstantial and we may never know the real impact.

What I do know is that we did what was needed to do to protect the vulnerable, or the NHS as you say. But really, it's the vulnerable who are more likely to end up in hospital so whichever way you look at it it's the same thing in the end.

I guess I'm trying to understand why these measures are still in place. I fully supported and understood the need when it started but I'm losing confidence now

I'm not sure why wearing a lanyard would be upsetting. Surely that is better than being continuenly told by staff to put a mask on or to explain why the are exempt. Many adults who are exempt do this and it avoids bus drivers shop assistants etc from asking them to put a mask on. Surely thats better for the exempt person and for the person in authority who has to police it.

There are measures in place because we need to manage infections in the bit of the pandemic where we have the highest number of cases so far.

There is an awful lot written about why this is a good idea, if people don't understand it.

[quote BeMoreGoldfish]@cabsavpls think that depends on which data you’re looking at - I’ve seen figures much higher than that.[/quote]
www.newscientist.com/article/2294250-how-much-less-likely-are-you-to-spread-covid-19-if-youre-vaccinated/

Around (but this is thought to be a conservative estimate) 63% less likely to transmit, and of course, much less likely to have caught it to transmit it in the first place. These figures are from ongoing research studies on Alpha and Delta but similar ones are happening with Omicron.

www.bbc.com/news/health-59696499

Here's a layman's guide to vaccine v Omicron from a couple of weeks ago.

Maybe pp with much lower figures could link to her data source?

@PAFMO

amp.theguardian.com/world/2021/oct/28/covid-vaccinated-likely-unjabbed-infect-cohabiters-study-suggests

[quote cabsavpls]@PAFMO

amp.theguardian.com/world/2021/oct/28/covid-vaccinated-likely-unjabbed-infect-cohabiters-study-suggests[/quote]
Yes, that's the transmission within the same household data that's often used to support spurious claims that the vaccine doesn't prevent transmission in the general public. Many threads on household transmission data.
Perhaps you erroneously omitted that your low figures were only for household transmission?

I think there's a 25% chance of catching it if you're vaccinated and in contact with an infected person, versus 38% chance for the unvaccinated

Even if those numbers are correct, that’s more than a 50% increase if unvaccinated, so hardly negligible.

What I do know is that we did what was needed to do to protect the vulnerable, or the NHS as you say. But really, it's the vulnerable who are more likely to end up in hospital so whichever way you look at it it's the same thing in the end.

It's not the same thing. Not everyone who needs the NHS is vulnerable to COVID. For example, your child probably isn't vulnerable to COVID but that doesn't mean there is no chance they will ever need hospital treatment. If hospitals were already full and if capacity was reduced anyway because half the staff were sick with COVID then they may not get that treatment.

Thank you @PAFMO that was the data I’d readz

[quote cabsavpls]@BeMoreGoldfish

It only reduces it slightly

I think there's a 25% chance of catching it if you're vaccinated and in contact with an infected person, versus 38% chance for the unvaccinated [/quote]
The study that states this looked at prolonged exposure in households -- not the same as community transmission in the slightest and certainly not the same as coming in contact with someone you don't live with.

The paper itself acknowledges the major limitations of the research using only symptomatic cases in a small sample size, the fact that other household members may have already had or contracted covid from an outside source in the community and not at home, the age of the unvaccinated participants, and they did not include viral culture with the PCR but people have really latched onto the figures to drive the "Vaccines Don't Work!!!!!" narrative even though the context doesn't really support it.

@gwenneh

I didn't say the vaccines don't work because I do believe they work for lowering severe illness, which is good! And it's how we have protected everyone. Yay to the vaccine!

I am triple jabbed and will continue to take whatever vaccine comes next, so please don't misunderstand my stance ( deliberately or otherwise)

We are a highly vaccinated country, but recently had the highest number of Covid cases ( per day) to date. It's as transmissible as ever, despite the jabs.

But the admissions and deaths are lower, I'm pro vaccine purely for this fact.

There will come a point when we stop masks, mandatory tests, PCRs, vaccine passports, isolation etc

When though?

@PAFMO

No, I did not erroneously omit anything, I didn't consider household vs population research. I just happened to read that article and then someone asked me to post a link.

I'm the general public, I'm not medically trained or scientifically qualified to predict all the many testing scenarios that could take place, with a multitude of variables

We can all find supporting arguments if we interpret the data hard enough. Is the nature of statistical studies.