Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
yeh it's like anything else, abandoning weekly meetings in favour of fortnightly, changing a daily publication to a weekly, etc. once the change is made it's all too often almost impossible to regain the lost capacity
Living with Covid plan
- Thread starter Badgers
- Start date
yeh it's like anything else, abandoning weekly meetings in favour of fortnightly, changing a daily publication to a weekly, etc. once the change is made it's all too often almost impossible to regain the lost capacity
StoneRoad
heckling from the back!
I'm not changing my mind.
BoJo is a murderous, lying twunt, who only cares about £££ (and his personal £££ at that).
Dropping even the very limited isolation is morally wrong.
Dropping the free testing is equally wrong.
The risks from Covid as it stands are still there, despite vaxx and drug treatments.
Testing is very important to catch infection early enough that the drugs will do their job, especially for the most vulnerablle..
A lack of monitoring is likely to allow more mutations to develop.
BoJo is a murderous, lying twunt, who only cares about £££ (and his personal £££ at that).
Dropping even the very limited isolation is morally wrong.
Dropping the free testing is equally wrong.
The risks from Covid as it stands are still there, despite vaxx and drug treatments.
Testing is very important to catch infection early enough that the drugs will do their job, especially for the most vulnerablle..
A lack of monitoring is likely to allow more mutations to develop.
platinumsage
HaveMyPassword123
It seems the risks of COVID are currently similar to the risk of flu. I don't support mandatory quarantine of infected persons for that risk level. I didn't before the pandemic, and I don't see any reason to change that view.
elbows
Well-Known Member
Mandatory quarantine was indeed never going to last forever, and contradictions are revealed when its still left in place at a time where the authorities dont mind rather high levels of infection continuing to take place.
What I'd still support is the availability of mass testing so that people can make informed decisions, along with a much better system of sick pay and attitudes towards going to work when sick. At a bare minimum some testing system and rules needs to be in place where the workers in question are health or social care workers who deal with people who are still vulnerable, along with quick access to tests and appropriate pharmaceuticals for those who are vulnerable and not brilliantly protected by vaccines.
I also note that even Johnson retains the 'never say never' approach in terms of recognising that circumstances could change, eg that they cannot rule out needing to bring some things back in if a new variant or other factors massively increased the health care burden from covid again at some point in the future.
elbows
Well-Known Member
According to Kuenssberg:
(12:28 entry of BBC live updates page https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-60461378 )
(12:28 entry of BBC live updates page https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-60461378 )
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
I broadly agree with this, although testing is expensive. Some kind of rationing is inevitable and sensible. I would support a rolling back of routine testing while keeping it freely available for certain groups longer-term. Certainly maintaining routine testing in schools makes no sense unless it is part of a broader 'keep covid low' programme, which it isn't any more.
A societal change wrt attitudes towards sick pay, going to work when sick and the blame that should be attached to people for taking time off sick would be a good lesson from this pandemic that we could extend much more broadly than Covid. Sadly I'm not holding my breath on that one.
elbows
Well-Known Member
This area is also linked to the vast amount of bullshit and crap excuses we heard in the early months of the pandemic in regards the thorny subject of asymptomatic cases and transmission. Prior to this pandemic there was plenty of double-think about this subject, and the pandemic exposed and temporarily busted that shit. So it was no surprise that at the start of the pandemic they wanted to pretend it was not a big factor. Later on ministers then had the nerve to claim that only with hindsight could they learn the powerful lessons about asymptomatic transmission, even though there was plenty of existing knowledge about asymptomatic transmission with other diseases such as flu. I was aware of this sort of shit and its motivations and never bought into the bullshit in the first place, and this was one of the areas that therefore allowed me to be ahead of the curve in the early months of the pandemic.
Anyway the removal of mass testing and ideas about going back to all the old ways now has obvious implications in this regard. This shows up most obviously when talking about retaining routine asymptomatic testing for care and health workers, but what about everyone else? Here is an obvious example that stumbles straight into that, from the BBC live updates page 14:42 entry: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-60461378 . In this example they are talking about people still being tested, but the real action on this front comes from a time when such testing doesnt happen, so people dont even know they are going to work when potentially transmitting the virus. And besides the direct costs of the testing programme, I expect this sort of thing is one of the underlying motivations for doing away with testing:
Last edited:
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Once free tests have been scrapped, employees without symptoms won't known they have it anyway, so the problem disappears. If you're not looking for it, you don't find it.
That's extraordinary stupidity on behalf of that boss, though. If you're testing positive, especially with an lft, you're very likely to be infectious. Not everyone who catches it will be asymptomatic and you end up with more people off sick! There ought to be an 'enlightened self-interest' aspect to changing this kind of attitude.
There is one thing I think I am going to change longer-term, behaviour-wise. I have struggled into work - and to other things, social events or hobby events - when feeling like shit many times in the past. I won't be doing that any more. But I'm keenly aware that many people won't have that luxury.
That's extraordinary stupidity on behalf of that boss, though. If you're testing positive, especially with an lft, you're very likely to be infectious. Not everyone who catches it will be asymptomatic and you end up with more people off sick! There ought to be an 'enlightened self-interest' aspect to changing this kind of attitude.
There is one thing I think I am going to change longer-term, behaviour-wise. I have struggled into work - and to other things, social events or hobby events - when feeling like shit many times in the past. I won't be doing that any more. But I'm keenly aware that many people won't have that luxury.
elbows
Well-Known Member
Thats why I was complaining about it and harking back to the bullshit at the start - being aware of asymptomatic transmissions role and trying to curtail it means no business as usual, so acknowledging it was incompatible with the original pandemic 'carry on and gain herd immunity' plan in this country.
The big issue involves both the asymptomatic cases and the 'not going to work with obvious symptoms of illness' stuff you mention. The authorities will only pay lip service to that stuff now, and will seek to go back to the old ways, because actually reducing the amount of transmission of a respiratory disease is considered to be more trouble than its worth. It looks like they will leave some exceptions in place for those who deal most obviously with the vulnerable, but beyond that its back to the old ways of ignoring this stuff and just dealing with the consequences at the sharp, deadly end of the disease picture rather than taking a broader, more enlightened approach. The extent to which there will be conficts and debates about this for years to come is currently unclear to me. A lot of people would like to do the right thing, but wont be able to do it if everything is configured to have them behave in the old ways.
Wilf
Slouching towards Billingham
Feels depressing to be posting on this thread/that we've got this thread/that johnson's fucking shower are taking us down this path. Anyway... I don't want try and set out some counter agenda of what would be the best control measures, that ship has sailed and we're in a channel defined by tory backbenchers and their potential votes of no confidence. Can you fucking imagine public health could be driven by that. But on masks, I'm horrified about what they've come to symbolise. Instead of a measure of our commitment to others, particularly the old and medically vulnerable, media and the dominant politics have made them into a symbol of big state oppression, the new world order and God knows what else. Ditto, the most sensible things in a pandemic - testing and isolation - are being eroded to the point where people are being actively encouraged to work with Covid.
But it's not just the specifics, it's the mood music and the creation of a mindset where doing the socially responsible thing becomes an unlikely choice. I was on a local train yesterday, with constant e-banner instructions to wear face coverings - out of the 20 or so people I saw, only I had one on. It's as if the government's own behavioural nudge experts had been given the task of reducing compliance with control measures. Going in the shops now I'm beginning to feel self conscious about wearing a mask. That's what we've been reduced to. Vaccines help, of course they do, but for so many elderly and vulnerable people this, literally, anti-social strategy limits their lives, increases anxiety and threatens their health. Oh well, no such thing as society.
But it's not just the specifics, it's the mood music and the creation of a mindset where doing the socially responsible thing becomes an unlikely choice. I was on a local train yesterday, with constant e-banner instructions to wear face coverings - out of the 20 or so people I saw, only I had one on. It's as if the government's own behavioural nudge experts had been given the task of reducing compliance with control measures. Going in the shops now I'm beginning to feel self conscious about wearing a mask. That's what we've been reduced to. Vaccines help, of course they do, but for so many elderly and vulnerable people this, literally, anti-social strategy limits their lives, increases anxiety and threatens their health. Oh well, no such thing as society.
PR1Berske
Alligator in chains by the park gates.
It's a lot of political power plays, look at the tussle between the Treasury, DHSC and No. 10. Boris wants his Churchill moment, being able to pose for photos as the great leader against a disease, V-signs up to the lens. It's very little to do with "following the science" as he once claimed.
Steel Icarus
we move
Exactly this.
elbows
Well-Known Member
I have now read the full plan.
Some of the framing in the earlier parts is quite reasonable, when speaking about future waves, planning scenarios, variant risk unknowns, boosters and ongoing surveillance. I shall read the associated SAGE documents when I have time and when they are all available (I havent even checked for their existence yet).
Where it is deeply unimpressive is when it comes to stuff like stripping away with pandemic sick pay, support payments, health & aety rules for businesses, availability of testing. I didnt see any mention of future availability of asymptomatic testing for heath & social care workers and patients, only of testing for symptomatic workers in those sectors.
They also left some of the template stuff on the last page:
Some of the framing in the earlier parts is quite reasonable, when speaking about future waves, planning scenarios, variant risk unknowns, boosters and ongoing surveillance. I shall read the associated SAGE documents when I have time and when they are all available (I havent even checked for their existence yet).
Where it is deeply unimpressive is when it comes to stuff like stripping away with pandemic sick pay, support payments, health & aety rules for businesses, availability of testing. I didnt see any mention of future availability of asymptomatic testing for heath & social care workers and patients, only of testing for symptomatic workers in those sectors.
They also left some of the template stuff on the last page:
elbows
Well-Known Member
Some BBC quotes from clinically and extremely vulnerable people:
From the 17:27 entry of the BBC live updates page: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-60461378
Sadly for the ones that chose not to have the vaccine, I struggle to imagine when the 'right time' for restrictions to be lifted could possibly come for them, they'll probably be stuck in that mode forever?
From the 17:27 entry of the BBC live updates page: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-60461378
Sadly for the ones that chose not to have the vaccine, I struggle to imagine when the 'right time' for restrictions to be lifted could possibly come for them, they'll probably be stuck in that mode forever?
Brainaddict
slight system overdrive
I guess one of the things that puzzles me most is that when we look back at previous pandemics we see that they all had an end. So presumably there will be an end to this one. A cursory look at the figures shows that we are not at the end now. Surely the answer to when free testing and isolation should end is when the pandemic ends. It's not something we'll do indefinitely, but the pandemic is still going on. But instead what we get from so many people is 'Well we have to end these measures sometime, why not now?' But why not when the pandemic is over?
Instead what we have is an idea that the current crazy high rates are the 'new normal'. But has any pandemic stabilised at these kind of rates? Not to my knowledge. So the rate will drop, presumably at some point in the next couple of years. Or am I wrong?
Instead what we have is an idea that the current crazy high rates are the 'new normal'. But has any pandemic stabilised at these kind of rates? Not to my knowledge. So the rate will drop, presumably at some point in the next couple of years. Or am I wrong?
Wilf
Slouching towards Billingham
Those quotes say it all really.
So depressing to see people around you beginning to live life something like normal - and the way they are living that life being the very thing that stops you doing so. And all that with a tendency to blame the people you might be coming into contact with who aren't wearing a mask, when it's the scum in Downing Street who are leaving you stranded like this.
SpookyFrank
A cheap source of teeth for aquarium gravel
It doesn't seem that at all.
Just as I was starting to think about returning to pubs and restaurants, it's now a lot less safe to do so. So those Tory donors in the hospitality sector will just have to make do without my custom until it is safe. With reliable figures of cases, hospitalisations and death no longer available, I guess they'll have to wait quite a long time.
platinumsage
HaveMyPassword123
Yes, it does. And it's continuously improving thanks to anti-virals.
bimble
floofy
So from 1st April the government will no longer even 'advise' people to stay at home if they have covid. No longer even advise them to! as in the message is you have covid so what stop skiving and go to work.
Which is the same day tests stop being free? i can't quite get my head around it.
Wondering whether the impact will actually be smaller than it seems though, as those people who have a choice to WFH or take days off will probably do so and those with no such option probably haven't had the choice for ages, from the start.
Which is the same day tests stop being free? i can't quite get my head around it.
Wondering whether the impact will actually be smaller than it seems though, as those people who have a choice to WFH or take days off will probably do so and those with no such option probably haven't had the choice for ages, from the start.
elbows
Well-Known Member
There isnt necessarily quite as big a difference between a pandemic and post-pandemic period as people might think. Much of that comes down to the virus in question and its ongoing capacity to cause lots of death and overwhelm hospitals.
Technically the term pandemic relates to the global status of the virus, and when we instead move on to talking about epidemic waves, those are defined more on a per-country basis.
Long after the acute phase of the pandemic, this virus could turn out to have the ability to cause very large waves, and a range of pharmaceutical tools will be needed, plus perhaps some periods of other restrictions if those are not enough. Its really not clear yet, because on the one hand important aspect of what makes a pandemic so brutal is that its a new virus that the population has never met before at all, and so completely lacks immunity against. Over time that inevitably changes, and a similar effect happens when massive vaccination programmes are undertaken. On the other hand the exact extent to which immunity against the worst outcomes from this disease wanes, the exact frequency with which further vaccines will be required, the extent to which vaccines stop offering as much protection eventually (diminishing returns) are all unknown. Even when we have ended up with a population that is no longer completely naive (from an immunity perspective) to the virus, doesnt mean there are any guarantees that the virus is no longer capable of causing a big wave of death in future.
The pandemic template we are used to is for influenza. And the versions of influenza that arrive in pandemics carry on causing waves of death every so many years, the story doesnt really end. For example the H3N2 influenza that arrived in the 1960s also killed a very large number of people in the winter epidemic of 1999/2000 and on plenty of other occasions. And we dont know if this virus will settle down into similar patterns that we associate with other respiratory conditions like flu. Achieving a fairly predictable seasonal pattern, with some winters ending up worse than others depending on what happens to population immunity and viral evolution, is another way that some will decide we are now beyond what it is reasonable to call the pandemic. But since the virus is still with us, it likely then only shifts to a story of occasional epidemics.
Last edited:
elbows
Well-Known Member
Another possible way to look at it and risk in the long term is that the latest generations and those that follow will be exposed to the virus multiple times whilst they are still young. The impact this will have on their risk from severe disease once they reach an advanced age may end up being different to those older people who were already old when exposed to the virus for the very first time. This sort of thing is another way that the impact of a virus on humanity can in theory very slowly change over many decades. With influenza there is also the concept of 'original antigenic sin', which is basically the idea that the first variant of the flu virus we are exposed to in our life is the one we end up with the best protection against. But such theories may be an oversimplification of reality with flu, and might not apply at all to Covid.
elbows
Well-Known Member
I highly recommend the medium term scenarios paper that SAGE looked at earlier in February and that I have just read. Its tempting to quote bits of it but its only two pages long so better to read it in full.
They present 4 example scenarios on the second page. It is probably sensible for people to pay attention to the range of possibilities rather than get caught up in jargon and questions about when the pandemic really counts as being over.
Note that in addition to things people are already aware of such as the uncertainties surrounding future variants, other issues that show up in the scenarios include the virus adapting to counter protection from antivirals, and the issues of potentially having things like having to cope with influenza waves concurrent with or before/after a covid wave.
They present 4 example scenarios on the second page. It is probably sensible for people to pay attention to the range of possibilities rather than get caught up in jargon and questions about when the pandemic really counts as being over.
Note that in addition to things people are already aware of such as the uncertainties surrounding future variants, other issues that show up in the scenarios include the virus adapting to counter protection from antivirals, and the issues of potentially having things like having to cope with influenza waves concurrent with or before/after a covid wave.
Last edited:
elbows
Well-Known Member
Also looked at by SAGE in Feburary is this short attempt to look at the risk of co-infection with SARS-CoV-2 and influenza or adenovirus.
This is certainly one of the areas where we dont know the future implications of yet, due to various measures heavily suppressing a lot of these other viruses in the pandemic waves we have experienced so far. Take current risk estimates with a pinch of salt, better data will only come if we have the misfortune to experience coinciding waves of disease in future.
I note that testing for influenza in hospital patients is a recommendation.
This is certainly one of the areas where we dont know the future implications of yet, due to various measures heavily suppressing a lot of these other viruses in the pandemic waves we have experienced so far. Take current risk estimates with a pinch of salt, better data will only come if we have the misfortune to experience coinciding waves of disease in future.
I note that testing for influenza in hospital patients is a recommendation.
elbows
Well-Known Member
All the flu-related stuff reminds me that when responding to the post earlier about the pandemic being over and how previous pandemics were said to have ended, I should have mentioned that the difference this time is that we've ended up with a new additional disease on the scene. Because most of the influenza pandemics we know about caused a previous important strain of influenza to be replaced with the new one, one displaced the other. This Covid pandemic is different because it has brought a new disease to the table - its still too early to know for certain whether the presence of covid will affect the patterns of the versions of flu we were already used to having to deal with, and so far changes to behaviour really hampered influenzas ability to thrive. But assuming influenza comes back at traditional levels at some stage, there is a challenge to be faced in dealing with both, not least a potential challenge for NHS capacity. And as some of the papers I've just linked to indicate, the timing of various factors can make quite the difference to how large these challenges will be each year.
elbows
Well-Known Member
Similar threads
