End of all remaining Covid restrictions in England

[Freightmaster]

Its always too early and just a few more weeks.

Anyone remember "three weeks to flatten the curve"...



...90 weeks ago???!





MARK

 

[Eyersey468]

Anyone remember "three weeks to flatten the curve"...



...90 weeks ago???!





MARK

All too well

 

[duncanp]

I see that some people are suggesting that the ending of the self isolation rule will mean......increased mask wearing and social distancing in the workplace, and especially schools, to prevent employers from being sued because they allowed COVID positive employees to come into work.

Worth remembering that the guidance will still be to self isolate if you test positive, just that it will no longer be mandatory.

But the locktivists and maskivists never give up, do they?

 

[102 fan]

I see that some people are suggesting that the ending of the self isolation rule will mean......increased mask wearing and social distancing in the workplace, and especially schools, to prevent employers from being sued because they allowed COVID positive employees to come into work.

Worth remembering that the guidance will still be to self isolate if you test positive, just that it will no longer be mandatory.

But the locktivists and maskivists never give up, do they?

No. Would you believe I've been called anti vax, even though I'm fully vaccinated, because I said I was wary of anything governments are very keen on, and I was called a psychopath when I asked a maskivist about the effectiveness of a facecovering. This is the mindset, and it's an extremely worrying one.

 

[duncanp]

No. Would you believe I've been called anti vax, even though I'm fully vaccinated, because I said I was wary of anything governments are very keen on, and I was called a psychopath when I asked a maskivist about the effectiveness of a facecovering. This is the mindset, and it's an extremely worrying one.

I also saw someone on Locktivist Sky News this morning saying that we need a "new normal", where mask wearing and social distancing are retained in the long term, and no-one thinks of them as "restrictions" any more.

I can say on this forum, without getting banned anyway, what I really think of that.

Some people may have medical conditions which mean they are more vulnerable, but they are welcome to wear a FFP3 mask, which protects them regardless of whether the person next to them is wearing a mask, or has not been vaccinated.

Mask wearing and social distancing should absolutely NOT become normalised.

 

[37424]

I also saw someone on Locktivist Sky News this morning saying that we need a "new normal", where mask wearing and social distancing are retained in the long term, and no-one thinks of them as "restrictions" any more.

I can say on this forum, without getting banned anyway, what I really think of that.

Some people may have medical conditions which mean they are more vulnerable, but they are welcome to wear a FFP3 mask, which protects them regardless of whether the person next to them is wearing a mask, or has not been vaccinated.

Mask wearing and social distancing should absolutely NOT become normalised.

So presumably people in the highly vulnerable and elderly groups, will now be much more at risk with much more likely hood of coming into contact with covid positive medical staff and care workers, and potentially any employees they may work with, I'm not sure how an FFP3 mask will work for these groups against a covid postive dentist or other covid positive medical staff needing to undertake an oral examination.

Isolation rules should still at least apply to medical staff and care workers in my view although I have yet to see any clarity that it will be the case.

I'm not going to get into a mask debate as that's already been done on what is a highly anti mask forum, but the ending of self isolation seems like a potentially very serious risk to highly vulnerable and elderly groups, still it would seem the government and people like your self have decided that people in those groups are now expendable for the sake of Normality.

 

[Cdd89]

Formally ending the red list would make little difference, it could be re-instated with minimal notice.

It could, but “Put X on the Red List” is an easier demand than “Bring back the Red List and put X on it”.

 

[43066]

but the ending of self isolation seems like a potentially very serious risk to highly vulnerable and elderly groups, still it would seem the government and people like your self have decided that people in those groups are now expendable for the sake of Normality.

Well when you insist on putting it in such emotive terms - what choice is there? We cannot continue to destroy our way of life and our economy for the sake of a few vulnerable individuals.

You’ve been advised on what you can do to protect yourself. I personally agree with the government’s approach. It’s time to get back to normal come what may.

 

[yorksrob]

I can see the point of retaining self-isolation in some professions where employees are routinely likely to spend large amounts of time with vulnerable individuals. This should be something for the professional bodies to decide on. However in terms of wider society, I think the Government is right to scrap the general self-isolation law.

 

[102 fan]

I also saw someone on Locktivist Sky News this morning saying that we need a "new normal", where mask wearing and social distancing are retained in the long term, and no-one thinks of them as "restrictions" any more.

I can say on this forum, without getting banned anyway, what I really think of that.

Some people may have medical conditions which mean they are more vulnerable, but they are welcome to wear a FFP3 mask, which protects them regardless of whether the person next to them is wearing a mask, or has not been vaccinated.

Mask wearing and social distancing should absolutely NOT become normalised.

To hear them talk, you'd think nobody got ill or died before 2020. I would of thought the flu was as dangerous, but nobody told them to be frightened back then.

 

[Ediswan]

I can see the point of retaining self-isolation in some professions where employees are routinely likely to spend large amounts of time with vulnerable individuals. This should be something for the professional bodies to decide on. However in terms of wider society, I think the Government is right to scrap the general self-isolation law.

Would not refraining from going into work be sufficient ?

 

[37424]

Well when you insist on putting it in such emotive terms - what choice is there? We cannot continue to destroy our way of life and our economy for the sake of a few vulnerable individuals.

You’ve been advised on what you can do to protect yourself. I personally agree with the government’s approach. It’s time to get back to normal come what may.

What other term's should I put it in? The CEV groups run into millions so hardy a few, and your definition of normal may not be available to quite a number of people for a long time, still as long as people like you are not inconvenienced in any way.

 

[yorksrob]

Would not refraining from going into work be sufficient ?

Yes, it probably would. The professional bodies would only be able to influence their employees attendance at work anyway.

 

[Bantamzen]

So presumably people in the highly vulnerable and elderly groups, will now be much more at risk with much more likely hood of coming into contact with covid positive medical staff and care workers, and potentially any employees they may work with, I'm not sure how an FFP3 mask will work for these groups against a covid postive dentist or other covid positive medical staff needing to undertake an oral examination.

Isolation rules should still at least apply to medical staff and care workers in my view although I have yet to see any clarity that it will be the case.

I'm not going to get into a mask debate as that's already been done on what is a highly anti mask forum, but the ending of self isolation seems like a potentially very serious risk to highly vulnerable and elderly groups, still it would seem the government and people like your self have decided that people in those groups are now expendable for the sake of Normality.

And how would you propose filling in the gaps the cover all those people potentially isolating for a couple of weeks a few times a year? We've already seen the impact of all this isolation even when people are not displaying symptoms, are you suggesting we should keep on with that? Waiting lists are getting longer by the day, meaning that there could be more vulnerable people as a result of delayed operations etc. Now multiply that across all public & private sectors. I can't see how you can consider this viable.

 

[37424]

And how would you propose filling in the gaps the cover all those people potentially isolating for a couple of weeks a few times a year? We've already seen the impact of all this isolation even when people are not displaying symptoms, are you suggesting we should keep on with that? Waiting lists are getting longer by the day, meaning that there could be more vulnerable people as a result of delayed operations etc. Now multiply that across all public & private sectors. I can't see how you can consider this viable.

Well if the virus is on the decline as the government claim then it should gradually become less of an issue, if its not on the decline then perhaps we shouln't be dropping the regulations and will have to manage as we are now, I'm not sure how infecting say an office full of people will be better because someone didn't isolate especially if some of those people become too ill to work for period or unfortunately if one of those people in that office becomes seriously ill with covid.

 

[yorkie]

So presumably people in the highly vulnerable and elderly groups, will now be much more at risk with much more likely hood of coming into contact with covid positive medical staff and care workers, and potentially any employees they may work with...

Every day there are over a hundred thousand people who are infected (the Zoe study estimates around 200,000 symptomatic cases - almost all very mild - per day; official cases are far lower than this and include many asymptomatic cases) which are NOT officially logged and therefore do NOT have to isolate.

You therefore already have a huge chance of coming into contact with an infected person.

It is inevitable that you, along with all of us, will be exposed to Sars-CoV-2, multiple times in our lifetimes.

I'm not sure how an FFP3 mask will work for these groups against a covid postive dentist or other covid positive medical staff needing to undertake an oral examination.

Even if you wear an FFP3 mask every time you are in close contact with anyone (which would have to include even close friends and family members) you would still be exposed to the virus eventually; there is no avoiding it forever.

Isolation rules should still at least apply to medical staff and care workers in my view although I have yet to see any clarity that it will be the case.

The reality is that there is no way to eliminate the possibility of medical staff and care workers passing on the virus right now; we do not know for certain if someone who tests negative is not infectious, nor can we force everyone to be tested daily (and even then someone could become infectious during the day).

I'm not going to get into a mask debate as that's already been done on what is a highly anti mask forum....

You presumably think I am "anti mask" even though I am keen for people to know how effective tight fitting FFP3 masks are at protecting the wearer (i.e. almost 100% effective when worn/stored/handled correctly)?

but the ending of self isolation seems like a potentially very serious risk to highly vulnerable and elderly groups, still it would seem the government and people like your self have decided that people in those groups are now expendable for the sake of Normality.

There is no way we can prevent 'vulnerable' and 'elderly' people from being exposed to Sars-CoV-2; everyone is going to be exposed to it, just as they are exposed to hundreds of other pathogens which are widely circulating.

What other term's should I put it in? The CEV groups run into millions so hardy a few, and your definition of normal may not be available to quite a number of people for a long time, still as long as people like you are not inconvenienced in any way.

It is up to you if you wish to inconvenience yourself but you cannot prevent society returning to normal. Sars-CoV-2 is now an endemic virus which everyone is going to get and no longer poses a serious health risk to the population. At the current time there are fewer deaths than would normally be expected at this time of year; are you suggesting that vulnerable people should have expected other people to restrict their lives at this time of year in prevous years, when there were actually higher numbers of deaths?

Well if the virus is on the decline as the government claim then it should gradually become less of an issue, if its not on the decline then perhaps we shouln't be dropping the regulations and will have to manage as we are now, I'm not sure how infecting say an office full of people will be better because someone didn't isolate especially if some of those people become too ill to work for period or unfortunately if one of those people in that office becomes seriously ill with covid.

The virus will continue to circulate at high levels for a long time until almost everyone has been exposed to it; once almost everyone has been exposed to it, it will circulate at lower levels in a state of endemic equilibrium and everyone will get exposure every few years as they do with existing similar viruses.

Sars-CoV-2 is here to stay; you are going to be exposed to it, I am going to be exposed to it, we are all going to be exposed to it.

It does not matter how "careful" anyone is; even Tim Spector has it.

It's time to accept that fact; we cannot eliminate the virus nor can we suppress it indefinitely.

 

[MikeWM]

I'm not sure why we need to be overly-concerned about people who are testing themselves but then, on finding themselves positive for Covid, will now decide to go to the office anyway, but wouldn't have done while there was still a regulation prohibiting it? Surely that's a very small group indeed.

Seems pretty obvious to me that most people either aren't testing themselves already, or will stay at home if they test positive and/or feel ill whether there is a law forcing them to or not.

From that point of view this seems a rather minor change in terms of how the virus spreads, but a big one in terms of the state backing off from our lives.

Yes, there are other concerns about those who can't afford to isolate whether they test positive or not, as I mentioned above, but most of those are probably already finding ways around the system (and probably don't work in an office either).

 

[yorkie]

For 4 days a week I am in close proximity to hundreds of other people; I hope I have been exposed to the virus already.

I don't do tests. If I am feeling very unwell I will offer to work from home but this happens incredibly rarely as I have a good immune system. The key to a good immune system is not to wear a mask but to keep fit, eat healthily, have a positive outlook, not be stressed or worrying about things.

 

[37424]

Every day there are over a hundred thousand people who are infected (the Zoe study estimates around 200,000 symptomatic cases - almost all very mild - per day; official cases are far lower than this and include many asymptomatic cases) which are NOT officially logged and therefore do NOT have to isolate.

You therefore already have a huge chance of coming into contact with an infected person.

It is inevitable that you, along with all of us, will be exposed to Sars-CoV-2, multiple times in our lifetimes.


Even if you wear an FFP3 mask every time you are in close contact with anyone (which would have to include even close friends and family members) you would still be exposed to the virus eventually; there is no avoiding it forever.

The reality is that there is no way to eliminate the possibility of medical staff and care workers passing on the virus right now; we do not know for certain if someone who tests negative is not infectious, nor can we force everyone to be tested daily (and even then someone could become infectious during the day).

You presumably think I am "anti mask" even though I am keen for people to know how effective tight fitting FFP3 masks are at protecting the wearer (i.e. almost 100% effective when worn/stored/handled correctly)?


There is no way we can prevent 'vulnerable' and 'elderly' people from being exposed to Sars-CoV-2; everyone is going to be exposed to it, just as they are exposed to hundreds of other pathogens which are widely circulating.

It is up to you if you wish to inconvenience yourself but you cannot prevent society returning to normal. Sars-CoV-2 is now an endemic virus which everyone is going to get and no longer poses a serious health risk to the population. At the current time there are fewer deaths than would normally be expected at this time of year; are you suggesting that vulnerable people should have expected other people to restrict their lives at this time of year in prevous years, when there were actually higher numbers of deaths?

The virus will continue to circulate at high levels for a long time until almost everyone has been exposed to it; once almost everyone has been exposed to it, it will circulate at lower levels in a state of endemic equilibrium and everyone will get exposure every few years as they do with existing similar viruses.

Sars-CoV-2 is here to stay; you are going to be exposed to it, I am going to be exposed to it, we are all going to be exposed to it.

It does not matter how "careful" anyone is; even Tim Spector has it.

It's time to accept that fact; we cannot eliminate the virus nor can we suppress it indefinitely.

Covid deaths are still running at around 200 daily and about 1300 hospital admissions daily, yes you cannot elimanate the risk of coming into contact with a covid positive person, but eliminating self isolation will only increase that risk further. Other than that I will call it a day I know your views only too well.

 

[yorkie]

Covid deaths are still running at around 200 daily....

But how many people are dying overall, and how many people would you normally expect at this time of year?

I suspect you can't answer the above question as there appears to be only one kind of death that you seem to be interested in; is that right?

Also can you confirm that the number you are quoting are with Covid and someone dying of an unrelated cause but who tests positive would count; is that right?

and about 1300 hospital admissions daily,

But how many people are currently in hospital and how many would you normally expect at this time of year?

Are these admissions due to people being seriously ill with Covid, or are they a measure of all admissions where the person has tested positive to Covid (including mild / asymptomatic cases)?

yes you cannot elimanate the risk of coming into contact with a covid positive person, but eliminating self isolation will only increase that risk further.

Everyone is going to be exposed to Sars-CoV-2, so I disagree there is "increased risk"; now if you are arguing that this measure will result in some people getting exposed a few weeks or months earlier, then yes, it may do, but quite frankly my response to that would be: 'So what?'

Let's be clear: we are not talking about avoiding exposures, merely delaying them.

Other than that I will call it a day I know your views only too well.

Hopefully you will answer my questions first, but I suspect you can't, or won't want to, because the answers won't suit your argument.

 

[Crossover]

Covid deaths are still running at around 200 daily and about 1300 hospital admissions daily, yes you cannot elimanate the risk of coming into contact with a covid positive person, but eliminating self isolation will only increase that risk further. Other than that I will call it a day I know your views only too well.

It is just data - we seem to have very very little context (as alluded to by @yorkie) - data plus context would give us information, but it currently isn't information

 

[Eyersey468]

It is just data - we seem to have very very little context (as alluded to by @yorkie) - data plus context would give us information, but it currently isn't information

I agree, it has seemed for the last 2 years that only Covid has mattered

 

[37424]

But how many people are dying overall, and how many people would you normally expect at this time of year?

I suspect you can't answer the above question as there appears to be only one kind of death that you seem to be interested in; is that right?

Also can you confirm that the number you are quoting are with Covid and someone dying of an unrelated cause but who tests positive would count; is that right?


But how many people are currently in hospital and how many would you normally expect at this time of year?

Are these admissions due to people being seriously ill with Covid, or are they a measure of all admissions where the person has tested positive to Covid (including mild / asymptomatic cases)?


Everyone is going to be exposed to Sars-CoV-2, so I disagree there is "increased risk"; now if you are arguing that this measure will result in some people getting exposed a few weeks or months earlier, then yes, it may do, but quite frankly my response to that would be: 'So what?'

Let's be clear: we are not talking about avoiding exposures, merely delaying them.


Hopefully you will answer my questions first, but I suspect you can't, or won't want to, because the answers won't suit your argument.

People die every day yes, but that still 200 people dying of covid, yes covid might not be the main factor in all cases but could still be a significant contributary factor in many. I'm not only interested in purely covid deaths, I gather the covid measures of the last 2 years have significantly reduced flu deaths, and on that basis perhaps we should retain some covid practices for that reason, of course that would have the normalizers on here up in arms.

I live alone the doctors are unsure how well my immune system will respond to covid, dont bother trying to trot out stats from the internet as an armchair expert we have already done that. Its preferable for me to avoid covid if possible and there are plenty of other people I know are of similar view and they are at less risk than me.

Other than medical people I have only allowed 1 friend who is similarly careful and we both tuck covid tests beforehand, similarly when I went to visit a relative at Christmas, then other than the boiler engineer no one else has set foot in my house in the last 2 years.

I am semi retired but changed my job for a largely work from home part time job after shielding so yes I will try continue to try and avoid contact with covid as much as possible which will now be more difficult in my view as a result of ending isolation.

 

[Bantamzen]

Well if the virus is on the decline as the government claim then it should gradually become less of an issue, if its not on the decline then perhaps we shouln't be dropping the regulations and will have to manage as we are now, I'm not sure how infecting say an office full of people will be better because someone didn't isolate especially if some of those people become too ill to work for period or unfortunately if one of those people in that office becomes seriously ill with covid.

"It should gradually be less of an issue" sounds like it came from the same spin doctors who came up with "three weeks to flatten the curve". Covid is here for the long run, just like influenza. So as the warmer months kick in and people spend less indoors so the virus will have less chance to spread. But once winter returns, so will it.

What you are proposing is a never ending cycle of disruption with no proposal on how to maintain levels of service in public or private sectors. It is simply unsustainable.

 

[yorkie]

People die every day yes, but that still 200 people dying of covid...

Of or with? and what about other deaths; can you answer my questions?

Are there more, or fewer, deaths than there would normally be at this time of year?

yes covid might not be the main factor in all cases but could still be a significant contributary factor in many. I'm not only interested in purely covid deaths, I gather the covid measures of the last 2 years have significantly reduced flu deaths, and on that basis perhaps we should retain some covid practices for that reason, of course that would have the normalizers on here up in arms.

If you are equally interested in other deaths, why no mention of them, and why can't you answer my questions?

I live alone the doctors are unsure how well my immune system will respond to covid...

Can they be sure how your immune system will respond to any virus (not just this particular virus which you have been vaccinated against with several jabs)?

dont bother trying to trot out stats from the internet as an armchair expert we have already done that.

I'm not sure what you mean by this?

Its preferable for me to avoid covid if possible and there are plenty of other people I know are of similar view and they are at less risk than me.

You cannot avoid exposure to Sars-CoV-2; everyone is going to be exposed to it.

Other than medical people I have only allowed 1 friend who is similarly careful and we both tuck covid tests beforehand, similarly when I went to visit a relative at Christmas, then other than the boiler engineer no one else has set foot in my house in the last 2 years.

That doesn't mean you aren't going to be exposed to it; feel free to live your life how you see fit, hardly seeing anyone if that is what you want, but you have no rights to impose restrictions on others.

I am semi retired but changed my job for a largely work from home part time job after shielding so yes I will try continue to try and avoid contact with covid as much as possible which will now be more difficult in my view as a result of ending isolation.

You will still be exposed to the virus; your choice of lonely lifestyle is not appealing to many of us but is a choice you have the right to make for yourself, but you have no right to impose any such restrictions on anyone else.

 

[Crossover]

People die every day yes, but that still 200 people dying with covid

Corrected that for you

Also bear in mind that it is being said that an even larger %age of cases are those who went into hospital for something else and have tested positive - an incidental admission.

The data is meaningless without the context and as a nation we have been battered into submission with the "data" for the last two years

 

[bramling]

Covid deaths are still running at around 200 daily and about 1300 hospital admissions daily, yes you cannot elimanate the risk of coming into contact with a covid positive person, but eliminating self isolation will only increase that risk further. Other than that I will call it a day I know your views only too well.

How many of those 200 deaths are down to Covid? The fact that excess deaths are below what would normally be expected suggests that many of these 200 are with Covid, not of Covid.

 

[Ediswan]

How many of those 200 deaths are down to Covid? The fact that excess deaths are below what would normally be expected suggests that many of these 200 are with Covid, not of Covid.

You have to wait just over a week for the ONS figures, which count where Covid was recorded as a cause on the death certificate. The latest report is here: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopula...ndandwalesprovisional/weekending28january2022

A slight complication is that the ONS report on England & Wales, whereas the headline '28 day' figure covers the whole UK. To get E&W there you have to drill down a bit.

For week 4, the E&W '28 day' figure was 1,663. The ONS figure is 1,385.

Even then, you can't compare directly. The ONS figure includes those who died later than 28 days after a positive test or, rarely, where there was no test.

However, being bold and assuming that all these figures remain broadly in proportion to each other, the suggestion is that the '28 day' figure is roughly 20% high.

 

[greyman42]

I'm not going to get into a mask debate as that's already been done on what is a highly anti mask forum, but the ending of self isolation seems like a potentially very serious risk to highly vulnerable and elderly groups, still it would seem the government and people like your self have decided that people in those groups are now expendable for the sake of Normality.

That is pretty much it and the sooner the better. We cannot reasonably avoid coming into contact with Covid so we might as well get back to living normally, which i have been doing since summer.

Covid deaths are still running at around 200 daily and about 1300 hospital admissions daily, yes you cannot elimanate the risk of coming into contact with a covid positive person, but eliminating self isolation will only increase that risk further. Other than that I will call it a day I know your views only too well.

Many of those hospitalizations could be avoided if people lived a healthier lifestyle.

 

[LAX54]

So presumably people in the highly vulnerable and elderly groups, will now be much more at risk with much more likely hood of coming into contact with covid positive medical staff and care workers, and potentially any employees they may work with, I'm not sure how an FFP3 mask will work for these groups against a covid postive dentist or other covid positive medical staff needing to undertake an oral examination.

Isolation rules should still at least apply to medical staff and care workers in my view although I have yet to see any clarity that it will be the case.

I'm not going to get into a mask debate as that's already been done on what is a highly anti mask forum, but the ending of self isolation seems like a potentially very serious risk to highly vulnerable and elderly groups, still it would seem the government and people like your self have decided that people in those groups are now expendable for the sake of Normality.

Did you see on the BBC website, a person saying her world has just got a bit smaller due to the removal of restrictions, seems she has been 'shielding' for 650 days, seems she has an 'immune' issue/problem