And the Taoiseach has duly squashed the idea on the evening news.NPHET is similar to SAGE; most of the stuff they advise gets ignored.
And the Taoiseach has duly squashed the idea on the evening news.NPHET is similar to SAGE; most of the stuff they advise gets ignored.
This forum has been a great source of news throughout the pandemic; we have many people who post links to studies and opinions from actual experts on here. I had no particular interest in virology or immunology before, I've actually found it quite interesting to learn about.
Ministers are increasingly optimistic that many of the restrictions to prevent the spread of coronavirus will end in England on January 26...
"Many". Not really sure if it's good news or not. Many is better than nothing but not as good as all. In which case I hope they publish a date for "all". And I really do mean All (e.g. testing on or before return to UK if abroad for example, which was never removed on so called "freedom day" last summer).The FT are reporting that Ministers are confident that many restrictions in place will end on the 26th January:
Subscribe to the Financial Times
A subscription to the Financial Times provides you with the insights and perspective you need to succeed, now.on.ft.com
That's very good to hear; knowing this is likely to happen is making me feel more positive. Feeling positive (which I always try to do; even if I vent my frustrations, I am generally a positive person) actually boosts our immune systems and I find I am much more likely to feel ill if I am feeling stressed and/or negative.The FT are reporting that Ministers are confident that many restrictions in place will end on the 26th January:
Subscribe to the Financial Times
A subscription to the Financial Times provides you with the insights and perspective you need to succeed, now.on.ft.com
Since I initially replied to the above, the BBC have produced an article on this:MSN
www.msn.com
Whatever one's views on the vaccine, this paragraph caught my eye. I've always been under the impression that the greatest benefit of a vaccine is that it stops, or greatly reduces the probability of, the recipient getting ill.
I think this is key; everyone who is vaccinated is going to be exposed to Sars-CoV-2 (and until most people have been, we probably won't fully reach endemic equilibrium) and anyone who has been exposed and not vaccinated is still wise to give serious consideration to getting at least one dose of the vaccine.The best protection against Covid comes from having an infection and being vaccinated too, several pieces of research have found.
I would say the decision he made is not the same decision I would make, but he should have the right to make that decision without losing his job."I am most definitely pro-choice and pro-vaccine, which is a position some find too complex to support," he says.
Others have added suggestions such as @sailorrooscout, @skepticalzebra and others.If you want a healthy dose of sanity, I’d recommend muting all journalists & Covidians, and start paying attention to people like:
@TracyBethHoeg
@MartyMakary
@VPrasadMDMPH
@BallouxFrancois
@statsjamie
@MonicaGandhi9
@drlucymcbride
@NICU_doc_salone
@ZDoggMD
@kallmemeg
"Many". Not really sure if it's good news or not. Many is better than nothing but not as good as all. In which case I hope they publish a date for "all". And I really do mean All (e.g. testing on or before return to UK if abroad for example, which was never removed on so called "freedom day" last summer).
"Many". Not really sure if it's good news or not. Many is better than nothing but not as good as all. In which case I hope they publish a date for "all". And I really do mean All (e.g. testing on or before return to UK if abroad for example, which was never removed on so called "freedom day" last summer).
I suspect they mean the 'plan B' measures, and the journalists are too lazy or uninformed to articulate exactly what they are (eg. vaccine passports for large events and nightclubs don't get mentioned in that article, but masks do - but I'd be very surprised if masks went and vaccine passports were renewed, as given the current state of the Tory party and the rebellions before Christmas, the opposite seems more likely, though hopefully both will go).
Exactly, yes the Plan B measures are due to expire on 26 Jan and they must absolutely go no later than that. Other measures already in place may continue for another couple of months perhaps. It's all a bit speculative but that's my reading of it and it does make some sort of sense, whether you agree with it or not.I assume it means all the ones which are due to expire then, which only leaves the isolation and international travel restrictions (any others I have forgotten?).
I love this idea that all of a sudden grandparents and the elderly are collateral damage. Whether you like it or not, some of us value having our grandparents and elderly relatives around and will want to continue to protect them. Flu may not get them this time round and they may have another happy few years ahead of them. It’a about responsibility.Dear oh dear. Personally I have been aware from a relatively young age, that the risk of death when you become elderly is high. Amazingly enough, even before Covid.
All Covid is doing is removing some who would otherwise STILL have been taken by flu, pneumonia or other respiratory disease. With vaccines and boosters having been rolled out, the elderly have far more to fear from a variety of other diseases than they do from Covid, especially while we continue this illogical obsession with thinking Covid is the only thing worth spending medical time and money on.
I assume it means all the ones which are due to expire then, which only leaves the isolation and international travel restrictions (any others I have forgotten?).
But this idea that grandparents should be kept alive indefinitely is not actually sensible or responsible either. The reality is that my grandmothers (I never met my grandfathers; they both died before I was born) were both kept alive inhumanely and without any dignity with the last few years of their lives having such a low quality of life they didn't know who they were, where they were, let alone who their carers or family were. If they could have died around 5 years prior from a respiratory virus it would have saved them years of suffering. I don't think anyone would choose that existence.I love this idea that all of a sudden grandparents and the elderly are collateral damage. Whether you like it or not, some of us value having our grandparents and elderly relatives around and will want to continue to protect them. Flu may not get them this time round and they may have another happy few years ahead of them. It’a about responsibility
I love this idea that all of a sudden grandparents and the elderly are collateral damage. Whether you like it or not, some of us value having our grandparents and elderly relatives around and will want to continue to protect them. Flu may not get them this time round and they may have another happy few years ahead of them. It’a about responsibility.
The reality is that my grandmothers were both kept alive inhumanely and without any dignity with the last few years of their lives having such a low quality of life they didn't know who they were, where they were, let alone who their carers or family were. If they could have died around 5 years prior from a respiratory virus it would have saved them years of suffering.
I love this idea that all of a sudden grandparents and the elderly are collateral damage. Whether you like it or not, some of us value having our grandparents and elderly relatives around and will want to continue to protect them. Flu may not get them this time round and they may have another happy few years ahead of them. It’a about responsibility.
Fact, or opinion?fact that many elderly now have far worse chances of survival thanks to the unhealthy obsession with only Covid.
i would suggest it is opinion, but considering how difficult it is to access a GP and my parents ”don’t want to trouble them” I can see many people that die of something preventable because they didn’t want to bother the stressed out health service. How many? We will never know. Other old people have lost the will to live - as the past 2 years they can’t enjoy their twilight years. My uncle died of dementia just before the pandemic started. It is not often you say a death was lucky, but his wife would have being heartbroken watching him deteriorate alone under lockdown rules.Fact, or opinion?
Really, what we are asking ourselves here at the root of this (and it is a moral/philosophical question more than a medical/scientific one) is 'what is the correct balance between prioritising quantity (ie length) and quality (this is a much deeper concept, but for me it includes the ability for me to participate in activities I enjoy, meet with friends and family, live meaningfully and (to me) independently) of life?'I love this idea that all of a sudden grandparents and the elderly are collateral damage. Whether you like it or not, some of us value having our grandparents and elderly relatives around and will want to continue to protect them. Flu may not get them this time round and they may have another happy few years ahead of them. It’s about responsibility.
Ok, and is it fact that these were a result of an "unhealthy obsession with only Covid"?Fact. Excess deaths without Covid are higher than usual.
Ok, and is it fact that these were a result of an "unhealthy obsession with only Covid"?
Or is that what we might call heavily subjective opinion?
It certainly has seemed that only Covid has mattered over the last 2 years. How could suspending treatments for other things NOT end up causing deaths through cancer, heart disease etc etc not being picked up in time?Ok, and is it fact that these were a result of an "unhealthy obsession with only Covid"?
Or is that what we might call heavily subjective opinion?
An outlandish post.I love this idea that all of a sudden grandparents and the elderly are collateral damage. Whether you like it or not, some of us value having our grandparents and elderly relatives around and will want to continue to protect them. Flu may not get them this time round and they may have another happy few years ahead of them. It’a about responsibility.
I suppose we will have to wait and see but they re-introduced masks in shops and public transport about a week earlier before the so called "plan B". So I am a bit worried they'll keep those. I hope I'm wrong.Exactly, yes the Plan B measures are due to expire on 26 Jan and they must absolutely go no later than that. Other measures already in place may continue for another couple of months perhaps. It's all a bit speculative but that's my reading of it and it does make some sort of sense, whether you agree with it or not.
I suppose we will have to wait and see but they re-introduced masks in shops and public transport about a week earlier before the so called "plan B". So I am a bit worried they'll keep those. I hope I'm wrong.
It's a fact to anyone with an ounce of common sense or logic, as 43066 has just pointed out. How on earth could it NOT affect mortality rates for those who have been more-or-less ignored for the past two years because if they didn't have Covid, they didn't matter? And that is not opinion, it is from multiple sources, some personally known and some not.
Good post and absolutely we have prioritised quantity of live over quality; there is no question about it. And that's wrong.Really, what we are asking ourselves here at the root of this (and it is a moral/philosophical question more than a medical/scientific one) is 'what is the correct balance between prioritising quantity (ie length) and quality (this is a much deeper concept, but for me it includes the ability for me to participate in activities I enjoy, meet with friends and family, live meaningfully and (to me) independently) of life?'
Whilst I appreciate that it's unlikely we'll share similar views on this topic, I think it's important to consider the potential problems of weighting one of these aspects too heavily when considering this question.
If we place too much emphasis on maximising quantity of life at the expense of quality of life (which, and I'm sure you'll disagree with me, I think we have been doing since the beginning of this pandemic), then we are forced to live in a way which reduces our ability to live a meaningful and satisfying life (and for each individual this will mean something different) in order to increase the length of the (less satisfying, meaningful) life. My grandmother died last year, and she spent the last 6 months of her life suffering immensely inside a hospital room. She told me before she died that she had felt 'ready' to go for a while, and that she would much rather die sooner and leave us having lived a meaningful, enjoyable life (in her view) than to have lived for another year under the conditions she was facing. If you extract all enjoyment and meaning from life, what is the point of prolonging that life? You may disagree, but if I was offered a choice between living a meaningful, satisfying life for 75 years or living that same life to the age of 80, spending the last 5 years of my life stuck in a care home, unable to move or eat without assistance (all whilst placing an immense emotional burden on my family and friends), I would, without hesitation, choose the former. I see our response to the COVID pandemic as a society-wide response to this moral dilemma.
Now I've stated on this forum before that I believe the main issue with our response to the COVID situation has been heavily influenced by our heavily 'emotionalist' attitude towards death in western society. Why have we adopted such an attitude towards death? There's no black and white answer, but I believe it's the one aspect of life we have little to no understanding of, and as humans we are conditioned to fear the things we cannot comprehend or develop an understanding of. There are no two people on the planet who have exactly the same opinion on what death means for an individual, but we always treat this, in any decision making, as the 'worst' outcome that must be avoided at all costs. What does this mean with regards to the moral dilemma? It means that, in any situation, people are conditioned to believe that 'death' is an option that cannot be considered, leading to quantity of life almost always taking priority over quality of life in any decision making.
What we've seen over the past 2 years is nothing more than politicians and medics (who are fully aware they are in the public eye) doing everything they can to demonstrate to their populations how seriously they are taking the threat of death in society (in other words, they are actively demonstrating through their actions and words that they are following the philosophy of accepting any other option over 'death'). This has led to (in the UK) almost a competition between the four nations (I'm referring specifically to the devolved nations here) to see who can demonstrate this to the greatest extent. Politicians know that demonstrating this (as this is something the public like to hear) will have a political advantage for the and (with the exception of Westminster, hence their more relaxed approach), little to no consequences (financially or politically). Anyone who does not share this view (as, although it may make more logical sense (in my view) not to do so, it does not fit with the societal views that we as a species have been conditioned to adopt over our history) is shut down (instinctively this makes sense, why wouldn't people want to ignore those who go against everything they have ever been taught to believe in?)
To be more particular here, the issue at the moment is that we have (societally) been forced to change our attitude towards death from biological causes/disease over the past 2 years (this has went from something we were willing to accept in order to enjoy a high quality of life to something that is now being viewed as our (individual and societal) responsibility to prevent at all costs. This shift in attitude is, in my view, completely morally wrong and frankly quite dangerous as the (potential) impact it can have on quality of life is extremely significant).
If there's one thing I hope we can learn from the past 2 years, it is that the outright prioritisation of death-prevention above all other considerations (regardless on the impact of quality of life) is not always the correct approach to adopt in a situation such as this, and I hope we can, eventually (and I know it will take a while), adopt a more mature and rational attitude towards the role of death within life and society.
It's actually a bit of both. Yes resources had to divert to deal with Covid patients however the measures/restrictions/policy changes put in place to 'combat' Covid or 'reduce spread' has caused misery for many, many people.No, there is an opinion that other conditions were neglected because too much emphasis was put on diverting resources to deal with Covid patients.
There is another opinion that the medical services had little option but to divert resources to deal with Covid patients in large numbers, and that this could have been prevented by faster and stronger action to avoid case numbers getting so high in the first place. And then, not only could the health service have continued providing its 'normal' services with less disruption, but lots of people who we know would not have died had they been vaccinated before being infected, would now still be alive.
How much of an imposition are masks in reality, do they really restrict your life so much?I suppose we will have to wait and see but they re-introduced masks in shops and public transport about a week earlier before the so called "plan B". So I am a bit worried they'll keep those. I hope I'm wrong.
Yes they do but they are at far less risk of having to do so, the unvaccinated have to isolate if they are close contact with someone who tests positive whilst the vaccinated don’t.This is ridiculous, as vaccinated staff have to isolate too.
This has surely been done to death in previous threads?How much of an imposition are masks in reality, do they really restrict your life so much?
Genuine question do you honestly think we should have let first two waves of COVID to have spread further, this would have undoubtably lead to even more deaths and even greater pressure on the NHSGood post and absolutely we have prioritised quantity of live over quality; there is no question about it. And that's wrong.
It's actually a bit of both. Yes resources had to divert to deal with Covid patients however the measures/restrictions/policy changes put in place to 'combat' Covid or 'reduce spread' has caused misery for many, many people.
The former was understandable to the extent that it was reasonably necessary; the latter is unforgivable.
I refer you to SwedenGenuine question do you honestly think we should have let first two waves of COVID to have spread further, this would have undoubtably lead to even more deaths and even greater pressure on the NHS