End of all remaining Covid restrictions in England

[Eyersey468]

Indeed. BTW the '20-minute handwashing' was a typo... I have now corrected it. Probably SAGE would have liked us to do that though...

Yeah I thought it was

 

[yorkie]

In another thread yesterday I posted about how cases were falling and today it is even more evident that the case rates in England are falling even more rapidly than previously thought.

With almost everyone vaccinated who wants to be vaccinated (apart from children who are not at risk and therefore extremely likely to only have very mild symptoms), it truly is time to go back to normal.

Those who don't want to go back to normal, like Trish Greenhalgh, Chris Pagel, Deepti Gurdasani and their ilk can choose to stay at home or do whatever precautions they want to do but the media should stop giving these attention seekers the attention they crave.

Case rates in England have dropped even further to 706.8 per 100k, which is lower than Scotland (795.1 per 100k) despite England having a lower proportion of people vaccinated and a greater population density and other factors which should mean cases would be expected to be higher.

And yet the pro-restriction brigade erroneously claimed cases would go up after England removed all vaccine passport requirements and mandatory masks; they have been proven spectacularly wrong as the opposite has occurred. Will these people admit they were wrong? Not a chance!

https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/cases?areaType=nation&areaName=England

Cases by date reported were averaging 94k a month ago, and after the mask mandate was lifted they really started to decline; the last 4 days have seen fewer than 50k.

The percentage change in 7 day case rates by specimen date shows that the rate of change has really picked up, with the latest data showing a reduction of 27%:

The overwhelming majority of cases are mild; the vast majority of the population has been vaccinated and many of those who have not been vaccinated have by now already been exposed.

It's time to go back to normal; those who wish to live their lives under restrictions can go and restrict themselves as far as I'm concerned.

 

[43066]

I'm not sure how the few restrictions we have left can be described as life stealing would seem to be little more than an inconvenience for most people.

But most of us don’t wish to continue to be inconvenienced by restrictions which have significant disbenefits and are out of all proportion to the risk posed by a virus, which isn’t remotely dangerous for most.

If you’re part of the small minority who are at risk of being more badly affected, you’re in the same boat you were in in 2019 when it comes to many other illnesses. Nobody (including you) was calling for mass restrictions on society then!

Yes I am aware that people have suffered in various ways which is not good but then are people who have died because of covid

I think you mean dying “with Covid”. Less then 20k have died “of” Covid, with no other conditions, according to the FOI request published on here.

Average age of deaths “with” Covid is still into the eighties, which most people would still consider a fair innings. Your previous comment mentioned several million in the “CEV” category - how many do these are also very elderly?

Nobody can expect to live forever and it isn’t reasonable to expect society to be inhibited to protect “CEVs” and elderly people. Other than victims of sudden death at a young age, every single person on this forum will one day be in the category of elderly and/or clinically vulnerable, some sooner than others.

Life doesn’t come with any guarantees and the key thing for most of us is living it to the full while you have it, rather than cowering in fear.

I have relatives and friends who have children and yes they are concerned about the loss of education for them, but certainly one of my relatives puts into context when his wife was seriously ill with of covid, loss of education verses the potential loss of their mother at a young age.

Not a likely scenario for the average risk profile to parents of school age children, likely in their 30s or 40s. And certainly not one that justifies the appalling impact on education.

In suspect you realise like but are, once again, trying to play on emotion rather than properly addressing the points put to you.

Covid is much more transmissable than flu and yes it appears to becoming milder but it seems to me its still not totally clear how it will pan out with potential new variants as yet.

That’s basically an argument for perpetual restrictions. You may want them but the rest of us, including the government, don’t. So they won’t be happening!

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.

It wont work and they will be more at risk. There’s nothing that can be done to prevent these groups being exposed. Sadly some will die, but that’s really no different to flu and other transmissible diseases.

What’s unacceptable is nobody being able to get a timely dental or GP appointment as we have seen for swathes of the past two years.

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?

I note @37424 still hasn’t answered these questions.

 

[BackOnTheTrain]

But most of us don’t wish to continue to be inconvenienced by restrictions which have significant disbenefits and are out of all proportion to the risk posed by a virus, which isn’t remotely dangerous for most.

If you’re part of the small minority who are at risk of being more badly affected, you’re in the same boat you were in in 2019 when it comes to many other illnesses. Nobody (including you) was calling for mass restrictions on society then!



I think you mean dying “with Covid”. Less then 20k have died “of” Covid, with no other conditions, according to the FOI request published on here.

Average age of deaths “with” Covid is still into the eighties, which most people would still consider a fair innings. Your previous comment mentioned several million in the “CEV” category - how many do these are also very elderly?

Nobody can expect to live forever and it isn’t reasonable to expect society to be inhibited to protect “CEVs” and elderly people. Other than victims of sudden death at a young age, every single person on this forum will one day be in the category of elderly and/or clinically vulnerable, some sooner than others.

Life doesn’t come with any guarantees and the key thing for most of us is living it to the full while you have it, rather than cowering in fear.



Not a likely scenario for the average risk profile to parents of school age children, likely in their 30s or 40s. And certainly not one that justifies the appalling impact on education.

In suspect you realise like but are, once again, trying to play on emotion rather than properly addressing the points put to you.



That’s basically an argument for perpetual restrictions. You may want them but the rest of us, including the government, don’t. So they won’t be happening!



It wont work and they will be more at risk. There’s nothing that can be done to prevent these groups being exposed. Sadly some will die, but that’s really no different to flu and other transmissible diseases.

What’s unacceptable is nobody being able to get a timely dental or GP appointment as we have seen for swathes of the past two years.



I note @37424 still hasn’t answered these questions.

I stopped reading at “less than 20k died of Covid”.

That’s incorrect.

It’s more like 140k.

You don’t understand the data you’re quoting.

Have a read of https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/60145237?at_medium=RSS&at_campaign=KARANGA

The start of that article is as follows:

Covid: Posts claiming only 17,000 died of virus 'factually incorrect'​

By Rachel Schraer
Health and disinformation reporter

Published29 January
Share
Related Topics

• Reality Check

IMAGE SOURCE, MATT FOWLER
A misleading claim that "only" 17,000 people in England and Wales have died of Covid has been circulating online. The UK's Office for National Statistics (ONS) has stepped in to correct the record - but not before the false claim went viral.

"It has become a weapon of the cruel and heartless to dismiss the deaths of the people we love."
Matt Fowler lost his dad to Covid-19 in April 2020. Ian Fowler was 56 at the time of his death, and lived with type 2 diabetes - which his son said had a "minor, barely perceptible impact on his life that he controlled with his diet".
But the suggestion that "only" 17,000 people in England and Wales have died of Covid - a figure arrived at by removing from the data anyone with a pre-existing health condition - completely discounts the deaths of people like Ian.
The true death toll is more than 140,000, the ONS says. That number is limited to deaths directly caused by the virus, not those "involving" Covid or people who happened to test positive but died of other causes.
There are other ways of calculating deaths by the virus, but all give figures in a similar ballpark.

 

[Freightmaster]

I stopped reading at “less than 20k died of Covid”.

That’s incorrect.

It’s more like 140k.

Yes, but the big question (that nobody can probably ever answer) is how many of those 140k
would have died anyway over the past 24 months, if Covid19 had never existed...?

According to the stats, the vast majority of people who died of/with Covid were over 75,
which is also the age range where people are most susceptible to other respiratory illnesses,
such as flu.

It's widely accepted that Covid has almost completely suppressed flu around the world for the
past two Winters, so it seems logical to assume that a significant proportion of those who have
died of Covid would have succumbed to flu or simply died of 'old age' anyway?


For those of you who are sceptical about death rates attributed to Covid,
have read of this blog by a Scottish Doctor:

https://drmalcolmkendrick.org/2022/...ns-on-the-infection-fatality-rate-of-covid19/







MARK

 

[43066]

I stopped reading at “less than 20k died of Covid”.

That’s incorrect.

It’s more like 140k.

You don’t understand the data you’re quoting.

Have a read of https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/60145237?at_medium=RSS&at_campaign=KARANGA

I understand it perfectly fine (thanks for the patronisation all the same).

Looking at the guy in that article, he’s clearly someone obese, in his late 50s, with type two diabetes. Hardly a picture of health! It’s the usual heart rending nonsense from the BBC and the argument that “if Covid hadn’t appeared he’d probably still be alive” ignores the fact that, had he not been obese, with type two diabetes, he’d likely also still be alive.

Despite this, given average age of death, this particular case was still something of statistical outlier and relatively unlucky.

Covid is generally a serious disease only for the elderly and infirm, with obesity a significant risk factor. Anyone suggesting otherwise is lying.

 

[bramling]

I understand it perfectly fine (thanks for the patronisation all the same).

Looking at the guy in that article, he’s clearly someone obese in their late 50s, with type two diabetes. Hardly a picture of health! The usual heart rending nonsense from the BBC and the argument that “if Covid hadn’t appeared he’d probably still be alive” ignores the fact that, had he not been obese, with type two diabetes, he’d likely also still be alive.

Covid is generally a serious disease only for the elderly and infirm. Anyone suggesting otherwise is lying.

There's certainly an element of irony that (some) people are allegedly scared for their health when it comes to Covid, but not so much when it comes to looking after other elements of their health, for example taking exercise and controlling their BMI.

 

[greyman42]

There's certainly an element of irony that (some) people are allegedly scared for their health when it comes to Covid, but not so much when it comes to looking after other elements of their health, for example taking exercise and controlling their BMI.

How very true.

 

[BackOnTheTrain]

Yes, but the big question (that nobody can probably ever answer) is how many of those 140k
would have died anyway over the past 24 months, if Covid19 had never existed...?

According to the stats, the vast majority of people who died of/with Covid were over 75,
which is also the age range where people are most susceptible to other respiratory illnesses,
such as flu.

It's widely accepted that Covid has almost completely suppressed flu around the world for the
past two Winters, so it seems logical to assume that a significant proportion of those who have
died of Covid would have succumbed to flu or simply died of 'old age' anyway?


For those of you who are sceptical about death rates attributed to Covid,
have read of this blog by a Scottish Doctor:

https://drmalcolmkendrick.org/2022/...ns-on-the-infection-fatality-rate-of-covid19/







MARK

I’ll just quote directly from the BBC article referenced previously, and say “While it's been made clear from the start of the pandemic that older and sicker people are at much higher risk from the virus, research has found on average people who died of Covid lost 10 years of life”. (The BBC article doesn’t give the source of the research mentioned.)

There are various “excess deaths” calculations that can be found too, although it’s a pretty blunt tool.

 

[Ediswan]

For those of you who are sceptical about death rates attributed to Covid,
have read of this blog by a Scottish Doctor:

https://drmalcolmkendrick.org/2022/...ns-on-the-infection-fatality-rate-of-covid19/

Far too long and waffly for me. I gave up when they could not spell acetaminophen correctly.

 

[VauxhallandI]

I’ll just quote directly from the BBC article referenced previously, and say “While it's been made clear from the start of the pandemic that older and sicker people are at much higher risk from the virus, research has found on average people who died of Covid lost 10 years of life”. (The BBC article doesn’t give the source of the research mentioned.)

There are various “excess deaths” calculations that can be found too, although it’s a pretty blunt tool.

Oh well it was the BBC you should have said, totally reliable.....

 

[yorkie]

Oh well it was the BBC you should have said, totally reliable.....

I reported that BBC article because it spreads misinformation and was disingenuous; I got a very defensive reply from the BBC but it didn't adequately answer my complaint.

The BBC cannot be relied upon to be impartial; some of their authors are better than others, but this is very much one of their poorer articles.

I’ll just quote directly from the BBC article referenced previously, and say “While it's been made clear from the start of the pandemic that older and sicker people are at much higher risk from the virus, research has found on average people who died of Covid lost 10 years of life”. (The BBC article doesn’t give the source of the research mentioned.)...

The average age of a Covid death is above the average age of all deaths so it seems a bit of a stretch for the BBC to claim that the average death resulted in 10 years of lost life; this would make the expected average age at death of those who died with Covid well into their 90s, despite the overwhelming majority of them having other conditions that would likely restrict their life expectancy or their quality of life.

I believe it's not a figure that can be relied upon to be accurate, but I don't think it's the sort of figure the BBC will be interested in "fact checking" because that wouldn't suit their agenda.

By the way I used to be quite pro-BBC before the pandemic.

 

[Freightmaster]

I’ll just quote directly from the BBC article referenced previously, and say “While it's been made clear from the start of the pandemic that older and sicker people are at much higher risk from the virus, research has found on average people who died of Covid lost 10 years of life”. (The BBC article doesn’t give the source of the research mentioned.)

While that may be true up to a point, in the 24 month period up February 2020, approximately 1.2 million people died in the UK,
so the 'shocking' figure of 140k Covid deaths in the following 24 months needs to be taken in context of the number who would have died
anyway since March 2020 if Covid had never existed in the first place - logic dictates that there must be an significant overlap due to the
age ranges of both groups - it's clearly disingenuous for the BBC/others to claim that the 140k would all have lived happily ever after for
another ten years or so if only we had had a New Zealand style lockdown!

There are various “excess deaths” calculations that can be found too, although it’s a pretty blunt tool.

While there were a large number of excess deaths in both of the main waves (particularly in April 2020 and January 2021),
some of these will have been due a combination of the NHS refusing to see non-Covid patients during the first wave and
elderly people with life threatening medical conditions being too scared to visit healthcare settings.

As I said in my previous post, I doubt we will ever know the exact breakdown of with/of/consequential.




MARK

 

[brad465]

LBC are reporting that next week all free LF and PCR tests will be scrapped:

Free Covid tests are set to be scrapped for everyone in govt announcement next week

Free PCR and lateral flow tests are set to be scrapped next week as the Government pushes forward with its 'living with Covid strategy', LBC can exclusively reveal.

www.lbc.co.uk

Free PCR and lateral flow tests are set to be scrapped next week as the Government pushes forward with its 'living with Covid strategy', LBC can exclusively reveal.

It means anyone wanting to test for Covid, including the vulnerable, school children, NHS and care workers, would have to pay to access tests.

This is despite the Department for Health saying only this morning that "testing continues to play an important role in helping people live their day to day lives, keep businesses running and keep young people in school".

It is part of the Government's plan to lead the country out of Covid and 'lead the world' in getting back to business as normal.

Staff at the UK Health Security Agency, formerly Public Health England, told LBC's Rachael Venables they are worried the plans will damage the UK's ability to spot and track new variants.

It is believed the Government will choose instead to rely on surveillance schemes, such as from the ONS, to keep an eye on Covid spread in the community.

Of course technically they weren't free, as our taxes paid for them, as well as for the various cronyism/lobbying contracts associated.

 

[RailExplorer]

LBC are reporting that next week all free LF and PCR tests will be scrapped:

Free Covid tests are set to be scrapped for everyone in govt announcement next week

Free PCR and lateral flow tests are set to be scrapped next week as the Government pushes forward with its 'living with Covid strategy', LBC can exclusively reveal.

www.lbc.co.uk

Of course technically they weren't free, as our taxes paid for them, as well as for the various cronyism/lobbying contracts associated.

Just heard this on LBC too (and it sounds like the next hour is discussing this). I do wonder how some people will survive without their twice weekly or even daily nasal swabs. It's become part of their life - just like picking up a mask for some people when leaving the house - both are a comfort blanket. If it truly was for their safety, I assume they will continue to pay for the tests as the virus hasn't gone away. It will be interesting to see. But hopefully, our cases plummet to zero (due to no testing) and we say goodbye to all covid related legislation.

 

[greyman42]

Just heard this on LBC too (and it sounds like the next hour is discussing this). I do wonder how some people will survive without their twice weekly or even daily nasal swabs. It's become part of their life - just like picking up a mask for some people when leaving the house - both are a comfort blanket. If it truly was for their safety, I assume they will continue to pay for the tests as the virus hasn't gone away. It will be interesting to see. But hopefully, our cases plummet to zero (due to no testing) and we say goodbye to all covid related legislation.

I was listening to James O'Bryan on LBC this morning and all he went on about was the thousands who are going to die because of the free tests being scrapped. I had to swap channels in the end.

 

[nw1]

LBC are reporting that next week all free LF and PCR tests will be scrapped:

Free Covid tests are set to be scrapped for everyone in govt announcement next week

Free PCR and lateral flow tests are set to be scrapped next week as the Government pushes forward with its 'living with Covid strategy', LBC can exclusively reveal.

www.lbc.co.uk

Of course technically they weren't free, as our taxes paid for them, as well as for the various cronyism/lobbying contracts associated.

They should only do this once the requirement to self-isolate has been lifted.

Otherwise, effectively, they are saying "we still need to be worried about Covid" which may cause people to feel obliged to take a test if they have a cough, sore throat, cold etc - and then forcing them to pay for it! Sounds, if anything, a little manipulative to me, a way to exploit people's fear of Covid to make money.

Likewise, are people going to have to pay for the privilege of ending self-isolation early?

Unless self-isolation is scrapped, this sounds like the worst of both worlds. Scrap self-isolation, or, if they don't want to do that, keep the free tests.

 

[43066]

They should only do this once the requirement to self-isolate has been lifted.

Otherwise, effectively, they are saying "we still need to be worried about Covid" which may cause people to feel obliged to take a test if they have a cough, sore throat, cold etc - and then forcing them to pay for it! Sounds, if anything, a little manipulative to me, a way to exploit people's fear of Covid to make money.

Likewise, are people going to have to pay for the privilege of ending self-isolation early?

Unless self-isolation is scrapped, this sounds like the worst of both worlds. Scrap self-isolation, or, if they don't want to do that, keep the free tests.

But surely you only need to isolate if you have a positive test result?!

No test = no isolation!

 

[nw1]

But surely you only need to isolate if you have a positive test result?!

No test = no isolation!

Except keeping isolation is sending out the message that we still need to be worried about Covid. As I said, if they do that, people might feel obliged to test. And what if your work mandates tests, and doesn't give out free tests itself?

 

[S&CLER]

I expect they will continue to be required for visitors to care homes for a while yet. I've been told I still can't go to see my friend in his care home on his 76th birthday tomorrow, as they are still locked down with 2 Covid cases. I haven't been able to see him face to face since 9 December. Even without the lockdown, the home was insisting on written proof of a negative test; they were also demanding a PCR test 48 hours before a booked visit and a negative LFT on the day.

 

[Dent]

They should only do this once the requirement to self-isolate has been lifted.

Otherwise, effectively, they are saying "we still need to be worried about Covid" which may cause people to feel obliged to take a test if they have a cough, sore throat, cold etc - and then forcing them to pay for it! Sounds, if anything, a little manipulative to me, a way to exploit people's fear of Covid to make money.

Likewise, are people going to have to pay for the privilege of ending self-isolation early?

Unless self-isolation is scrapped, this sounds like the worst of both worlds. Scrap self-isolation, or, if they don't want to do that, keep the free tests.

The detail is rather lacking, but I would expect this to accompany the end of self-isolation requirements, otherwise it would be unfair to require people to isolate and then have to pay to end their isolation.

I would also hope that any employer still requiring a negative test (hospital and care home staff?) for work would provide them.

This is a rather surprising announcement. Free testing obviously has to end eventually as it is costing a lot of public money, but it would have been sensible to keep testing readily available for at least a few weeks after all remaining restrictions are removed in order to monitor what effect the end of restrictions has.

 

[nw1]

The detail is rather lacking, but I would expect this to accompany the end of self-isolation requirements, otherwise it would be unfair to require people to isolate and then have to pay to end their isolation.

Good, I hope so.

I would also hope that any employer still requiring a negative test (hospital and care home staff?) for work would provide them.

I'd certainly hope so, but you never know.

This is a rather surprising announcement. Free testing obviously has to end eventually as it is costing a lot of public money, but it would have been sensible to keep testing readily available for at least a few weeks after all remaining restrictions are removed in order to monitor what effect the end of restrictions has.

Yes, I would agree there. Scrap the restrictions, and once done, then you can end free testing. Of course this is the Conservative Party we are talking about here, so why am I not surprised....

 

[brad465]

They should only do this once the requirement to self-isolate has been lifted.

Otherwise, effectively, they are saying "we still need to be worried about Covid" which may cause people to feel obliged to take a test if they have a cough, sore throat, cold etc - and then forcing them to pay for it! Sounds, if anything, a little manipulative to me, a way to exploit people's fear of Covid to make money.

Likewise, are people going to have to pay for the privilege of ending self-isolation early?

Unless self-isolation is scrapped, this sounds like the worst of both worlds. Scrap self-isolation, or, if they don't want to do that, keep the free tests.

Given Johnson recently said he hoped to end that requirement a month early it's not beyond the bounds the two happen together.

UKHSA data dashboard

Overall summary of the respiratory viruses in circulation within the UK

coronavirus.data.gov.uk

Close it down?

 

[Ediswan]

This is a rather surprising announcement.

It is not an annoucement. It is a news report with no source quoted.

 

[Dent]

The detail is rather lacking, but I would expect this to accompany the end of self-isolation requirements, otherwise it would be unfair to require people to isolate and then have to pay to end their isolation.

Looking at it again, this is around the time that the isolation requirement is already expected to end anyway, so it looks most likely that this will accompany the end of isolation. Alternatively they could send a free box of tests to anyone required to isolate, but I can't see much appetite for introducing another process when the whole system is going to end soon anyway.

 

[MikeWM]

Close it down?

I looked at the first few questions to see if that was an option. It wasn't, at least not before I got bored and gave up

 

[102 fan]

As you know N Ireland has now dropped restrictions too. Sorry if this has been talked about before, but if an employer states staff still have to wear a mask, does the employee have to?

 

[Dent]

It is not an annoucement. It is a news report with no source quoted.

True, although there is a history of policy changes coming out via unsubstantiated media rumours before any official announcement.

 

[danm14]

As you know N Ireland has now dropped restrictions too. Sorry if this has been talked about before, but if an employer states staff still have to wear a mask, does the employee have to?

Unfortunately, as far as I am aware, a requirement for an employee to wear a mask is not and never was in itself a legal issue. This is, of course, provided reasonable accommodation is made for those who cannot do so due to a disability (which meets the definition in the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 - the Equality Act 2010 does not apply in NI), unless making such accomodation is not reasonable. The vast, vast majority of those who were exempt under the previous regulations would not meet this criteria.

 

[Smidster]

This is a rather surprising announcement. Free testing obviously has to end eventually as it is costing a lot of public money, but it would have been sensible to keep testing readily available for at least a few weeks after all remaining restrictions are removed in order to monitor what effect the end of restrictions has.

On the whole I support this plan - if you are going to treat Covid like other illnesses then you need to do that and we don't have people swabbing themselves every day to check they are still not ill

On your point around monitoring impact of ending restrictions - we will still have lots of ways to do that including the ONS survey and, slightly morbidly, healthcare data - if there is a problem we will know

We will find out next week