• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Omicron variant and the measures implemented in response to it

Status
Not open for further replies.

Simon11

Established Member
Joined
7 Nov 2010
Messages
1,335
Which is what I would have expected - at that point in time it was impossible for anyone to predict with certainty what was going to happen.

That's why I was rather concerned to see people on these forums, at that point, stating with absolute confidence that the numbers would never get anywhere near the ones I was presenting.

What we did know at that point in time was that Omicron had the ability to spread very fast. In fact it can spread even faster than what I posted.

What we didn't really know was where it would peak, or what proportion of cases would translate into severe illness. And the fact is, that if the hospitalisation rate were a bit higher than it looks like it is, we would now have very large numbers of people in hospital, because the speed of spread and the apparent level of peak have already been shown to be capable of producing millions of infections concurrently.

That's why some people think that not attempting to put in place any meaningful restrictions a month ago was a reckless gamble. The fact that it looks like we have probably got away with that gamble doesn't mean it wasn't a risky one.

It would have been very risky to put in tough restrictions which would lead to increased suicides, impacting mental health, impacting millions of hospitality and self employed workers, impacted vulnerable women, impacting peoples health. I could go on…

Based on previous pandemics, it is well known that viruses evolve and overtime become milder. Same pattern being seen here from the start to alpha, delta and the latest one.

Every time new restrictions and scares are mentioned, it impacts everyone in the country, of which there are 67,000,000 of us in the UK. Around 110 are dying a die with/from covid, mostly older people. We need to (unfortunately) focus on the other 66,999,890 people in the UK today.
 
Last edited:
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

BRX

Established Member
Joined
20 Oct 2008
Messages
3,644
It would have been very risky to put in tough restrictions which would lead to increased suicides, impacting mental health, impacting millions of hospitality and self employed workers, impacted vulnerable women, impacting peoples health. I could go on…

Based on previous pandemics, it is well known that viruses evolve and overtime become milder. Same pattern being seen here from the start to alpha, delta and the latest one.

Every time new restrictions and scares are mentioned, it impacts everyone in the country, of which there are 67,000,000 of us in the UK. Around 110 are dying a die with/from covid, mostly older people. We need to (unfortunately) focus on the other 66,999,890 people in the UK today.
Yes, I'm familiar with all the old arguments. The risk was not to do with the number of people dying of Covid though, it was the risks associated with an entire health system becoming non functional. This affects everyone with health problems of all kinds.
 

brad465

Established Member
Joined
11 Aug 2010
Messages
7,076
Location
Taunton or Kent
With 1 in 15 people expected to have had Covid in the week after Christmas surely that means we must be very close to the peak of the Omicron wave, and within a few weeks (surely by Feb) that cases will begin to fall quite quickly?
Yes that level of infection would get through half the population in 7-8 weeks. This level wouldn't be sustained for anywhere near that long, especially if the rate peaks even higher than 1 in 15, and as you suggest the wave would burn out very quickly after that.
 

danm14

Member
Joined
24 Jun 2017
Messages
712
Northern Ireland has removed the "severe distress" exemption from wearing a face covering, and the onus is now on the person to prove medical exemption. Businesses are also legally required to enforce the requirement.

The Northern Ireland Executive has indefinitely extended the grace period during which the above regulations will not be enforced, and various DUP MLAs have stated that the regulations are expected to be officially dropped in due course.
 

Eyersey468

Established Member
Joined
14 Sep 2018
Messages
2,172
The Northern Ireland Executive has indefinitely extended the grace period during which the above regulations will not be enforced, and various DUP MLAs have stated that the regulations are expected to be officially dropped in due course.
That's good
 

NorthKent1989

Established Member
Joined
13 May 2017
Messages
1,914
There was a fairly major one over the 'millennium' too, this is from January 6 2000 and pretty much could have been written today. I don't however remember the country shutting down and actually I remember a massive party taking place at some dome or other, with everyone holding hands and stuff.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/january/6/newsid_2477000/2477943.stm

Amazing how things were different twenty years ago, I do wonder how society in the 1990s or 2000s would have handled Covid and the restrictions.
 

VauxhallandI

Established Member
Joined
26 Dec 2012
Messages
2,744
Location
Cheshunt
Amazing how things were different twenty years ago, I do wonder how society in the 1990s or 2000s would have handled Covid and the restrictions.
I’ve said it all along, without social media and the advances on WFH technology none of this would have happened.
 

Nicholas Lewis

Established Member
Joined
9 Aug 2019
Messages
6,160
Location
Surrey
Yes, I'm familiar with all the old arguments. The risk was not to do with the number of people dying of Covid though, it was the risks associated with an entire health system becoming non functional. This affects everyone with health problems of all kinds.
Which is what is starting to happen as the level of hospitalised continues to increase around the country certain trusts are ceasing all non urgent activities and this has a knock impact maybe not today, tomorrow or next week but it will. Whilst im unconvinced that anything short of a stay at home order could have changed the outcome the govt once committing to nothing more than plan B should be doing everything they can to ensure the NHS can ride this out. Current peak cases are 28th December at 243k although with change in testing regime announced today im not sure we will now have a true handle on cases anyhow but based on specimen date it looks like the peak maybe that date. If so with a 10 day lag on hospitalisation puts peak admissions early next week although will vary by region.

One positive is NHS England hospital data today shows numbers on mechanical ventilation has fallen and is broadly flatlined over the last week despite significant increase in admissions and total hospitalised.
 

bramling

Veteran Member
Joined
5 Mar 2012
Messages
17,788
Location
Hertfordshire / Teesdale
Which is what I would have expected - at that point in time it was impossible for anyone to predict with certainty what was going to happen.

That's why I was rather concerned to see people on these forums, at that point, stating with absolute confidence that the numbers would never get anywhere near the ones I was presenting.

What we did know at that point in time was that Omicron had the ability to spread very fast. In fact it can spread even faster than what I posted.

What we didn't really know was where it would peak, or what proportion of cases would translate into severe illness. And the fact is, that if the hospitalisation rate were a bit higher than it looks like it is, we would now have very large numbers of people in hospital, because the speed of spread and the apparent level of peak have already been shown to be capable of producing millions of infections concurrently.

That's why some people think that not attempting to put in place any meaningful restrictions a month ago was a reckless gamble. The fact that it looks like we have probably got away with that gamble doesn't mean it wasn't a risky one.

I wouldn’t say it was a gamble. Indeed had restrictions been implemented I’d say there was a *certainty* we’d have seen - to use the current “in” phrase - a tsunami of business failures.

I think people would have been very miffed to have been on the receiving end of that, to then find out not only that it was completely unnecessary, but that the data had hinted towards that beforehand.

We have the backbenchers and some others to credit for this, for I think Johnson would have cracked otherwise. Indeed I suspect there was already a desire for some level of restrictions simply to appease the NHS. We got that with the “plan B”, which will no doubt be with us through to the mid-summer now, despite having quite evidently made zero impact.

I don’t think it’s tenable to go for lockdown measures based on “could happen” scenarios, especially with all the dubious modelling. We have the vaccines now, and I don’t sense much sign of hesitation to go out from the population.

Of course, Sky managed to find someone on the street saying “I think there should be another lockdown.” I can’t help but find this extremely infuriating, firstly that people seem to want it without actually knowing what deliverable they want to achieve from it, but also the fact that people like Sky fail to challenge people, at the very least they should be asking such people *why* they want a lockdown, and really probing into their reasoning.

Amazing how things were different twenty years ago, I do wonder how society in the 1990s or 2000s would have handled Covid and the restrictions.

In the 1990s I’m not sure we’d have been aware of it to anything like the same extent. It wouldn’t have been much different to a bad flu year.

Post 97 we’d no doubt have had the Blair solemn face on our TV screens. It’s certainly interesting to consider how Blair would have handled it. He’s have been afraid of bad publicity for sure.
 
Last edited:

brad465

Established Member
Joined
11 Aug 2010
Messages
7,076
Location
Taunton or Kent
We have the backbenchers and some others to credit for this, for I think Johnson would have cracked otherwise. Indeed I suspect there was already a desire for some level of restrictions simply to appease the NHS. We got that with the “plan B”, which will no doubt be with us through to the mid-summer now, despite having quite evidently made zero impact.
While I wouldn't say this won't happen for sure, there are a number of influences that could force the plan's end sooner than that. Many backbencher's praised Johnson today for holding his nerve and not bringing anything else in, but when infections rapidly decline away, they will start calling for Plan B to go, and the longer he waits, the louder the calls will get; 99 backbenchers were of coursed opposed to the plan coming into force in the first place. Another factor to consider is the local elections in May: if the covid situation has vastly improved by the time they come round, Johnson could easily scrap all measures and claim victory in a bid for support. He did also relax travel rules today despite a supposedly dire situation at home, and while travel is still not hassle free regarding covid, the fact he did it now shows he can act/be made to act in such a way.
 

Bantamzen

Established Member
Joined
4 Dec 2013
Messages
9,761
Location
Baildon, West Yorkshire
Yes, I'm familiar with all the old arguments. The risk was not to do with the number of people dying of Covid though, it was the risks associated with an entire health system becoming non functional. This affects everyone with health problems of all kinds.
Taking of old arguments, the "NHS will be overwhelmed" is one that is trotted out every year, covid or no covid.
 

DelayRepay

Established Member
Joined
21 May 2011
Messages
2,929
Of course, Sky managed to find someone on the street saying “I think there should be another lockdown.” I can’t help but find this extremely infuriating, firstly that people seem to want it without actually knowing what deliverable they want to achieve from it, but also the fact that people like Sky fail to challenge people, at the very least they should be asking such people *why* they want a lockdown, and really probing into their reasoning.

I think they should ask these people why they are out on the street talking to journalists. Everyone can choose to stay at home, if they really think that's the best course of action. Yes, there will be consequences, they might get fired from their job, but that's no different to the consequences of an enforced lockdown.

Taking of old arguments, the "NHS will be overwhelmed" is one that is trotted out every year, covid or no covid.
Indeed. If I am reading the situation correctly, the c.17k people in hospital with/because of Covid certainly won't be helping the situation, but the real issue is a staff shortage due to NHS employees themselves being infected. It is not clear to me how restrictions on society would have made much difference.

Presumably, some of these NHS staff become infected at work, which would still have happened as they cannot work from home. But I guess there would have been fewer infections amongst NHS staff because general restrictions on socialising would also have applied to them. It seems a strange way to tackle a staffing crisis though, to suggest locking a whole population down because one sector is suffering a staff shortage. I would also guess the average NHS employee is probably more cautious than the average member of the public, so a large number of NHS staff are likely to be amongst those who changed their behaviour before Christmas, reducing social mixing without being ordered to do so by the Government.

Regardless of our views on restrictions, it's hard to see what restrictions could have been imposed in the run up to Christmas that would have prevented the current NHS staff shortage. It is notable that organisations like the NHS Confederation, who have previously suggested restrictions would be needed, are now calling for help to address the staff shortages:


Millions of patients will suffer worsening quality of care unless ministers take immediate action to alleviate the staffing crisis engulfing the NHS, health chiefs have warned.

The NHS Confederation, which represents the whole healthcare system, is tonight calling for a range of new measures to be implemented in the NHS in England to help overstretched hospitals and struggling ambulance, mental health, community, GP and social care services cope with “widespread” shortages of medics and health workers.

Tens of thousands of medical students should be deployed on to wards and other healthcare settings, NHS and social care staff must be granted priority access to lateral flow and PCR tests, and the self-isolation period should be reviewed to see if it can be slashed from 10 days to five, as has happened in the US and France, it said.

The call came as growing numbers of operations are being cancelled, with more than 20 NHS trusts declaring an “internal critical incident” in recent days as they struggle to cope with the intense Covid pressure. It emerged on Wednesday that at least four more NHS trusts have taken that step, the highest form of alert any hospital can issue, as had the entire NHS in Norfolk.

NHS staff absences have now spiralled to double what they normally would be at this time of year, and 17,276 people are in hospital in the UK with Covid – up 58% in a week – as Omicron continues to put “enormous strain” on every part of the health service, the NHS Confederation added.

The absence of tens of thousands of staff is already having a “detrimental” impact on the ability of the NHS to provide healthcare, it warned, and said that, without further measures, the staffing crisis “threatens the quality of patient care”.

Given the worsening situation, there should also be “explicit acknowledgment” from the national regulators that clinical tasks “might need to be allocated in ways which would not normally be recognised as best practice”, the NHS Confederation said.

Matthew Taylor, its chief executive, told the Guardian that in the last 24 hours hospital bosses had become “extremely concerned” about the widening ratio of staff to patients.

Boris Johnson insisted on Wednesday he was right not to take any further action.

The prime minister told MPs the cabinet had agreed to keep the existing plan B restrictions and ease travel testing rules. He also confirmed plans being implemented across the UK to end the requirement for confirmatory PCR tests for asymptomatic people who test positive using a lateral flow device (LFD).

An estimated 3.7 million people in the UK had Covid in the week ending 31 December, the highest number since comparable figures began in autumn 2020, the Office for National Statistics (ONS) said. In England one in 15 people in private households had Covid-19, according to ONS estimates. The level is one in 10 in London.

A further 194,747 lab-confirmed Covid-19 cases were recorded in the UK as of 9am on Wednesday, while 334 more deaths were recorded – although this figure includes a backlog of hospital data from England since 1 January.

“It’s clear that we are facing a staffing crisis in the NHS, with a number of hospitals telling us they have around 10% of their staff in self-isolation or on sick leave for other reasons,” Taylor told the Guardian. “This is pushing up the ratio of staff to patients to levels hospitals are extremely concerned about.

“The prime minister’s attempts to reassure the public that the NHS is not being overwhelmed will not chime with the experience of staff working in some parts of the NHS. The government now needs to do all it can to mobilise more staff and other resources for the NHS to get through this extremely challenging period.”

While he welcomed Johnson’s announcement that 100,000 critical workers will get direct access to testing from next week, the move “does not go far enough”, Taylor said, and NHS, social care and other key workers should also have “priority access” to tests.

He said there was “merit” in reviewing the self-isolation period “to see if the evidence supports a halving of the period to five days”. “We also need other short-term measures, including deploying medical students on wards and taking other steps to cover rota gaps,” he added.

All of Greater Manchester’s 17 hospitals have postponed non-urgent surgery. Its healthcare system will not necessarily be able to “ride out” the wave of Omicron infections, the mayor, Andy Burnham, said, with the number of Covid patients in the region’s hospitals almost tripling in the past two weeks, from 346 people to 1,020.

Cara Charles-Banks, the chief executive of the Royal United Hospitals Bath trust, one of those to declare an internal critical incident, said it had done so on New Year’s Eve “due to ongoing pressures caused by both Covid and non-Covid patients, sickness among our staff and availability of beds.”

University Hospitals Dorset, which runs acute hospitals in Bournemouth and Poole, is preparing to cancel some routine operations after also declaring a critical incident. On Wednesday Poole hospital had only four free beds while Bournemouth had 25.

The same level of sickness absence prompted West Suffolk hospital to join the lengthening list of trusts declaring an incident. Both the acute trusts which provide care to people in Bristol, North Somerset and South Gloucestershire also declared an internal critical incident over the bank holiday weekend.

The chief executive of one trust in the north of England said it has had to scale back non-urgent surgery after the number of Covid inpatients it is treating soared by 80% since Christmas Eve.

“We are doing priority one and priority two surgical cases, with others having to be cancelled,” the chief executive told the Guardian. Their trust is also redeploying staff because 10% of frontline personnel are off sick.

“The NHS runs hot all of the time so it doesn’t have the reserve for extraordinary events. Something has to give and, as in previous waves, it will be the care that can be delayed and it will be the goodwill and potentially the wellbeing of staff.”

I think Boris Johnson made the right decision before Christmas. It is possible to make the right decision for the wrong reason, which I think is what happened here, but that doesn't make it the wrong decision.
 
Last edited:

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
39,114
Location
Yorks
Of course, Sky managed to find someone on the street saying “I think there should be another lockdown.” I can’t help but find this extremely infuriating, firstly that people seem to want it without actually knowing what deliverable they want to achieve from it, but also the fact that people like Sky fail to challenge people, at the very least they should be asking such people *why* they want a lockdown, and really probing into their reasoning.

Same on Radio 2 yesterday. They didn't know what restrictions they wanted, or what they thought they would achieve (in spite of Jeremy Vine pressing them for this) but they felt sure that some sort of restrictions were necessary. It's almost like they form a comfort blanket.
 

birchesgreen

Established Member
Joined
16 Jun 2020
Messages
5,196
Location
Birmingham
Of course, Sky managed to find someone on the street saying “I think there should be another lockdown.” I can’t help but find this extremely infuriating, firstly that people seem to want it without actually knowing what deliverable they want to achieve from it, but also the fact that people like Sky fail to challenge people, at the very least they should be asking such people *why* they want a lockdown, and really probing into their reasoning.
As with any issue you ask the "man in the street", its pointless and worthless "journalism".

Happened all the time with brexit for example.
 

big_rig

Member
Joined
21 Aug 2020
Messages
394
Location
London
While I wouldn't say this won't happen for sure, there are a number of influences that could force the plan's end sooner than that. Many backbencher's praised Johnson today for holding his nerve and not bringing anything else in, but when infections rapidly decline away, they will start calling for Plan B to go, and the longer he waits, the louder the calls will get; 99 backbenchers were of coursed opposed to the plan coming into force in the first place. Another factor to consider is the local elections in May: if the covid situation has vastly improved by the time they come round, Johnson could easily scrap all measures and claim victory in a bid for support. He did also relax travel rules today despite a supposedly dire situation at home, and while travel is still not hassle free regarding covid, the fact he did it now shows he can act/be made to act in such a way.
I was watching a clip of I think it was Theresa May questioning Johnson in parliament, where he intimated that ‘Plan B’ will not be renewed on the 26th January, which is the next review point. He was probably bigging it up for the audience but that is one potential option. He also talked specifically about a future where masks are not worn on the tube. This may have been in his press conference actually. His speech in parliament was very political and was basically saying it’ll be Tory freedom versus Labour lockdown, which I think is a welcome step as it starts to get rid of this ridiculous pretence that politics and democracy should be suspended indefinitely as we ‘follow the science.’ I think Patrick Vallance has started to understand this as he looked very grumpy at the conference and his interventions were of little value. Whitty is obviously the favoured one and I think he is more on ‘team freedom’ if you will.
 

duncanp

Established Member
Joined
16 Aug 2012
Messages
4,856
Taking of old arguments, the "NHS will be overwhelmed" is one that is trotted out every year, covid or no covid.

What the main news channels don't tell you is that a large proportion of the sickness absences within the NHS are not due to COVID-19.

The Birmingham Mail reports that the NHS trust which runs the Queen Elzabeth Hospital has 1,800 staff (8.2% of the workforce) off sick at the moment, but only 600 of those are off sick due to COVID-19.

"The NHS will be overwhelmed" is an emotive argument that is being trotted out at the moment, but you need to define what you mean by the NHS being "overwhelmed", and have some metrics for measuring this.

Long waits at A&E and cancelled operations are the norm every winter, and this situation did not start when the Conservatives came to power in 2010.

But if we want the NHS to improve, the money has got to come from somewhere. This is what annoys me when people complain about the proposal to raise the age of eligibility for free prescriptions in England from 60 to state pension age. Some people, including me, will be adversely affected, but the proposal will bring in extra money for the NHS.

The money needed to improve and reform the NHS doesn't grow on trees, and it is time people realised this. My only concern is that any extra money actually goes towards improving patient care, and that we see some results, rather than it all being swallowed up in an ever increasing pile of bureaucracy and red tape.
 

35B

Established Member
Joined
19 Dec 2011
Messages
2,296
What the main news channels don't tell you is that a large proportion of the sickness absences within the NHS are not due to COVID-19.

The Birmingham Mail reports that the NHS trust which runs the Queen Elzabeth Hospital has 1,800 staff (8.2% of the workforce) off sick at the moment, but only 600 of those are off sick due to COVID-19.

"The NHS will be overwhelmed" is an emotive argument that is being trotted out at the moment, but you need to define what you mean by the NHS being "overwhelmed", and have some metrics for measuring this.

Long waits at A&E and cancelled operations are the norm every winter, and this situation did not start when the Conservatives came to power in 2010.

But if we want the NHS to improve, the money has got to come from somewhere. This is what annoys me when people complain about the proposal to raise the age of eligibility for free prescriptions in England from 60 to state pension age. Some people, including me, will be adversely affected, but the proposal will bring in extra money for the NHS.

The money needed to improve and reform the NHS doesn't grow on trees, and it is time people realised this. My only concern is that any extra money actually goes towards improving patient care, and that we see some results, rather than it all being swallowed up in an ever increasing pile of bureaucracy and red tape.
Out of interest, what would the normal absence rate be without Covid? Without that, neither what the press are reporting nor your analysis have the necessary context.

If the normal absence rate were 1200, then it’s not hard to imagine that half as many again might tip a tight resourcing situation into critical.

I don’t dispute that the NHS is running too lean, and has done for years, but assuming that more money is the answer begs a number of questions about how it would be used.
 

Bantamzen

Established Member
Joined
4 Dec 2013
Messages
9,761
Location
Baildon, West Yorkshire
Same on Radio 2 yesterday. They didn't know what restrictions they wanted, or what they thought they would achieve (in spite of Jeremy Vine pressing them for this) but they felt sure that some sort of restrictions were necessary. It's almost like they form a comfort blanket.
It feels very much like a case of Stockholm Syndrome. On Christmas Eve my team had a meeting to "discuss the impacts of the further restrictions". Everyone but me thought that it would be necessary to have more, but when I asked why the only answer they could come with was that restrictions help stop the spread. They couldn't explain why they thought they worked, nor why the data just doesn't support the notion that they work. All they could say is "we need them".

What the main news channels don't tell you is that a large proportion of the sickness absences within the NHS are not due to COVID-19.

The Birmingham Mail reports that the NHS trust which runs the Queen Elzabeth Hospital has 1,800 staff (8.2% of the workforce) off sick at the moment, but only 600 of those are off sick due to COVID-19.

"The NHS will be overwhelmed" is an emotive argument that is being trotted out at the moment, but you need to define what you mean by the NHS being "overwhelmed", and have some metrics for measuring this.

Long waits at A&E and cancelled operations are the norm every winter, and this situation did not start when the Conservatives came to power in 2010.

But if we want the NHS to improve, the money has got to come from somewhere. This is what annoys me when people complain about the proposal to raise the age of eligibility for free prescriptions in England from 60 to state pension age. Some people, including me, will be adversely affected, but the proposal will bring in extra money for the NHS.

The money needed to improve and reform the NHS doesn't grow on trees, and it is time people realised this. My only concern is that any extra money actually goes towards improving patient care, and that we see some results, rather than it all being swallowed up in an ever increasing pile of bureaucracy and red tape.
And how many of those 600 would have been off had they not tested themselves?
 

duncanp

Established Member
Joined
16 Aug 2012
Messages
4,856
It feels very much like a case of Stockholm Syndrome. On Christmas Eve my team had a meeting to "discuss the impacts of the further restrictions". Everyone but me thought that it would be necessary to have more, but when I asked why the only answer they could come with was that restrictions help stop the spread. They couldn't explain why they thought they worked, nor why the data just doesn't support the notion that they work. All they could say is "we need them".


And how many of those 600 would have been off had they not tested themselves?

A fair few, I would imagine.

No doubt some of the NHS staff are off sick due to stress.

Fair enough, but this means that the working environment is more stressful for those who are still at work, which increases the likelihood of more staff going off sick with stress.

There is no easy solution to all of this, but one thing that could be done is be more strict with people who go to A&E with things that could or should be treated elsewhere.

I know that some people go to A&E because they can't get a GP appointment, but going to A&E is not the answer.
 

DustyBin

Established Member
Joined
20 Sep 2020
Messages
3,632
Location
First Class
A fair few, I would imagine.

No doubt some of the NHS staff are off sick due to stress.

Fair enough, but this means that the working environment is more stressful for those who are still at work, which increases the likelihood of more staff going off sick with stress.

There is no easy solution to all of this, but one thing that could be done is be more strict with people who go to A&E with things that could or should be treated elsewhere.

I know that some people go to A&E because they can't get a GP appointment, but going to A&E is not the answer.

This a huge problem, certainly according to a relative who works in an A&E department.
 

Dent

Member
Joined
4 Feb 2015
Messages
1,120
I was watching a clip of I think it was Theresa May questioning Johnson in parliament, where he intimated that ‘Plan B’ will not be renewed on the 26th January, which is the next review point.

It's not the next review point, it is the end point of the legislation. Any extension after that date would require another vote in parliament.
 

brad465

Established Member
Joined
11 Aug 2010
Messages
7,076
Location
Taunton or Kent
The Government has now admitted it reintroduced face masks into schools on the back of inconclusive evidence, which if anything proves it was done for the sake of "doing something":


The government admits the evidence for using masks in schools to reduce spread of Covid is "not conclusive".
The uncertainty is acknowledged in a review used by ministers in England to make their decision to introduce face coverings in classrooms.
The government's own study in the autumn did not provide proof of a statistically significant impact.
The evidence review says other studies have provided mixed results, but taken together suggest they may help.
The review has only just been published following the announcement on Monday about the return of face coverings in classrooms.
It includes the results of a study in 123 schools in England which used masks and compared that to others that did not during the Delta wave of Covid. The UK is currently experiencing the spread of an even more infectious variant - Omicron - but there is not enough data yet on this one and masks.
Schools where face coverings were used in October 2021 saw a reduction two to three weeks later in Covid absences from 5.3% to 3% - a drop of 2.3 percentage points.
In schools which did not use face coverings absences fell from 5.3% to 3.6% - a fall of 1.7 percentage points.
It said this was not statistically significant and the greater reduction in schools where masks were worn could be down to chance.
The review also acknowledges the use of face coverings could harm learning.
But a full analysis of the costs versus benefits of the policy has not been done.
This is despite 94% of school leaders and teachers saying it made communication between teachers and pupils more difficult.
Some 80% of pupils also said it made communication harder, but 70% said it made them feel safer.
The review said a "balanced judgement" had been made.
Ministers have maintained face coverings have a material impact, but will not be used for a "day longer than necessary".
Susan Hopkins, chief medical adviser to the UK Health Security Agency, said: "We support the Department for Education's decision to reintroduce the use of face masks in secondary schools temporarily whilst Covid rates remain high."
 

kristiang85

Established Member
Joined
23 Jan 2018
Messages
2,658
The Government has now admitted it reintroduced face masks into schools on the back of inconclusive evidence, which if anything proves it was done for the sake of "doing something":


So they made a decision based on that it "might (but probably won't)" help stop the spread of Omicron, versus the "definite downsides in terms of child learning, development, communication and mental health".

Right.

If only there was a teaching union of some sort to stand up against this kind of nonsense...
 

danm14

Member
Joined
24 Jun 2017
Messages
712
Looks like domestic vaccine passports will remain even if Plan B is removed at the end of the month.

People who have not had a booster jab will be denied entry to large venues and the right to quarantine-free international travel under plans being considered by ministers.
 

kristiang85

Established Member
Joined
23 Jan 2018
Messages
2,658
Looks like domestic vaccine passports will remain even if Plan B is removed at the end of the month.


That is insane. I can kind of see if no jabs at all (however I don't agree with that), but a 20/30/40yr old could have had two jabs and COVID, and would have a perfectly set up immune system for it, yet be denied access to these things. And it makes not a blind bit of difference to transmission and outcomes.

Surely this is not a good use of NHS resources?
 

MikeWM

Established Member
Joined
26 Mar 2010
Messages
4,422
Location
Ely
Prompted by something I just saw on Twitter, I took another look at that Government 'masks in schools' paper and I'm trying (and failing) to understand this table:

1641475226983.png

And the weighting is justified as follows : 'After applying the weighting, the initial COVID-19 absence rate for the control group increases to match the initial rate of the treatment group. This allows us to assess what the change in absence in the control group would likely have been had the control group started with the same initial absence rate as the treatment group; if both groups were to start at the same initial absence rate, it is likely the absence rate in both groups would decrease across the treatment period, but the absence rate would decrease more for the treatment group.'

I'm struggling to see how this is significantly different from simply saying 'we started with two rather different things, but we wanted to try to compare them anyway, so we used some obscure maths (apparently using a method only invented in 2012) to manipulate them to pretend they were the same, and - what luck! - that ends up reaching the conclusions we were hoping for in the first place'.

What a load of nonsense.
 

bramling

Veteran Member
Joined
5 Mar 2012
Messages
17,788
Location
Hertfordshire / Teesdale

Bikeman78

Established Member
Joined
26 Apr 2018
Messages
4,577
The Government has now admitted it reintroduced face masks into schools on the back of inconclusive evidence, which if anything proves it was done for the sake of "doing something":

The whole thing is a farce for those that travel by train (and presumably bus) to get to school. My observations suggest that most kids have their mask on their chin or don't bother at all.
 

MikeWM

Established Member
Joined
26 Mar 2010
Messages
4,422
Location
Ely
Looks like domestic vaccine passports will remain even if Plan B is removed at the end of the month.


Ah, the term 'refuseniks' now referring to those with 'only' 2 jabs!

Yet again entirely as predicted by the 'conspiracy theorists' - if you don't get as many as the government have told you to (and number 4 will be here soon enough), you'll be treated exactly the same as those of us who never started on the treadmill in the first place.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top