Omicron variant and the measures implemented in response to it

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

MikeWM

Established Member
Joined
26 Mar 2010
Messages
2,996
Location
Ely
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.

Yes, same here, this has been by far the best place I've seen throughout this whole time for interesting discussion, which probably explains why I've posted so much here on the subject :) And I've learned a lot too, again about something that previously I knew little.

I think that study was actually brought to my attention by Karol Sikora, who has been a rather reasonable voice throughout (and he must be deeply frustrated that his continual warnings about undiagnosed cancers have turned out in exactly the way he feared).
 

brad465

Established Member
Joined
11 Aug 2010
Messages
4,410
Location
Maidstone
The FT are reporting that Ministers are confident that many restrictions in place will end on the 26th January:


Ministers are increasingly optimistic that many of the restrictions to prevent the spread of coronavirus will end in England on January 26...
 

joncombe

Member
Joined
6 Nov 2016
Messages
686
The FT are reporting that Ministers are confident that many restrictions in place will end on the 26th January:

"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).
 

yorkie

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
6 Jun 2005
Messages
58,006
Location
Yorkshire
@BRX people can judge what SAGE said and compare this with the reality for themselves and make up their own minds. I'm not going interested in getting into a debate regarding semantics and minutiae.

The FT are reporting that Ministers are confident that many restrictions in place will end on the 26th January:

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.




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.
Since I initially replied to the above, the BBC have produced an article on this:

It's a long article; what I've read elsewhere agrees with some of it more than other bits, but this bit is worth pointing out:
The best protection against Covid comes from having an infection and being vaccinated too, several pieces of research have found.
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 anaesthetist goes on to say:
"I am most definitely pro-choice and pro-vaccine, which is a position some find too complex to support," he says.
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.

Given he has worked with Covid patients from the beginning, it's very likely he has in fact been exposed to the virus multiple times, and may well have already got sufficient immunity to render a vaccine redundant, but it would be almost impossible to prove this either way. While I'd be making sure, by getting the vaccine, I don't think it is right to say he is categorically wrong or that he should not have the right to make this choice.

But of course this encounter will fuel debate on all sides; it's absolutely clear we in the midst of a huge information / culture war, between those who want to return normal vs those who appear to be keen to prolong the epidemic (colloquially known as Covidians), and the best (or perhaps worst!) place to see this battle raging is on Twitter.

Those who seek to restrict us are currently going into overdrive trying desperately to do things like get schools to close down, and all sorts of other restrictions. They are becoming increasingly desperate because they know that Omicron's reduced pathogenicity is resulting in many more people no longer being scared of Covid.

For those who use Twitter to obtain information, people have been compiling lists of people who are worth listening to:


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
Others have added suggestions such as @sailorrooscout, @skepticalzebra and others.

One could equally compile a list of people not to listen to, such as Chris Pagel, Trish Greenhalgh, Eric Feigl-Ding; these 'Covidians' are going to become increasingly irrelevant. They can continue to throw major wobblers if they want but the media will no longer be interested in what they have to say. The sooner that day comes, the better.

The battle continues to rage, but those who want to restrict us are absolutely losing the battle. I feel much more relaxed now, confident in that knowledge. For almost 2 years now I have felt under attack from these people and that needs to end before we reach the 2nd anniversary; enough is enough.
 
Last edited:

MikeWM

Established Member
Joined
26 Mar 2010
Messages
2,996
Location
Ely
"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).
 

Dent

Member
Joined
4 Feb 2015
Messages
888
"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 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?).
 

yorkie

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
6 Jun 2005
Messages
58,006
Location
Yorkshire
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).
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?).
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.
 

Bayum

Established Member
Joined
21 Mar 2008
Messages
2,628
Location
Leeds
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 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.
 

MikeWM

Established Member
Joined
26 Mar 2010
Messages
2,996
Location
Ely
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?).

The 'number 3' regulations - which permit local authorities to put conditions on events/premises/etc. in certain cases - run until March. But that's pretty much it for the legal stuff, yes (apart from the CV act itself which also expires in March, but pretty much all of the nasty bits of that have already been sunset-ed).
 

yorkie

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
6 Jun 2005
Messages
58,006
Location
Yorkshire
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
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.

We need to accept that we live with viruses; indeed viruses are essential to us and all life on earth. This idea that humans must fight nature at all costs and the aim of life is to extend it as long as possible is absurd, dangerous, inhumane and quite frankly arrogant.

I am sorry if the uncomfortable truth isn't what some want to believe, but I feel it has to be said.
 

43066

Established Member
Joined
24 Nov 2019
Messages
3,752
Location
London
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.

A strange comment: nobody has said we don’t value elderly relatives or that they’re “collateral damage”. Those who are 80+ and medically vulnerable are more likely to die, and you can’t protect them from their own mortality. That’s a simple fact of life I’m afraid.


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.

Having been through the same dreadful experience with my maternal grandmother, I wholeheartedly agree. Personally I’d far rather die before I ever reach that stage. Sadly as a society we seem to value quantity of life over quality at all costs.
 

seagull

Member
Joined
28 Feb 2011
Messages
618
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'm afraid that idea came solely from you, as if you'd read my words with an open mind instead of rushing to assert your view, you might have realised that I said nothing of the sort, and indeed was lamenting the fact that many elderly now have far worse chances of survival thanks to the unhealthy obsession with only Covid.
 

Failed Unit

Established Member
Joined
26 Jan 2009
Messages
8,305
Location
Central Belt
Fact, or opinion?
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.
 

Huntergreed

Established Member
Joined
16 Jan 2016
Messages
2,261
Location
Glasgow… Probably
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.
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.
 

BRX

Established Member
Joined
20 Oct 2008
Messages
2,983
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?
 

43066

Established Member
Joined
24 Nov 2019
Messages
3,752
Location
London
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?

You don’t think the NHS basically closing down to everyone who wasn’t a Covid patient for long periods of time over the last couple of years has pushed up excess death rates due to misdiagnosed cancers, serious heart conditions etc.?

I guess none of that matters if you fixate on deaths “with” Covid to the exclusion of all others…
 

seagull

Member
Joined
28 Feb 2011
Messages
618
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.

Also just one quote from recent days from The Guardian:

"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. NHS staff absences had spiralled to double what they normally would be at this time of year."

Those absences largely caused, not by those staff being in hospital ill with Covid themselves, but having to isolate, due to our obsession with Covid.
 
Last edited:

Eyersey468

Established Member
Joined
14 Sep 2018
Messages
1,451
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?
 

farleigh

Member
Joined
1 Nov 2016
Messages
1,103
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.
An outlandish post.

Everybody values their relatives but part of growing up is accepting that they will die at some point.
 

joncombe

Member
Joined
6 Nov 2016
Messages
686
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.
 

Dent

Member
Joined
4 Feb 2015
Messages
888
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.

That legislation already expired on 20th December, "Plan B" effectively replaced it before it expired.
 

BRX

Established Member
Joined
20 Oct 2008
Messages
2,983
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.

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.
 

yorkie

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
6 Jun 2005
Messages
58,006
Location
Yorkshire
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.
Good post and absolutely we have prioritised quantity of live over quality; there is no question about it. And that's wrong.
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.
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.
 

Ian1971

Member
Joined
22 Aug 2019
Messages
30
Location
Croydon
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.
How much of an imposition are masks in reality, do they really restrict your life so much?

This is ridiculous, as vaccinated staff have to isolate too.
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.
It’s also not discriminatory as it’s a choice people make, whereas things like gender, race, sexual preference are not a choice they are things that you are
 

yorkie

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
6 Jun 2005
Messages
58,006
Location
Yorkshire
How much of an imposition are masks in reality, do they really restrict your life so much?
This has surely been done to death in previous threads?

How long have you got? They are appalling for people who are hard of hearing, they are highly symbolic for some; a sign of oppression, loss of freedom and authoritarianism (this is subjective and while some may not accept or understand anyone feels this way, that doesn't alter the fact it does), mandates cause conflict and division, I could go on...

If anyone is keen to avoid being infected by viruses they can choose to wear a highly effective tight fitting FFP2/3 mask; there is no need for anyone to insist that someone else wears a flimsy loose fitting mask.

See:





I think pretty much everything to be said has been said, but if there are any further developments we can look into creating a new thread, or reopening an existing one...
 

Ian1971

Member
Joined
22 Aug 2019
Messages
30
Location
Croydon
Good 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.
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 NHS
 

yorkie

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
6 Jun 2005
Messages
58,006
Location
Yorkshire
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 NHS
I refer you to Sweden


 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top