• 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.

adc82140

Established Member
Joined
10 May 2008
Messages
2,928
I have the Panto booked for 27th. I'm attempting to rebook for this week, as I just don't trust them not to do anything silly after Xmas.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Yew

Established Member
Joined
12 Mar 2011
Messages
6,538
Location
UK
Not many at present. But that's irrelevant - even if Omicron causes zero hospitalisations you will still see significant short term disruption to normal life if large numbers of people are in bed for a couple of weeks.
In bed for a couple of weeks? Or do you mean forced to isolate as they have tested positive, despite feeling fine?
 

adc82140

Established Member
Joined
10 May 2008
Messages
2,928
I think you are naive if you don't think he would have the votes.

If he wanted more restrictions the would absolutely get through parliament - Labour would support pretty much anything so you would need a near total rebellion which ain't going to happen.

Sorry to be blunt but this isn't Brexit - the Opposition are not opposed
Oh he'll get the votes, thanks to Labour. That's not my point. But the 1922 committee will get its signatures to start a leadership campaign.
 

Yew

Established Member
Joined
12 Mar 2011
Messages
6,538
Location
UK
Boosters are very effective but we don't how effective against Omicron. And we don't yet know whether Omicron will turn out be more severe, more mild or about the same as Delta. Isolating those who have tested positive seems to me to be the most basic measure to take.
It's not a technique that we use for any other respiratory illness though. Given that 95% of people have antibodies, I struggle to see how this is different anymore.

You only really have to worry about a lockdown when Starmer calls for one and Boris denies it. We’re two for two on that one now.
Don't forget Starmer asking for 'clarity' on something.
 

John Luxton

Established Member
Joined
23 Nov 2014
Messages
1,653
Location
Liverpool
I think you are naive if you don't think he would have the votes.
He would get the votes but the bigger the rebellion the better for several reasons.

1. Those members of the public who are already opposed to restrictions have their non compliance position boosted and more will be encouraged to join them and just ignore the rules.
2. The chances of getting ousted as PM increase as there is a greater likelihood of a leadership challenger from within the rebel group.
3. Some MPs sitting on the fence in the past will find confidence to join the rebels. - The last rebellion was much bigger than I imagined it would be basically the figures doubled over previous votes. Double them again and Boris is finished.
 

yorkie

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
6 Jun 2005
Messages
67,432
Location
Yorkshire
Well this is thoroughly depressing.
In the short term, it has the potential to be, if the Government acts in a manner that is inappropriate and out of step with the clear wishes of the majority. But in the longer term it's likely to spell the beginning of the end of the pandemic. This variant is such a fit virus that it will ensure almost all those who do not already have prior immunity (e.g. refused to be vaccinated or not eligible) will gain that immunity through natural exposure. Those who are vaccinated will be given a natural booster to gain even higher levels of immunity.

New variants will come along and people will continue to be infected by this virus, as happens with other Coronaviruses, but the potential for severe illness will diminish over time. Viral interference will keep 'flu levels low while Sars-CoV-2 is circulating very widely. During the Spring/Summer we need as much exposure as possible to ensure immunity levels are high going into next Winter, which should then be normal.

Some people want to string it out as long as possible by putting off infections as long as possible; while I can understand a desire not to immediately overwhelm the NHS, it's ultimately a flawed agenda which just kicks the can down the road and prolongs the pandemic.
Rumours abound about a 2 week circuit breaker after Christmas. I'm really not wanting a lockdown but clearly the high cases are causing much disruption in many industries due to workers off with Covid isolating or close contacts isolating (no jab) so a couple or so weeks circuit breaker in January which is a quiet month for many businesses wouldn't be too bad and would bring cases down. I'm sure furlough can be brought back temporarily.
The problem with isolations can be resolved by removing the requirements to isolate. Isolation is arguably no longer appropriate for Sars-CoV-2 both due to the Omicron evolution and also the increased level of immunity we have.
The Government should just make a statement now that the country cannot afford it, which it can't...
But this would not end the argument as hard leftists will say we can afford anything as an unlimited amount of money can be invented/printed and if it results in hyperinflation, so be it. They are utterly bonkers but they are stubborn and will word their argument in such a way that they try to convince normal people it's a good idea. They are dangerous.
 

nedchester

Established Member
Joined
28 May 2008
Messages
2,093
Okay you are talking to an idiot here - by your definition.

You say the hospital ICUs are full of us idiots.

Really?

Give me your evidence to back this up?

Yes there have been a few high profile cases pushed by the media in which someone who does die stated they wished they had had been vaxed - but just how many are there really?

My decision not to have a C19 vaccine is not based on the belief vaccines are not good for you. It is clearly demonstrated that MOST vaccines are good for MOST people. I would NEVER advocate not having polio / small pox / MMR. They are very important.

My own personal decision on not to have the C19 vaccine is based on the same reasoning for not having the flu vaccine.

I have never had flu in 62 years and never had the flu vaccine either. However, I have worked with flu vax enthusiast colleagues who went on to catch the flu.

C19 is just another variation on colds and flu.

Therefore, my strategy is to deal with C19 in the same manner as flu and not have it.

In this thread people who have had it have reported side effects, I know of one former colleague on on having his second C19 vax developed vision problems. There is much speculation about heart issues arising from the C19 vaccine.

Further more I have poked two fingers up at all the rules and restrictions imposed by both England and Wales since March 2020 and I am still fit and healthy. Umpteen people have predicted my demise or serious illness because of my views but yet I am still here fit and healthy.

The final thing that made me decide to follow the path of rebellion rather than compliance were the figures which circulated in spring 2020 which made it quite clear the vast majority of us would not die of Covid let alone catch it.

On a personal basis I was much more seriously concerned a few years ago when Ebola looked as though it could turn into a pandemic. Now that really did look scary as survival rates were much, much lower.

Basically I have made an informed decision to react in the way I have. I am not stating it is right for everyone.

People have the right to do what is right for themselves, not their family, friends, neighbours or wider community.

They are not idiots for doing so.
I think this link is appropriate here:

 

quantinghome

Established Member
Joined
1 Jun 2013
Messages
2,262
Without wishing to answer what someone else is thinking/saying, looking at the big picture, it is highly likely that the pandemic of around 1889 was caused by a Coronavirus which we now call HCoV-OC43; over time we have had to live alongside this virus in a state of endemic equilibrium and we now simply refer to this, and many other viruses as a "common cold"; it is widely expected that the same will happen with Sars-CoV-2 although we are not yet at the stage where the virus will be referred to in similar terms and categorised accordingly, but the reality is that for most people an Omicron infection will be similar to an infection of a so-called "common cold"

Indeed I've had conversations with people who have had viral infections over the last year who said that their most recent infection of Sars-CoV-2 was milder than an infection they had with a viral infection for which they tested negative to Sars-CoV-2.

So I suspect your disagreement with the other member is perhaps over semantics and a lack of understanding.
We can all agree that MOST people have only experienced relatively mild cold-like symptoms from Covid, and that will of course be true for Omicron as well.

The problem is that the proportion of people experiencing severe symptoms has been orders of magnitude greater than a typical cold season.

Vaccinations have been a great success in reducing the severity down to a level that most people have found acceptable - although at over 100 deaths per day for several months this is still significantly higher than we'd see for a cold. Eventually this will decline to levels we see with other endemic respiratory illnesses. But we cannot yet do so. So to dismiss Omicron as 'just a cold' is not very sensible, although it will eventually be that.
 

kez19

Established Member
Joined
15 May 2020
Messages
2,038
Location
Dundee
I think this link is appropriate here:


Maybe the media should do those classes too? You know like Dr Hilary and Lorraine Kelly lied about then apologised to then repeat it again? Pot Kettle moment.

Hang on why does something so quizzical have to be mandatory? Oh dear difference in opinion doesn’t matter I guess as long as the sources of the BBC etc we are all ok I guess!


 
Last edited:

yorkie

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
6 Jun 2005
Messages
67,432
Location
Yorkshire
We can all agree that MOST people have only experienced relatively mild cold-like symptoms from Covid, and that will of course be true for Omicron as well.
Indeed and it is proving to be even more true for Omicron; have you read any of the links I provided? Did you listen to any of the podcasts?
The problem is that the proportion of people experiencing severe symptoms has been orders of magnitude greater than a typical cold season.
Due to the virus still being relatively novel, it is currently more comparable with 'flu in that sense.
Vaccinations have been a great success in reducing the severity down to a level that most people have found acceptable - although at over 100 deaths per day for several months this is still significantly higher than we'd see for a cold. Eventually this will decline to levels we see with other endemic respiratory illnesses. But we cannot yet do so.
Actually in this sense, it's not really that much different to what you might expect for 'flu, depending on the year (we have good years and bad years).
So to dismiss Omicron as 'just a cold' is not very sensible, although it will eventually be that.
I am not saying it is sensible to do that; I said what I said in my post above and if there is a part of my post you disagree with, please feel free to quote it and we will debate it further.
 

nw1

Established Member
Joined
9 Aug 2013
Messages
6,865
I think you are naive if you don't think he would have the votes.

If he wanted more restrictions the would absolutely get through parliament - Labour would support pretty much anything so you would need a near total rebellion which ain't going to happen.

Sorry to be blunt but this isn't Brexit - the Opposition are not opposed

I suspect a larger number of Tories plus a significant number of Labour members would be opposed to a full lockdown.

With the exception of the vaccine passports, Plan B isn't too heavy. A full lockdown is.
 

duncanp

Established Member
Joined
16 Aug 2012
Messages
4,856
I suspect a larger number of Tories plus a significant number of Labour members would be opposed to a full lockdown.

With the exception of the vaccine passports, Plan B isn't too heavy. A full lockdown is.

If a lockdown is passed, I expect it would be with strict conditions and criteria for when it would be lifted.

In other words, the government would have to specify a roadmap out the new lockdown, giving dates about which restrictions would be removed and when, before the new lockdown came into force.
 

nw1

Established Member
Joined
9 Aug 2013
Messages
6,865
If a lockdown is passed, I expect it would be with strict conditions and criteria for when it would be lifted.

In other words, the government would have to specify a roadmap out the new lockdown, giving dates about which restrictions would be removed and when, before the new lockdown came into force.

That's a fair point, I can possibly imagine a very short one of 2 weeks, no more, being sanctioned, and only once new year is out of the way. But definitely not a 'full lockdown until the end of March, then pubs outdoor only until May, and bans on leaving the UK until May-June' type which we had this year. The economic damage caused by an early-2021 style prolonged lockdown would just be too much for most MPs, I suspect.

Would still be personally against even a short one though. The time has come I think to make it voluntary. Those who are very worried about getting ill - either personally or because of someone close to them - can always stay indoors and do their shopping online, for example. And it would do no more than delay the peak by a couple of weeks, so it's at its worst in late January rather than early January.
 

John Luxton

Established Member
Joined
23 Nov 2014
Messages
1,653
Location
Liverpool
I think this link is appropriate here:


Totally pointless I am a lost cause mathematically - proud to have failed maths at GCE O Level with a spectacular "U" back in 1976.

I was fortunate in getting onto the PGCE teacher training course in the very last year that one could be enrolled without having passed O Level maths - September 1981.

When it comes to maths I can add / subtract / multiply and divide, work out percentages etc I don't need any more and given the predictions Ferguson came up with going back to BSE 20 years ago - being highly educated in maths is pointless as he even then couldn't get his figures correct. :D :D :D
 

brad465

Established Member
Joined
11 Aug 2010
Messages
6,968
Location
Taunton or Kent
I think this link is appropriate here:

Newsthump is a parody news site if you want a laugh, if whatever they came out becomes actual news we're in real trouble.

We can all agree that MOST people have only experienced relatively mild cold-like symptoms from Covid, and that will of course be true for Omicron as well.

The problem is that the proportion of people experiencing severe symptoms has been orders of magnitude greater than a typical cold season.

Vaccinations have been a great success in reducing the severity down to a level that most people have found acceptable - although at over 100 deaths per day for several months this is still significantly higher than we'd see for a cold. Eventually this will decline to levels we see with other endemic respiratory illnesses. But we cannot yet do so. So to dismiss Omicron as 'just a cold' is not very sensible, although it will eventually be that.
What it is being highlighted is there is not enough hospital capacity to cope with the current situation, a situation that in many ways is unavoidable; much of Europe is seeing record high cases a year on from when vaccines were first being rolled out. We have seen and still will see an increase in population in the years ahead, both numerically and in average age. Problems like this are not going away, because they are inevitable for the demographic situation the developed world is now in.
 

nw1

Established Member
Joined
9 Aug 2013
Messages
6,865
Newsthump is a parody news site if you want a laugh, if whatever they came out becomes actual news we're in real trouble.


What it is being highlighted is there is not enough hospital capacity to cope with the current situation, a situation that in many ways is unavoidable; much of Europe is seeing record high cases a year on from when vaccines were first being rolled out. We have seen and still will see an increase in population in the years ahead, both numerically and in average age. Problems like this are not going away, because they are inevitable for the demographic situation the developed world is now in.

The issue though is we've had two years to do something about this, and Western governments have done little or nothing about it. Granted it would be very expensive, but would it be more expensive than repeated and damaging lockdowns? They need to come up with a sustainable solution, which involves increasing hospital capacity, not endless lockdowns.

This is why any proposal for another lockdown, even a short one, needs to invite strong criticism, from both backbench MPs and the public. If there isn't the criticism, governments will think we are all perfectly OK with annual lockdowns.
 

John Luxton

Established Member
Joined
23 Nov 2014
Messages
1,653
Location
Liverpool
We have seen and still will see an increase in population in the years ahead, both numerically and in average age. Problems like this are not going away, because they are inevitable for the demographic situation the developed world is now in.
Our perceptions of pandemics should be just seen as a natural control of the worlds' population appearing every so often to keep it in check.

Yes I know that can be difficult if it is you, your nearest and dearest or your friends that become victims.

When I used to teach population Geography I used a brilliant video I obtained from the web which illustrated the various issues with lab flasks representing the continents filled with different coloured water. There was a hole in the bottom of each flask. Water was poured in at the top and progressively plasters were applied at the bottom restricting the exit of the water for such things as improved health care / better food production / better sanitary facilities etc etc. As more plasters were added the outflow slowed and the levels of water increased significantly until they overflowed.

What we need to do is basically accept pandemics as a population correction built into the system to effect a correction and ensure that natural resources are not overwhelmed and remove some of those plasters for a while.

Perhaps we should approach pandemics in non emotional "Mr Spock" way and look at the benefits of them as an effective means of population control?
 

52290

Member
Joined
23 Oct 2015
Messages
548
I'm in the Market Ale House in Leyland and opinions are being expressed by those present that any further lockdown would be totally unacceptable.
 

brad465

Established Member
Joined
11 Aug 2010
Messages
6,968
Location
Taunton or Kent
Our perceptions of pandemics should be just seen as a natural control of the worlds' population appearing every so often to keep it in check.

Yes I know that can be difficult if it is you, your nearest and dearest or your friends that become victims.

When I used to teach population Geography I used a brilliant video I obtained from the web which illustrated the various issues with lab flasks representing the continents filled with different coloured water. There was a hole in the bottom of each flask. Water was poured in at the top and progressively plasters were applied at the bottom restricting the exit of the water for such things as improved health care / better food production / better sanitary facilities etc etc. As more plasters were added the outflow slowed and the levels of water increased significantly until they overflowed.

What we need to do is basically accept pandemics as a population correction built into the system to effect a correction and ensure that natural resources are not overwhelmed and remove some of those plasters for a while.

Perhaps we should approach pandemics in non emotional "Mr Spock" and look at the benefits of them as an effective means of population control?
I certainly agree, but the problem is there is a widespread anthropocentric (or human exceptionalist) mindset where we think we are special, above nature and able to control every threat that comes our way. Therefore we must prevent deaths and serious illness as if they are preventable, when we never save a life, we just delay death, and life is never going to be a perfect painless journey. Dare I say that death may actually be preferable to living in perpetual fear to the point of just existing.
 

quantinghome

Established Member
Joined
1 Jun 2013
Messages
2,262
Our perceptions of pandemics should be just seen as a natural control of the worlds' population appearing every so often to keep it in check.

Yes I know that can be difficult if it is you, your nearest and dearest or your friends that become victims.

When I used to teach population Geography I used a brilliant video I obtained from the web which illustrated the various issues with lab flasks representing the continents filled with different coloured water. There was a hole in the bottom of each flask. Water was poured in at the top and progressively plasters were applied at the bottom restricting the exit of the water for such things as improved health care / better food production / better sanitary facilities etc etc. As more plasters were added the outflow slowed and the levels of water increased significantly until they overflowed.

What we need to do is basically accept pandemics as a population correction built into the system to effect a correction and ensure that natural resources are not overwhelmed and remove some of those plasters for a while.

Perhaps we should approach pandemics in non emotional "Mr Spock" way and look at the benefits of them as an effective means of population control?

I certainly agree, but the problem is there is a widespread anthropocentric (or human exceptionalist) mindset where we think we are special, above nature and able to control every threat that comes our way. Therefore we must prevent deaths and serious illness as if they are preventable, when we never save a life, we just delay death, and life is never going to be a perfect painless journey. Dare I say that death may actually be preferable to living in perpetual fear to the point of just existing.

Why stop at pandemics? Why should we treat any disease at all? Let nature take its course and 'correct' the population level...

This thread is becoming quite something.
 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
38,818
Location
Yorks
I read (think it may have been on the BBC somewhere) that some hospitals are dispensing treatments to vulnerable people with covid with a view to keeping them out of hospital. Hopefully these work and can be rolled out to blunt any rise in admissions.
 

brad465

Established Member
Joined
11 Aug 2010
Messages
6,968
Location
Taunton or Kent
Why stop at pandemics? Why should we treat any disease at all? Let nature take its course and 'correct' the population level...

This thread is becoming quite something.
Apologies for not including this before, there will of course be conditions that can and should be saved/prevented, but society has not really thought through the consequences of the change in demographics that has resulted from technological advances. Personal and public finances are suffering as a result, particularly as the effective pyramid scheme model for funding old age care/retirement is reaching the collapse point. What we need is a compromise solution around ensuring the best quality of life, but that means talking about the so far taboo subjects. What definitely isn't sustainable is pursuing quantity with no regard for quality whatsoever. There is a reason pneumonia is sometimes referred to as "The Old Man's friend", and I wouldn't be surprised if covid is viewed and will eventually be viewed in a similar manner in years to come.
 

Berliner

Member
Joined
8 Oct 2020
Messages
399
Location
Edinburgh
Why stop at pandemics? Why should we treat any disease at all? Let nature take its course and 'correct' the population level...

This thread is becoming quite something.

How far do we have to go to try and stop the inevitable, which is that covid will always kill some people?

We aren't exactly letting people fend for themselves. We have created very effective vaccines and now have successful drugs to keep the worst of Covid at bay and protect as many people as possible. There will always be people that no matter how many vaccines they have or how long they are in hospital for, will die of or with Covid. That's sad for them, but it's no reason to ruin other people's lives with harsh restrictions or delay treatment for other health issues.
 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
38,818
Location
Yorks
I see that Sadiq Khan has declared an emergency in London due to the number of COVID cases (and people off work as a consequence).

There really needs to be a review of the ten day isolation policy as it is becoming pointless and more damaging than the virus. The suggestion that people isolate until they've had a couple of days negative tests earlier on seems eminently sensible.
 

duncanp

Established Member
Joined
16 Aug 2012
Messages
4,856
I see that Sadiq Khan has declared an emergency in London due to the number of COVID cases (and people off work as a consequence).

There really needs to be a review of the ten day isolation policy as it is becoming pointless and more damaging than the virus. The suggestion that people isolate until they've had a couple of days negative tests earlier on seems eminently sensible.

I think the government is looking at reducing the isolation period to seven days.

Even Professor Pantsdown seems to think this would be OK.

Doing this would lessen the impact of staff shortages, and would help to reduce the pressure on the NHS, and the consequent need for more restrictions.
 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
38,818
Location
Yorks
I think the government is looking at reducing the isolation period to seven days.

Even Professor Pantsdown seems to think this would be OK.

Doing this would lessen the impact of staff shortages, and would help to reduce the pressure on the NHS, and the consequent need for more restrictions.

That's some movement anyway. Personally I think it would be better to move away from fixed periods altogether and use daily testing.
 

Simon11

Established Member
Joined
7 Nov 2010
Messages
1,335
Daily data has come through, still 90k of cases but still hardly much change to hospital and death figures. Looking at the hospital data over the last three months, so one battered at eye at the last peak in late oct, early Nov.

Cross fingers here it stays like this!
 

brad465

Established Member
Joined
11 Aug 2010
Messages
6,968
Location
Taunton or Kent
Daily data has come through, still 90k of cases but still hardly much change to hospital and death figures. Looking at the hospital data over the last three months, so one battered at eye at the last peak in late oct, early Nov.

Cross fingers here it stays like this!
It's possible, but I won't say for definite, that we might just avoid 100k reported cases thanks to today's value not getting there. Sunday and Monday have tended to report slightly lower values across a 7 day period, and we're now into the school holidays, which has typically seen testing decline for previous holiday periods this year, so less cases numerically will be found should that materialise this time as well.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top