Omicron variant and the measures implemented in response to it

[Shrop]

A further titbit is the rolling 7 day case rate has England having the lowest of the 4 home nations - despite having the lowest level of restrictions.

There seems to be some surprise about this. Does this not suggest that England may be heading more rapidly than some other countries, towards herd immunity? If so then that could be a good thing, but it's not surprising, because although restrictions may have been well observed by some, the numbers who have waved two fingers at restrictions has been enough to keep the spread going rapidly.

 

[Baxenden Bank]

I think its semantics, but you are not "perfectly healthy" with Covid. Nor are you with a cold or any illness, no matter how minor or short-term. Whether you should be off sick is an entirely different matter and different people have differing tolerances. I agree, I personally would be back at work. The issue of infecting others whilst being infectious that might suffer worse and/or increase staff shortages in critical sectors is a matter nobody seems to have resolved. Maybe we have to live with it, but as I've said many times that has consequences although hopefully they are short-term.

Typhoid Mary had no symptoms, why shouldn't she go to work as normal, people needed feeding after all!

Mary Mallon (September 23, 1869 – November 11, 1938), commonly known as Typhoid Mary, was an Irish-born American cook believed to have infected 53 people with typhoid fever, three of whom died, and the first person in the United States identified as an asymptomatic carrier of the disease pathogen, Salmonella typhi. Because she persisted in working as a cook, by which she exposed others to the disease, she was twice forcibly quarantined by authorities, eventually for the final two decades of her life. Mallon died after a total of nearly 30 years in isolation.

link to Wikipedia Mary Mallon

 

[Yew]

Typhoid Mary had no symptoms, why shouldn't she go to work as normal, people needed feeding after all!



link to Wikipedia Mary Mallon

Typhoid is not a respiratory illness, of which we currently tolerate many influenzas strains, other coronaviruses and rhinovirus being in general circulation. We have many effective treatments and highly effective vaccines.

 

[kristiang85]

I think its semantics, but you are not "perfectly healthy" with Covid. Nor are you with a cold or any illness, no matter how minor or short-term. Whether you should be off sick is an entirely different matter and different people have differing tolerances. I agree, I personally would be back at work. The issue of infecting others whilst being infectious that might suffer worse and/or increase staff shortages in critical sectors is a matter nobody seems to have resolved. Maybe we have to live with it, but as I've said many times that has consequences although hopefully they are short-term.

Semantics indeed, but given how natural (and essential) it is for us to contract viruses, I would argue anybody with asymptomatic or mild illness is "perfectly healthy". It is just part of existing, and coming into contact with them only increases the defences your body has as part of its biological health system.

There are trillions of viruses in our bodies at any one time.

 

[Baxenden Bank]

Typhoid is not a respiratory illness, of which we currently tolerate many influenzas strains, other coronaviruses and rhinovirus being in general circulation. We have many effective treatments and highly effective vaccines.

Indeed, but there are similarities to be considered.

A person carrying a transmittable disease having no importance to her own health, but having importance to those she came into contact with - 53 infected, 3 dead is quite a scorecard (and most likely an undercount).

A person who refused to accept that she carried the disease or held any responsibilities towards those she came into contact with (because being a cook paid better than other domestic work).

Until we have effective post-contract COVID treatments (rather then pre-contract vaccines) I would suggest that those confirmed as having COVID should continue to take some responsibility for their actions, and that may involve staying off-work, and indeed being in isolation at home, rather than popping around breathing allover the shop! But we need to see some proper numbers on risks to come to an informed conclusion. The NHS 'becoming overwhelmed' (whatever that actually is) as the sole measure is not a good basis for long-term policy affecting the entire population.

 

[Simon11]

Until we have effective post-contract COVID treatments (rather then pre-contract vaccines) I would suggest that those confirmed as having COVID should continue to take some responsibility for their actions, and that may involve staying off-work, and indeed being in isolation at home, rather than popping around breathing allover the shop! But we need to see some proper numbers on risks to come to an informed conclusion. The NHS 'becoming overwhelmed' (whatever that actually is) as the sole measure is not a good basis for long-term policy affecting the entire population.

I would have agreed with you until the second vaccination programme had completed, but not any more. We are now just facing a mild version and we have now protected everyone who wants to be protected. If you are unable to physically work, then stay at home, otherwise continue as normal just like when people have other flu's/ colds (but may not realise it!)

If the risk of anyone having covid lead to a serious consequences for people's health and on fatality rates, I think the government would have been taken a far tougher stance on testing. i.e required it before leaving your house or asking everyone to have one weekly.

Below is an article where 40% of people with covid are not showing any symptoms and we aren't really caring too much about this. They are free to roam as they please.. unless they take a random chance on having a test.

Covid warning: 40 percent of Covid cases could be asymptomatic

AS OMICRON goes viral in the UK, the world continues to learn more about COVID-19, including what proportion of cases are asymptomatic.

www.express.co.uk

Covid warning: 40 percent of Covid cases could be asymptomatic startling study finds​

AS OMICRON goes viral in the UK, the world continues to learn more about COVID-19, including what proportion of cases are asymptomatic.​

A study published in the US has discovered a startling statistic about global Covid cases. Between January 2020 and February 2021, researchers looked at 30 million people across 95 countries to study how many Covid cases were asymptomatic. They found that, on average, 40 percent of people who caught Covid had it asymptomatically. When separated out by age group, the data changed dramatically. The study found that, amongst young people, over half (60 percent), had Covid asymptomatically.

In those aged 20 to 39, they found that the number of asymptomatic cases decreased, to just under 50 percent.

In the 40-59 age bracket, the number of asymptomatic cases went down to 32 percent.

Lastly, in the over-60s, only just over a third (33 percent of cases) were asymptomatic.

 

[kristiang85]

Indeed, but there are similarities to be considered.

A person carrying a transmittable disease having no importance to her own health, but having importance to those she came into contact with - 53 infected, 3 dead is quite a scorecard (and most likely an undercount).

A person who refused to accept that she carried the disease or held any responsibilities towards those she came into contact with (because being a cook paid better than other domestic work).

Until we have effective post-contract COVID treatments (rather then pre-contract vaccines) I would suggest that those confirmed as having COVID should continue to take some responsibility for their actions, and that may involve staying off-work, and indeed being in isolation at home, rather than popping around breathing allover the shop! But we need to see some proper numbers on risks to come to an informed conclusion. The NHS 'becoming overwhelmed' (whatever that actually is) as the sole measure is not a good basis for long-term policy affecting the entire population.

But asymptomatic transmission in any significant sense has never been proven.

I would say the measures that have been put in place in various forms over the last twenty months to mitigate against this have killed or harmed the health of more people than incidences of asymptomatic transmission have.

 

[takno]

Indeed, but there are similarities to be considered.

A person carrying a transmittable disease having no importance to her own health, but having importance to those she came into contact with - 53 infected, 3 dead is quite a scorecard (and most likely an undercount).

A person who refused to accept that she carried the disease or held any responsibilities towards those she came into contact with (because being a cook paid better than other domestic work).

Until we have effective post-contract COVID treatments (rather then pre-contract vaccines) I would suggest that those confirmed as having COVID should continue to take some responsibility for their actions, and that may involve staying off-work, and indeed being in isolation at home, rather than popping around breathing allover the shop! But we need to see some proper numbers on risks to come to an informed conclusion. The NHS 'becoming overwhelmed' (whatever that actually is) as the sole measure is not a good basis for long-term policy affecting the entire population.

Serious consequences are *massively* rarer from Omicron than typhoid, and the virus itself is massively more contagious, so the argument doesn't really hold anyway.

More practically in terms of personal responsibility, Omicron is too common to contain. Everybody who leaves the house over the next month is overwhelmingly likely to get it. Under those circumstances "taking personal responsibility" by staying in just because you have a case of it becomes pretty meaningless.

It's pretty reasonable to say you have a stronger responsibility to society to keep important services running than you do to make an indiscernible dent in the rate at which people become infected.

 

[Baxenden Bank]

But asymptomatic transmission in any significant sense has never been proven.

I would say the measures that have been put in place in various forms over the last twenty months to mitigate against this have killed or harmed the health of more people than incidences of asymptomatic transmission have.

Yes, without realising it I have fallen into the government's trap [expletive]. Believing that asymptomatic transmission is such a danger to us all when, as you say, it has never been shown as significant.

In my defence there is little information out there for general punters about chains of transmission etc and we did get the 'a single whiff of Omicron is all you need to catch it' a few days ago and an Australian outbreak last year was blamed on 'COVID positive aircrew passing people in a shopping mall'.

Serious consequences are *massively* rarer from Omicron than typhoid, and the virus itself is massively more contagious, so the argument doesn't really hold anyway.

More practically in terms of personal responsibility, Omicron is too common to contain. Everybody who leaves the house over the next month is overwhelmingly likely to get it. Under those circumstances "taking personal responsibility" by staying in just because you have a case of it becomes pretty meaningless.

It's pretty reasonable to say you have a stronger responsibility to society to keep important services running than you do to make an indiscernible dent in the rate at which people become infected.

Yes, I refer to the point in my post "But we need to see some proper numbers on risks to come to an informed conclusion."

I really would like to see 'you have 99% of catching Omicron in the next 30 days and as a result, as an 'z' age 'y' times vaccinated (boosted or not at all) individual you have an 'x' chance of hardly noticing, a 'w' chance of having a couple of days feeling rough, a 'v' chance of being hospitalised and a 'u' chance of dying. The latter very small numbers but just how small?

Rees Mogg refers to people making their own decisions, that can only be done if individuals have the knowledge and skills to do so.

 

[Snow1964]

Yes, without realising it I have fallen into the government's trap [expletive]. Believing that asymptomatic transmission is such a danger to us all when, as you say, it has never been shown as significant.

In my defence there is little information out there for general punters about chains of transmission etc and we did get the 'a single whiff of Omicron is all you need to catch it' a few days ago and an Australian outbreak last year was blamed on 'COVID positive aircrew passing people in a shopping mall'.

If a high proportion of Omicron cases are asymptomatic (and seems to be between 30-50% depending on which data study), then rather makes taking covid PCR tests pointless.

If an asymptomatic person is merrily carrying on as normal, and because they don’t feel ill have no reason to do a test, then the tests will only be an inconvenience to others as the source of spreading the virus is unchecked

 

[Yew]

If a high proportion of Omicron cases are asymptomatic (and seems to be between 30-50% depending on which data study), then rather makes taking covid PCR tests pointless.

If an asymptomatic person is merrily carrying on as normal, and because they don’t feel ill have no reason to do a test, then the tests will only be an inconvenience to others as the source of spreading the virus is unchecked

If we technically had flu, but didn't feel ill, would we avoid usual behaviours at all?

 

[Snow1964]

If we technically had flu, but didn't feel ill, would we avoid usual behaviours at all?

Even if you only feel mildly ill then most people wouldn’t know if they had flu or a cold or covid as some symptoms same. Therefore initially likely to behave the same for them all.

So if you take a covid test and it’s negative, still don’t know which (if either) of the other two you have. If it is mild might still go to work (or school, or shopping etc)

Although rare, people do sometimes end up in hospital with flu (influenza) or pneumonia etc. But as a society we just accept it, which is probably the way we will consider covid in few weeks time, now that over 60% have had 3 jabs to prepare our immune systems

 

[Yew]

So if you take a covid test and it’s negative, still don’t know which (if either) of the other two you have. If it is mild might still go to work (or school, or shopping etc)

Why should we still be taking tests if we don't feel particuarly unwell, when there is widespread population immunity and numerous effective treatments?

 

[BackOnTheTrain]

I would have agreed with you until the second vaccination programme had completed, but not any more. We are now just facing a mild version and we have now protected everyone who wants to be protected. If you are unable to physically work, then stay at home, otherwise continue as normal just like when people have other flu's/ colds (but may not realise it!)

If the risk of anyone having covid lead to a serious consequences for people's health and on fatality rates, I think the government would have been taken a far tougher stance on testing. i.e required it before leaving your house or asking everyone to have one weekly.

Below is an article where 40% of people with covid are not showing any symptoms and we aren't really caring too much about this. They are free to roam as they please.. unless they take a random chance on having a test.

Covid warning: 40 percent of Covid cases could be asymptomatic

AS OMICRON goes viral in the UK, the world continues to learn more about COVID-19, including what proportion of cases are asymptomatic.

www.express.co.uk

What do you mean by “the end of the second vaccination programme”? Do you mean boosters?

 

[43066]

Typhoid Mary had no symptoms, why shouldn't she go to work as normal, people needed feeding after all!

I expect “Minor-Case-of-Sniffles-Samantha”, who fancies some extra paid leave from work, is more relevant today than Typhoid Mary.

Why should we still be taking tests if we don't feel particuarly unwell, when there is widespread population immunity and numerous effective treatments?

This is the acceptance we need to *rapidly* move to. As I said upthread there will quickly come a point where the isolations of minor cases cause more problems than any hypothetical increase in infections caused by abandoning testing/isolation. As usual with Covid restrictions nobody seems particularly concerned about that.

I suppose the government, as always, are only really concerned by “optics” and what’s acceptable politically, and it will take a while until the general population is able to accept this, even if more damage is caused in the interim. That’s inevitable, of course, when the country has been conditioned by SAGE’s wonderful “behavioural scientists” into being scared witless of this virus for much of the last two years.

 

[greyman42]

If we technically had flu, but didn't feel ill, would we avoid usual behaviours at all?

In my experience, if you have flu you will know all about it.
But to answer your question, no.

 

[takno]

In my experience, if you have flu you will know all about it.
But to answer your question, no.

The trouble is that we really don't know how true that is. Nobody has done anything like the same scale and accuracy of testing on people who aren't heavily symptomatic flu. If you don't have symptoms which lead you to "know about it" then you'd just assume you had a cold.

 

[Shrop]

If we technically had flu, but didn't feel ill, would we avoid usual behaviours at all?

This seems a strange comment, quite possibly a symptom of the unwelcome corruption of the English language that is all too commonplace these days. It's a modern thing for people to say they have flu when they actually just have a cold. If you have flu you're likely to be unable to get out of bed for a couple of days, and you certainly would feel ill.

Perhaps I should say I'm literally splitting my sides laughing at this - to use another inappropriate corruption of our language!

 

[yorkie]

In my experience, if you have flu you will know all about it.

No, might not.

Does Influenza Transmission Occur from Asymptomatic Infection or Prior to Symptom Onset?

A better understanding of transmission dynamics is essential in influenza pandemic planning. If a substantial proportion of transmissions were to occur during the presymptomatic phase or from asymptomatic individuals, then infection control measures such ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

One in three influenza-infected individuals is asymptomatic.4

So for starters there is a one in three chance you will have no symptoms.

I don't know what the range of mild so severe symptoms is, but many people will have mild symptoms.

In general people refer to a mild illness as "a cold" (which could be a Coronavirus, Rhinovirus or Influenza); people tend to refer to more unpleasant symptoms as "flu" but in reality some of those infections will actually be with a Rhinovirus or Coronavirus.

A significant proportion of "colds" are now actually Sars-CoV-2.

 

[farleigh]

This seems a strange comment, quite possibly a symptom of the unwelcome corruption of the English language that is all too commonplace these days. It's a modern thing for people to say they have flu when they actually just have a cold. If you have flu you're likely to be unable to get out of bed for a couple of days, and you certainly would feel ill.

Perhaps I should say I'm literally splitting my sides laughing at this - to use another inappropriate corruption of our language!

This is incorrect.

You can get flu and have little or no symptoms

 

[Shrop]

This is incorrect.

You can get flu and have little or no symptoms

Having little or no symptoms is relatively rare. Try looking at this website which is at www.flu.co.uk - What are the common symptoms of influenza

 

[Darandio]

Having little or no symptoms is relatively rare. Try looking at this website which is at www.flu.co.uk - What are the common symptoms of influenza

Which says precisely zero about how rare it is to have no symptoms. The study @yorkie links to above however does.

 

[Yew]

Having little or no symptoms is relatively rare. Try looking at this website which is at www.flu.co.uk - What are the common symptoms of influenza

The website does not seem to make any indication of that?

 

[farleigh]

Having little or no symptoms is relatively rare. Try looking at this website which is at www.flu.co.uk - What are the common symptoms of influenza

Thanks Shrop.

It seems there is some different views out there

Three-quarters of people with flu have no symptoms | NICS Well

"Over three-quarters of flu infections contracted last year did not have any symptoms, researchers found," ITV News reports. While this may be good news for ...

www.nicswell.co.uk

 

[Shrop]

Thanks Shrop.

It seems there is some different views out there

Three-quarters of people with flu have no symptoms | NICS Well

"Over three-quarters of flu infections contracted last year did not have any symptoms, researchers found," ITV News reports. While this may be good news for ...

www.nicswell.co.uk

Indeed there are plenty of different views. I'm not convinced at all that three quarters of people with flu have no symptoms, I think it's a case of skewing the data, and the semantics, to suit what people want to present, just like a lot of politicians do. I'll take a back seat on this one for now.

 

[midland1]

You do not test yourself to see if you have flu, so how do they know that ?

 

[yorkie]

Having little or no symptoms is relatively rare. Try looking at this website which is at www.flu.co.uk - What are the common symptoms of influenza

Where does it say what proportion of cases are asymptomatic? If you can provide a quote that would be useful, thanks

Indeed there are plenty of different views. I'm not convinced at all that three quarters of people with flu have no symptoms, I think it's a case of skewing the data, and the semantics, to suit what people want to present, just like a lot of politicians do. I'll take a back seat on this one for now.

It looks legit to me

Comparative community burden and severity of seasonal and pandemic influenza: results of the Flu Watch cohort study

Seasonal influenza and the 2009 pandemic strain were characterised by similar high rates of mainly asymptomatic infection with most symptomatic cases self-managing without medical consultation. In the community the 2009 pandemic strain caused milder symptoms than seasonal H3N2.

www.thelancet.com

Most infections were asymptomatic.

Only a minority of people with PCR-confirmed influenza had fever with a temperature greater than 37·8°C and so met the CDC definition of influenza-like illness (110/238; 46%, 95% CI 40–53).

Do you have any evidence this is wrong?

It would be very difficult to get an exact figure as it would no doubt vary depending on the population studies, the nature of the 'flu season, vaccination rates and so on, but there does appear to be strong evidence that a significant proportion of cases that are asymptomatic.

You do not test yourself to see if you have flu, so how do they know that ?

Most people who are asymptomatic with any virus would not be tested and not know they have a virus; similarly people with mild symptoms or even more severe symptoms will probably never know what virus they actually had.

 

[kristiang85]

Imagine a disease that kills about 1.6m people a year die, and that is despite having a vaccination against it for decades. It is spread by people speaking, coughing, singing, etc. An R number has never been properly defined, but most studies have it around 1, but could be up to 4 in certain settings. The CFR is between 7 and 35%. Survivors can see a 20% increase of early mortality from other causes. On top of this, between 1 in 3 and 1 in 5 people globally could have a latent infection of it. However, if it doesn't develop into a full infection then it won't transmit.

It sounds like a really grim form of COVID right? Actually this is tuberculosis, and is the second largest infectious disease killer in the world (after HIV). Now it's rates are rising again after years of decline due to all the funding and resources being diverted to COVID.

I don't recall any global meltdown to help TB control. And I certainly don't recall a mass testing regime to source the latent infections, as it is utterly pointless, as it is for COVID, and would probably paralyse the world. The key problem with Tb has been the expense of testing for it, yet all this money has been found for COVID (probably because it's something the first world has experienced and made a priority).

It's time we reprioritised and put COVID into proper perspective. Yes it was nasty and unknown at first , but omicron should be the normalisation of it. The testing of healthy people really needs to stop, along with the stigmatising of infected people with no symptoms. Then immediately efforts need to make sure our finite health and research resources are rediverted to the conditions that kill, maim and affect a lot more people.

 

[bramling]

Imagine a disease that kills about 1.6m people a year die, and that is despite having a vaccination against it for decades. It is spread by people speaking, coughing, singing, etc. An R number has never been properly defined, but most studies have it around 1, but could be up to 4 in certain settings. The CFR is between 7 and 35%. Survivors can see a 20% increase of early mortality from other causes. On top of this, between 1 in 3 and 1 in 5 people globally could have a latent infection of it. However, if it doesn't develop into a full infection then it won't transmit.

It sounds like a really grim form of COVID right? Actually this is tuberculosis, and is the second largest infectious disease killer in the world (after HIV). Now it's rates are rising again after years of decline due to all the funding and resources being diverted to COVID.

I don't recall any global meltdown to help TB control. And I certainly don't recall a mass testing regime to source the latent infections, as it is utterly pointless, as it is for COVID, and would probably paralyse the world. The key problem with Tb has been the expense of testing for it, yet all this money has been found for COVID (probably because it's something the first world has experienced and made a priority).

It's time we reprioritised and put COVID into proper perspective. Yes it was nasty and unknown at first , but omicron should be the normalisation of it. The testing of healthy people really needs to stop, along with the stigmatising of infected people with no symptoms. Then immediately efforts need to make sure our finite health and research resources are rediverted to the conditions that kill, maim and affect a lot more people.

Yes we absolutely *must* stop prioritising Covid over other things. The effects of this mis-prioritisation will likely be the biggest lasting folly from Covid.

I am sick of the blue-heart brigade constantly going on about Covid, to the detriment of anything else. It is not the only game in town, and post-vaccine its salience has considerably decreased relative to other things.

 

[Eyersey468]

Yes we absolutely *must* stop prioritising Covid over other things. The effects of this mis-prioritisation will likely be the biggest lasting folly from Covid.

I am sick of the blue-heart brigade constantly going on about Covid, to the detriment of anything else. It is not the only game in town, and post-vaccine its salience has considerably decreased relative to other things.

I completely agree, I'm sick of only Covid seeming to matter.