Omicron variant and the measures implemented in response to it

[LAX54]

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.

and also, and this sounds so harsh, that the elderly. or some of them, were only being kept alive due to the intervention of Doctors etc, and giving them drugs to keep them alive, it is very sad and hard for families when an elderly member passes away, but it is a (sad) fact of life and hurts.

 

[SouthEastBuses]

They did ban leaving the UK for a while and then heavily restricted leaving by making the red list nonsense. They can't control who lets us in, but for a while it was definitely fortress UK and we were forced to stay inside by the government, something that no democratic government of a free society should ever, under any circumstances, implement.

Fair enough control who comes in, even control things your own citizens have to do to get back in, but never make it illegal for them to leave.

Oh of course, I forgot, the red list also needs to go - oh wait... It already has!

 

[35B]

and also, and this sounds so harsh, that the elderly. or some of them, were only being kept alive due to the intervention of Doctors etc, and giving them drugs to keep them alive, it is very sad and hard for families when an elderly member passes away, but it is a (sad) fact of life and hurts.

Sorry, but that interpretation of the risks of Covid is false and misleading. A relative is in his late 80s, frail, and has COPD. He has been in a care home since well before Covid, but living a normal if restricted life within the limits of his health. He was and is not worth writing off just because of his age and general health - and, yes, I do wonder every time the home call about him.

It is certainly true that a "normal" disease brought into his care home could have had fatal effect on him, but the reality is that if Covid had spread in his care home, it would have been Covid that would have killed him. We can argue till the cows come home about the proportionality of policies intended to protect him, for him and his fellow residents, for families, or the wider community, but not about the specific risk that Covid represented. There is a profound difference between acknowledging that we all die, and especially the old, and presuming that those old were just going to die so no need to consider their interests.

The question now is whether the risk of Covid as it now is is sufficient to require the same levels of precautions. The data appears to be suggesting that it will not; it's unclear to me whether the height of the wave justifies or does not justify the current level of measures in England.

 

[Robert]

On GBNews yesterday - Mark Dolan: The cosy Covid consensus is crumbling:​

 

[MikeWM]

On GBNews yesterday - Mark Dolan: The cosy Covid consensus is crumbling:​

Very good - and the Iraq comparison is important. Despite the fact that opinion polls showed the majority of people supported the invasion of Iraq at the time, it was very hard indeed 5 years later to find anyone who would admit to having that view, and even harder now.

Hopefully all the nonsense that has happened over the last couple of years will end up in the same place, so we don't repeat this lunacy.

 

[danm14]

Mandatory vaccination is under consideration in the Republic of Ireland

NPHET to discuss mandatory vaccination, but Taoiseach says voluntary policy will be kept

The issue is to be discussed after the Department of Health prepares a legal and ethical paper on vaccine mandates.

www.thejournal.ie

THE NATIONAL PUBLIC Health Emergency Team (NPHET) is to discuss the possibility of introducing mandatory vaccination.

The issue is to be discussed after the Department of Health prepares a legal and ethical paper.

The Taoiseach (Prime Minister) claims to be opposed to mandatory vaccination, as are other Government TDs (MPs) - however it should be noted that they were similarly opposed to domestic vaccine passports before they were recommended by NPHET in July, following which they wholeheartedly supported them.

 

[Red Onion]

Mandatory vaccination is under consideration in the Republic of Ireland

NPHET to discuss mandatory vaccination, but Taoiseach says voluntary policy will be kept

The issue is to be discussed after the Department of Health prepares a legal and ethical paper on vaccine mandates.

www.thejournal.ie

The Taoiseach (Prime Minister) claims to be opposed to mandatory vaccination, as are other Government TDs (MPs) - however it should be noted that they were similarly opposed to domestic vaccine passports before they were recommended by NPHET in July, following which they wholeheartedly supported them.

Is it even worth it in a country with a 95% rate? And especially this late on now with omicron shown to be mild. It does make me still wonder what is behind these decisions, it is most certainly not about a virus.

 

[MikeWM]

Sweden, sadly, appears to have finally fallen to the madness. Related to the recent change of Prime Minister, perhaps?

As well as the 'vaccine passports' they recently rolled out in various places - they've just introduced a 'rule of 8', table service only and an 11pm curfew on hospitality, a 50-person limit on events, and mandatory working-from-home for anyone who can.

Very sad to see what was one of the best examples of remaining sanity haviing suddenly gone so wrong.

 

[Jimini]

Sweden, sadly, appears to have finally fallen to the madness. Related to the recent change of Prime Minister, perhaps?

As well as the 'vaccine passports' they recently rolled out in various places - they've just introduced a 'rule of 8', table service only and an 11pm curfew on hospitality, a 50-person limit on events, and mandatory working-from-home for anyone who can.

Very sad to see what was one of the best examples of remaining sanity haviing suddenly gone so wrong.

That is disappointing.

 

[island]

Mandatory vaccination is under consideration in the Republic of Ireland

NPHET to discuss mandatory vaccination, but Taoiseach says voluntary policy will be kept

The issue is to be discussed after the Department of Health prepares a legal and ethical paper on vaccine mandates.

www.thejournal.ie

The Taoiseach (Prime Minister) claims to be opposed to mandatory vaccination, as are other Government TDs (MPs) - however it should be noted that they were similarly opposed to domestic vaccine passports before they were recommended by NPHET in July, following which they wholeheartedly supported them.

NPHET is similar to SAGE; most of the stuff they advise gets ignored.

 

[brad465]

IKEA have decided to join some other firms cutting sick pay for unvaccinated staff. I don't know if this would be classed as discrimination, but even if it doesn't I think it's counterproductive, as staff affected would just avoid getting tested and still turn up for work, or in the case of close contacts, keep that hidden and lie.

Ikea cuts sick pay for unvaccinated staff forced to self-isolate

The retail giant joins a growing list of firms changing their rules as staff absences and costs begin to bite.

www.bbc.co.uk

Ikea has cut sick pay for unvaccinated staff who need to self-isolate because of Covid exposure, joining a growing list of firms changing their rules.
The retail giant acknowledged it was an "emotive topic" but said its policy had to evolve with changing circumstances.
From this week, sick pay cuts will be implemented at Wessex Water and in the US several major companies have starting penalising unjabbed workers.
It comes as firms struggle with mass staff absences and rising costs.
At Ikea unvaccinated workers who are required to isolate could now receive as little as £96.35 a week - the Statutory Sick Pay (SSP) minimum. Average pay at Ikea is between about £400 and £450, depending on location. The move was first reported by the Mail on Sunday.
Ikea, which employs about 10,000 people in the UK, said in a statement: "Fully vaccinated co-workers or those with mitigating circumstances will receive full pay for self-isolations.
"Unvaccinated co-workers will be paid in line with our company absence policy for self-isolation, with close-contact isolation being paid at Statutory Sick Pay.
"We appreciate that this is an emotive topic and all circumstances will be considered on a case by case basis, therefore anyone in doubt or concerned about their situation is encouraged to speak to their manager."

In England, people who are vaccinated with at least two doses need not self-isolate if they have been in close contact with someone infected with Covid. Unvaccinated people contacted through the government's test-and-trace system must still isolate by law.
Many companies complained of labour shortages throughout 2021, and now are seeing mass absences due to the more infectious Omicron Covid strain.

 

[kristiang85]

IKEA have decided to join some other firms cutting sick pay for unvaccinated staff. I don't know if this would be classed as discrimination, but even if it doesn't I think it's counterproductive, as staff affected would just avoid getting tested and still turn up for work, or in the case of close contacts, keep that hidden and lie.

Ikea cuts sick pay for unvaccinated staff forced to self-isolate

The retail giant joins a growing list of firms changing their rules as staff absences and costs begin to bite.

www.bbc.co.uk

This is ridiculous, as vaccinated staff have to isolate too.

 

[greyman42]

IKEA have decided to join some other firms cutting sick pay for unvaccinated staff. I don't know if this would be classed as discrimination, but even if it doesn't I think it's counterproductive, as staff affected would just avoid getting tested and still turn up for work, or in the case of close contacts, keep that hidden and lie.

IKEA is a private company that does not have a bottomless pot of money to pay employees to be on the sick.

 

[kristiang85]

IKEA is a private company that does not have a bottomless pot of money to pay employees to be on the sick.

Well they should rail against the government's call for constant testing and isolation for spurious reasons, which is very easy for employees - vaccinated or unvaccinated - to fake, rather than just singling out the unvaccinated.

Are they going to do the same with the flu vaccine?

Will they do the same for employees that go on holiday who don't get fully vaccinated with every recommended jab just in case they get ill on their return?

It is opening a can of worms that doesn't need to be opened.

 

[greyman42]

Well they should rail against the government's call for constant testing and isolation for spurious reasons, which is very easy for employees - vaccinated or unvaccinated - to fake, rather than just singling out the unvaccinated.

Are they going to do the same with the flu vaccine?

Will they do the same for employees that go on holiday who don't get fully vaccinated with every recommended jab just in case they get ill on their return?

It is opening a can of worms that doesn't need to be opened.

Fair points, but it does not help IKEA's problem with excessive sick pay.

 

[island]

IKEA have decided to join some other firms cutting sick pay for unvaccinated staff. I don't know if this would be classed as discrimination, but even if it doesn't I think it's counterproductive, as staff affected would just avoid getting tested and still turn up for work, or in the case of close contacts, keep that hidden and lie.

Ikea cuts sick pay for unvaccinated staff forced to self-isolate

The retail giant joins a growing list of firms changing their rules as staff absences and costs begin to bite.

www.bbc.co.uk

It isn't discrimination as opting not to get vaccinated is not a protected characteristic.

(I am sure there will be an exception for the vanishingly small number of staff who have a bona fide evidenced disability meaning vaccination is medically contraindicated.)

 

[43066]

It isn't discrimination as opting not to get vaccinated is not a protected characteristic.

To be very pedantic it is discrimination, just not of a prohibited type.

People often seem to believe that discrimination is unlawful per se, but of course that is not correct. Requiring job applicants to hold certain qualifications and rejecting those who don’t is perfectly permissible, for example. Paying SSP only to those who are required to vaccinated for longer because they’re unvaccinated is another example, which my TOC has now implemented.

The obvious downside to this is that people simply won’t isolate, or will lie about the reason for their absence.

 

[Bikeman78]

It is a very big issue when myself (and presumably yourself) as UK citizens are barred from entering parts of the U.K. as has been the case at some points.

I wouldn't worry about Welsh border restrictions. Unlike international travel, where documents are scrutinised, it's impossible to enforce. How would it work on the M4? If they set up a road block and there was a crash in the queue, it would go down like a lead balloon. Even on the trains, enforcement was close to zero, if not actually zero.

 

[nw1]

I wouldn't worry about Welsh border restrictions. Unlike international travel, where documents are scrutinised, it's impossible to enforce. How would it work on the M4? If they set up a road block and there was a crash in the queue, it would go down like a lead balloon. Even on the trains, enforcement was close to zero, if not actually zero.

There are also some footpath routes over the Black Mountains (ssh don't tell anyone...)

 

[island]

I wouldn't worry about Welsh border restrictions. Unlike international travel, where documents are scrutinised, it's impossible to enforce. How would it work on the M4? If they set up a road block and there was a crash in the queue, it would go down like a lead balloon. Even on the trains, enforcement was close to zero, if not actually zero.

The Heddlu did have road blocks in place for periods of last year during which time it was partially or fully prohibited for certain classes of people to enter or leave Wales without reasonable excuse.

 

[yorkie]

Cases appear to have peaked in London

Coronavirus (COVID-19) in the UK

GOV.UK Coronavirus dashboard

coronavirus.data.gov.uk

(Image shows the average 7 day cases in London peaking at around 30k on 21st December before stabilising at around 23k)

There may be some increase now that schools are back, but I think the never ending exponential growth predicted by SAGE is highly unlikely to happen.

It could take a few weeks for other places to catch up to where London is, but London gives a good indication as to where we are heading. London has a lower vaccination rate, younger population, and denser housing than many other places, so a direct comparison between locations isn't feasible, but it gives us a rough idea that there shouldn't be too much to worry about.

 

[BRX]

There may be some increase now that schools are back, but I think the never ending exponential growth predicted by SAGE is highly unlikely to happen.

When did SAGE predict never ending exponential growth?

 

[Bikeman78]

MSN

One senior figure told i that Dr James had been “spectacularly unhelpful” by challenging Mr Javid on camera. They said: “Some of the stuff the guy said was intrinsically selfish: it was about him and his immunisation status when of course the greatest benefit of vaccinating people is to stop the transmission in others.

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.

 

[NorthOxonian]

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.

It'll vary but certainly that's the case for this one; reduction of transmission is pretty minimal whereas it reduces the risk of hospitalisation and death dramatically.

 

[MikeWM]

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.

Which is the *only* reason to take any medical treatment - you don't have medical treatment for the sake of others. Except that any time that you choose to do so (eg. donate blood or donate a kidney), it has to be entirely of your own volition and with the knowledge that it is an altruistic act.

I do find it deeply concerning that this consultant is being widely criticised from within his own profession, simply for asking a very basic question that all doctors should be asking - why is it important to vaccinate someone who has already, recently, had the disease?

I have to say I would much prefer to see a doctor like Dr James who appears to be capable of independent thought, than one of these who seem to be 'just following orders' without asking why.

 

[Bantamzen]

MSN

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.

The vaccine(s) initially provoke your immune system to respond by creating / making more antibodies. If you've had it before having the virus, then your body is given a "heads up" on what some of the virus's proteins look like, particularly the spike proteins it uses to attach & infect cells. So it can help the immune system to produce antibodies without necessarily needing to also attack infected cells, meaning most people get few if any symptoms. And this process also allows the immune system to develop those B & T cells which retain the genetic information to recognise the virus again, trigger antibodies & attack infected cells if / when the real virus is encountered. However if you encounter the virus first, it is the B & T cells that respond, with the T cells attacking infected cells until the B cells can trigger antibody production.

It is generally thought that 2 doses, preferably some months apart & then actual infection is the best way for the immune system to build up maximum protection. However someone previously infected with one or more strains may well have the same level of protection, albeit with an elevated risk at the first infection of serious illness, though for most healthy people this is still statistically insignificant. So any combination of vaccinated, not vaccinated but exposed to the virus, vaccinated and exposed to the virus are very possibly going to result in similar levels of protection. And given the rates of vaccination and cases, it is very likely that most people in this country will lie in one of these groups, with very few left in the unvaccinated, uninfected group.

 

[MikeWM]

I see the press have just picked up on the 'T-cell immunity from common colds can be helpful against covid' story.

https://news.sky.com/story/covid-19-t-cells-from-common-colds-can-protect-against-coronavirus-infection-study-finds-12512900

People with high levels of T cells from common colds are less likely to catch COVID, according to a new peer-reviewed study.

Only 19 months late! I posted about a study that already showed this was probably the case way back in June 2020 (here).

 

[yorkie]

When did SAGE predict never ending exponential growth?

Apologies for the use of hyperbole, but if you want an idea of how wrong Sage (and others) have been, check this out:

The Spectator Data Tracker | Sage | The Spectator

data.spectator.co.uk

MSN

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.

Yes the purpose of vaccination is to avoid serious illness; avoiding transmission would be a bonus.

Antibodies are an irrelevance in the long term, but while antibody levels are high, it is true that a person exposed to the virus who had high levels of antibodies following vaccination may be able to avoid an infection (or have an abortive infection meaning they never test positive) but there is no way we could, nor should, constantly dish out booster doses.

So this is a red herring; that a senior NHS boss misunderstands how vaccines work demonstrates just how little the average person understands about this virus and the vaccines.

Now someone reading this may say I am wrong and the unidentified NHS boss must be right (!), but it's not me saying this; it's expert virologists and immunologists and I've regularly posted links to back this up; the podcast I linked to in post 3561 touches on this subject.

I see the press have just picked up on the 'T-cell immunity from common colds can be helpful against covid' story.

https://news.sky.com/story/covid-19-t-cells-from-common-colds-can-protect-against-coronavirus-infection-study-finds-12512900


Only 19 months late! I posted about a study that already showed this was probably the case way back in June 2020 (here).

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.

...So any combination of vaccinated, not vaccinated but exposed to the virus, vaccinated and exposed to the virus are very possibly going to result in similar levels of protection. And given the rates of vaccination and cases, it is very likely that most people in this country will lie in one of these groups, with very few left in the unvaccinated, uninfected group.

I agree.

I'd also add that, while I think the consultant anaesthetist's decision should be respected and accepted by the Government and NHS bosses, if I was in his position I would still be getting a dose of the vaccine, on the basis that just one exposure to the virus on its own may not be enough to provide a long lasting, broad and robust response to the virus without experiencing another infection (with all the inconvenience which goes with it, such as having to isolate), but one dose would suffice, providing it was a sufficient period of time after the infection.

A reasonable compromise would therefore be to allow previously infected individuals to be considered "fully vaccinated" if they had just one dose. I doubt the Government would do this, however.

It'll vary but certainly that's the case for this one; reduction of transmission is pretty minimal whereas it reduces the risk of hospitalisation and death dramatically.

Yes, what I've read is consistent with that.

 

[kristiang85]

MSN

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.

I think what they actually meant was:

One senior figure told i that Dr James had been “spectacularly unhelpful to the propaganda effort” by challenging Mr Javid on camera. They said: “Some of the stuff the guy said was intrinsically selfish: it was about him and his immunisation status when in fact he should be towing the government line that the greatest benefit of vaccinating people is to stop the transmission in others, even though we know that not to be true of COVID19

 

[BRX]

Apologies for the use of hyperbole, but if you want an idea of how wrong Sage (and others) have been, check this out:

The Spectator Data Tracker | Sage | The Spectator

data.spectator.co.uk

What you were employing was not just hyperbole, it was straightforward misrepresentation, was it not?

Firstly there's no such thing as a "SAGE prediction", rather there is a large collection of scenarios produced by an array of different modelling groups, presented at different points in time.

Secondly, none of these scenarios have ever projected "never ending exponential growth".

Finally, the page you link to doesn't demonstrate how "wrong" anyone has been.

It's from the Spectator which has a certain political agenda, and it's visible in the first graph they present. Shall we look at it? Here's what they present by default



At first glance it looks like there's a "prediction" in grey and actual in red, and the prediction is loads worse than what's happened in reality.

But this is misleading because actually the grey is just one of a number of scenarios based on differing levels of Omicron severity. The actual level of Omicron severity was not known at the time. The Spectator has chosen, now in mid January, to show us by default the "50% as severe as Delta" scenario? Why? Most people now agree that Omicron is quite a lot less severe than Delta. So why don't they show us the 20% scenario? It looks like this:



Doesn't look quite as far off - starts off about right but then appears to stop rising sooner than in the projected scenario.

So, how about the 10% scenario?



Well, this one looks like they might have got the peak level just about right ... but it's actually happened more quickly than the scenario shows. So, you might say that the 10% scenario is actually overly optimistic if anything.

The projections turn out to be not very far off at all, if we take Omicron to be 10 to 20% as severe as Delta.

In other words, how "wrong" the "predictions" are, all depends on whether you actually look carefully at what is or isn't being predicted, and it usually turns out that the graphs you see are chosen by whoever is presenting them to you, to support their particular agenda. This I'm sure will apply to most of the others on that page too.