And the Taoiseach has duly squashed the idea on the evening news.
-
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
- Thread starter PTR 444
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
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
The FT are reporting that Ministers are confident that many restrictions in place will end on the 26th January:
on.ft.com
Subscribe to the Financial Times
A subscription to the Financial Times provides you with the insights and perspective you need to succeed, now.
"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).The FT are reporting that Ministers are confident that many restrictions in place will end on the 26th January:
Subscribe to the Financial Times
A subscription to the Financial Times provides you with the insights and perspective you need to succeed, now.
@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.
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 anaesthetist goes on to say:
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:
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.
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.The FT are reporting that Ministers are confident that many restrictions in place will end on the 26th January:
Subscribe to the Financial Times
A subscription to the Financial Times provides you with the insights and perspective you need to succeed, now.
Since I initially replied to the above, the BBC have produced an article on this:
Covid: Fact-checking the doctor who challenged the health secretary
An intensive-care doctor challenged the health secretary over mandatory vaccination - are his claims right?
www.bbc.co.uk
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:
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 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:
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:
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
BRX
Established Member
- Joined
- 20 Oct 2008
- Messages
- 3,629
Fact, or opinion?
Failed Unit
Established Member
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.
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
- 3,629
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…
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.
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
- 2,161
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?
An outlandish post.
Everybody values their relatives but part of growing up is accepting that they will die at some point.
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
- 3,629
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.
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.
How much of an imposition are masks in reality, do they really restrict your life so much?
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
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:
The case for and against the effectiveness of face coverings and the mandating of their use
In order to avoid loads of more niche threads becoming overrun with the same arguments, I've created this dedicated thread to enable people to debate whether or not face coverings are effective at reducing transmission, whether or not they should be legally mandated in certain settings, and to...
www.railforums.co.uk
Masks again
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-59443504 Johnson says rules on face coverings will be tightened up in shops and public transport. The rules will be reviewed in three weeks. As far as I am concerned I am exempt. I will not be wearing a flimsy mask. If anyone distrusts vaccines, they can...
www.railforums.co.uk
Police checking travel
There simply isn't the resource available to setup and administer an exemption scheme in the way you think there should be. From all the extra work it would put on medical professionals having to issue letters/proof of a medical condition to Government, presumably councils, having to review and...
www.railforums.co.uk
UK face coverings discussion
A muzzle is an object used to prevent an animal from opening its mouth. That is not what masks are for. The only reason people use the term "muzzle" to describe a face covering is to create immediate and unjustified prejudice against them. Or to put it another way, muzzles are about exerting...
www.railforums.co.uk
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...
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
What are the main differences between the approaches of the UK and Sweden?
Moderator note: Split from https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/if-you-were-leading-the-country-what-actions-would-you-take-regarding-covid-just-now.210830/ It has become quite clear now that Sweden which took a much more relaxed approach to Covid is in no worse off than the UK in terms of...
www.railforums.co.uk
So, Sweden may well have been right.....
This graph is very significant : Remember, Sweden has had no significant lockdown (BBC News link). It certainly make me even more sure we (and most of the world) have gone down the wrong path...... I have always thought this lockdown and social distancing (they're two sides of the same coin...
www.railforums.co.uk
- Status