Omicron variant and the measures implemented in response to it

[Eyersey468]

Well originally the end of all restrictions last year was supposed to be 21st June. Though that got delayed until 19th July! My recollection from certainly a few weeks before 21st June was there were reports that mandatory face mask restrictions may still remain and even additionally social distancing restrictions may still remain. However by 2 weeks before 19th July it was confirmed that both these restrictions WOULD be scrapped. A quick Google search confirms this.

The different and worrying thing now is that we're now within 10 days of when hopefully all "Plan B" restrictions will be scrapped. But apart from just that Express article which says all "Plan B" restrictions(including face masks) are to be scrapped, all the other reports are saying that mandatory face masks on public transport, in shops, etc "WILL REMAIN". This has changed from recent days when reports mentioned that face mask restrictions "MAY REMAIN". So it's not looking good is it. Looks like they're going to keep this nonsense dragging on for at least a bit longer. Absolutely ridiculous. Javid did tell us 6 weeks ago now "That if the Omicron variant is found to be no more severe than the Delta variant then these restrictions can be scrapped IMMEDIATELY" and "We won't keep these restrictions going for a moment longer than necessary.". Looks like he lied to us!

Wouldn't surprise me if there was yet another u turn and this turned out to be yet another false promise.

 

[TPO]

It is particularly concerning at this point, because if you are going to bar the unvaccinated *now*, when the vaccine is doing basically nothing to prevent infections or transmission, and the virus is basically a cold now for most people anyway, when are you ever going to 'un-bar' them? Like all these measures, if there is no criteria for removing them, they tend to drag on and on and on.

Or is the plan to keep it this way forever now?

Once you 'other' a group like this, it is hard to 'un'-'other' them, even if the political will is there to do so, and in this case I doubt it is.

I agree wholeheartedly. With the definition of "unvaccinated " shifting to include those without a fresh booster this is even worse.

My solution: I would remove that immunity to being sued that the vaccine manufacturers have, then watch their enthusiasm for pushing boosters drop like a stone.....

I would also scrap the mandated vaccines for NHS and care workers.

Those are 2 measures I would like to see happen along with scrapping the other measures but unfortunately I cannot see it happening.

TPO

 

[Bungle73]

What exactly is the point of keeping masks around at this point? Especially with such a hotchpotch of implementation.

 

[takno]

What exactly is the point of keeping masks around at this point? Especially with such a hotchpotch of implementation.

The people implementing them don't have a particular problem half-wearing them for the relatively short periods they are obliged to. In general they don't attempt to understand that some people are forced to wear them for hours at a time, don't appreciate that many people don't treat laws as a joke in the way that they do, and don't get that some people react differently and just can't cope with them.

They have decided on everybody's behalf that this restriction is "not too much trouble", and just assume that people not wanting to go along with it are being obtuse.

 

[MikeWM]

My solution: I would remove that immunity to being sued that the vaccine manufacturers have, then watch their enthusiasm for pushing boosters drop like a stone.....

Well, indeed. Any time I purchase a computer, or a toaster, or a car - if it ends up injuring me or causing me damage, I can claim against the manufacturer. That's how it should be.

I'm rather more particular still that this applies to things put into my body. Given the profits Pfizer and Moderna have made out of this pandemic, it is utterly disgraceful that they get to keep all that money and the taxpayer is picking up the tab when their product causes issues - although the vaccine injury scheme itself is rather pathetic (in the UK a maximum of £120,000, and only if you can prove you've been '60%' permanently disabled, whatever that is supposed to mean).

If someone said to me 'you really really have to buy this toaster, and well it is probably safe, but the manufacturer is legally protected from all liability if it isn't, and just ignore those reports and rumours you keep seeing about more kitchen fires than usual because that's just a complete coincidence' my first thought would be 'hmm, I wonder if I actually need a toaster at all', not 'ah, ok, I'll take 3 of them'.

I would also scrap the mandated vaccines for NHS and care workers.

Yes, indeed. It's a weird sort of pandemic where we're proposing firing vast numbers of health workers.

In some US states, the problem is so acute that they're now allowing health workers with *symptomatic* covid to work with patients, as long as they're vaccinated! - but the unvaccinated are out, whether they've got good natural immunity or test negative or whatever.

But we know by now that much/most of this isn't about stopping the spread of a virus.

 

[TwoYellas]

I've been saying this for a long time; I thought it was the most likely outcome once the virus reached us and I did some research and I have become more and more convinced at this eventuality as time went on, for example over 14 months ago I was convinced at this being the only way out of the epidemic, and indeed I posted this:

The zero covid believers and cold hearted brigade on social media are up in arms at this, but most respectable experts do agree that Sars-CoV-2 is becoming endemic and we have no choice but to live with the virus, with the endgame being a state of endemic equilibrium.

You're coming across as a little too hyperbolic and self congratulatory, in my view. People with this style of argument, from my experience, are rarely to be relied on. That's not to say you may not be right on some things as you claim.

I'm sure some countries have managed to keep deaths down and with vaccines and a milder variant, hopefully we are all at the beginning of the end of this. The advantages and disadvantages of different approaches to the pandemic will be debated for years to come. But certainly, I will be interested in the measured conclusions from scientists and other experts about this pandemic and the approaches to it, and how we can better guard against future outbreaks.

 

[Bantamzen]

You're coming across as a little too hyperbolic and self congratulatory, in my view. People with this style of argument, from my experience, are rarely to be relied on. That's not to say you may not be right on some things as you claim.

I'm sure some countries have managed to keep deaths down and with vaccines and a milder variant, hopefully we are all at the beginning of the end of this. The advantages and disadvantages of different approaches to the pandemic will be debated for years to come. But certainly, I will be interested in the measured conclusions from scientists and other experts about this pandemic and the approaches to it, and how we can better guard against future outbreaks.

We could have scientists and other experts pontificate for the next 100 years, and they still couldn't come up with any way to better guard from future outbreaks, because save locking up every single person in total isolation for weeks or months on end future viruses will spread. That's how it has been for hundreds of millions of years, and its about time we came to accept this. In fact even total isolation, and by which I mean zero human interactions, would not stop viruses, they simply jump species when one host becomes unavailable. This is one of the problems that has emerged from this pandemic, what someone else on these forums described as "human exceptionalism". That is to say that some people have formed the opinion that humans must be able to survive absolutely anything, and that mortality should no longer be a fact of life.

Now that's not to say there are not things we could do to mitigate some of the problems. For a start governments around the world need to not only better invest in health services to ensure that not only is there capacity for usual times, but there is built in excess to deal with future pandemics. Furthermore governments need to work better together to share capacity, share knowledge and resources. The same can be said for pharmaceutical research, development and production. Instead of different countries all engaging in was little more than a restriction & vaccine peeing contest, they need to better work together to develop vaccines & treatments that can be rolled out quickly and effectively to all countries, not just those that can afford them. This will help mitigate those early stages where viruses quickly mutate and rip through poorer, less exposed to vaccines countries.

But most importantly, and currently most ignored is health. The healthier a population is, the less likely a future pandemic will be so disruptive. And again this requires global cooperation to get the globe's people better access to healthy food, to medicines, vitamins, treatments and quality of life. Instead of trying to micromanage each virus as they appear, we should be looking to ensure more people have access to what they need to be healthy & have healthy immune systems. That is how you best manage future pandemics, incredibly difficult I grant you, but it is the best way & far more preferable than locking up entire countries or locking down our little lines in the sand.

 

[DustyBin]

We could have scientists and other experts pontificate for the next 100 years, and they still couldn't come up with any way to better guard from future outbreaks, because save locking up every single person in total isolation for weeks or months on end future viruses will spread. That's how it has been for hundreds of millions of years, and its about time we came to accept this. In fact even total isolation, and by which I mean zero human interactions, would not stop viruses, they simply jump species when one host becomes unavailable. This is one of the problems that has emerged from this pandemic, what someone else on these forums described as "human exceptionalism". That is to say that some people have formed the opinion that humans must be able to survive absolutely anything, and that mortality should no longer be a fact of life.

Now that's not to say there are not things we could do to mitigate some of the problems. For a start governments around the world need to not only better invest in health services to ensure that not only is there capacity for usual times, but there is built in excess to deal with future pandemics. Furthermore governments need to work better together to share capacity, share knowledge and resources. The same can be said for pharmaceutical research, development and production. Instead of different countries all engaging in was little more than a restriction & vaccine peeing contest, they need to better work together to develop vaccines & treatments that can be rolled out quickly and effectively to all countries, not just those that can afford them. This will help mitigate those early stages where viruses quickly mutate and rip through poorer, less exposed to vaccines countries.

But most importantly, and currently most ignored is health. The healthier a population is, the less likely a future pandemic will be so disruptive. And again this requires global cooperation to get the globe's people better access to healthy food, to medicines, vitamins, treatments and quality of life. Instead of trying to micromanage each virus as they appear, we should be looking to ensure more people have access to what they need to be healthy & have healthy immune systems. That is how you best manage future pandemics, incredibly difficult I grant you, but it is the best way & far more preferable than locking up entire countries or locking down our little lines in the sand.

I couldn’t agree more!

 

[TwoYellas]

We could have scientists and other experts pontificate for the next 100 years, and they still couldn't come up with any way to better guard from future outbreaks, because save locking up every single person in total isolation for weeks or months on end future viruses will spread. That's how it has been for hundreds of millions of years, and its about time we came to accept this.

Human expansion into tropical rainforests has increased the liklehood of pathogens spreading as we are creating an ecological disequilibrium. I don't buy the 'viruses have always spread - nothing to see here narrative'. Spillover to humans is now more likely than ever before - so human activity, such as deforestation is increasing the liklehood of pandemics. Scientists are researching zoonotic diseases and this should be supported.

Furthermore governments need to work better together to share capacity, share knowledge and resources. The same can be said for pharmaceutical research, development and production. Instead of different countries all engaging in was little more than a restriction & vaccine peeing contest, they need to better work together to develop vaccines & treatments that can be rolled out quickly and effectively to all countries, not just those that can afford them. This will help mitigate those early stages where viruses quickly mutate and rip through poorer, less exposed to vaccines countries.

Agreed. By very definition pandemics, require a global response. The nationalistic point scoring has been silly and counter productive. Pandemic preparedness and prevention is very important.

But most importantly, and currently most ignored is health. The healthier a population is, the less likely a future pandemic will be so disruptive. And again this requires global cooperation to get the globe's people better access to healthy food, to medicines, vitamins, treatments and quality of life.

Agreed, this is better in the long run for everyone.

 

[Bikeman78]

Indeed the 1999/2000 millennium flu is well known for its severity, and was something I personally suffered from.

I was oblivious to it until it was discussed on this forum recently. I was in my 20s and my granny was 80 at the time. She just cracked on with life as normal. I don't recall flu being mentioned and she certainly wasn't hiding away in her home.

 

[cuccir]

I was oblivious to it until it was discussed on this forum recently. I was in my 20s and my granny was 80 at the time. She just cracked on with life as normal. I don't recall flu being mentioned and she certainly wasn't hiding away in her home.

An article from 2008 reports that that flu outbreak killed 22,000. Covid-19 has killed 120,000-150,000 (you can pick your figure within that based on how you interpret the 'of'/'with' of covid). Even if we take the lower figure and cut the numbers in half as we're now counting two years of deaths, covid-19 has been three times more deadly despite all the extensive measures taken.

For a start governments around the world need to not only better invest in health services to ensure that not only is there capacity for usual times, but there is built in excess to deal with future pandemics. Furthermore governments need to work better together to share capacity, share knowledge and resources. The same can be said for pharmaceutical research, development and production. Instead of different countries all engaging in was little more than a restriction & vaccine peeing contest, they need to better work together to develop vaccines & treatments that can be rolled out quickly and effectively to all countries, not just those that can afford them. This will help mitigate those early stages where viruses quickly mutate and rip through poorer, less exposed to vaccines countries.

But most importantly, and currently most ignored is health. The healthier a population is, the less likely a future pandemic will be so disruptive. And again this requires global cooperation to get the globe's people better access to healthy food, to medicines, vitamins, treatments and quality of life. Instead of trying to micromanage each virus as they appear, we should be looking to ensure more people have access to what they need to be healthy & have healthy immune systems.

I think we can all agree with this, regardless of people's views on the approach taken at different times in the pandemic.

 

[nw1]

An article from 2008 reports that that flu outbreak killed 22,000. Covid-19 has killed 120,000-150,000 (you can pick your figure within that based on how you interpret the 'of'/'with' of covid). Even if we take the lower figure and cut the numbers in half as we're now counting two years of deaths, covid-19 has been three times more deadly despite all the extensive measures taken.

Though what's under discussion is not the measures that have taken place so far and whether they should have taken place, but rather what any future measures against Covid in future winters should be. I suspect that the typical Covid death rates in future winters will be below the flu death rate in 1999/2000, given the tendency for each successive mutation to be less dangerous than the last. We should, of course, take non-punitive measures such as prepare the health service properly to deal with it.

 

[Bikeman78]

An article from 2008 reports that that flu outbreak killed 22,000. Covid-19 has killed 120,000-150,000 (you can pick your figure within that based on how you interpret the 'of'/'with' of covid). Even if we take the lower figure and cut the numbers in half as we're now counting two years of deaths, covid-19 has been three times more deadly despite all the extensive measures taken.

I was replying to the point that it was "well known." I'm sure plenty of young people didn't know much about it. Thinking about it, I was laid up for a few days that winter. I'd been out and about over the weekend, felt rubbish Sunday afternoon and barely left my bed in the early part of the week. Then I got better and didn't give it a second thought.

I see Sadiq Khan is at it again. What needs to happen for him to change his mind on this?

MSN

www.msn.com

Sadiq Khan has urged the Government to keep compulsory face mask laws in place for public transport after Covid restrictions are lifted.

The Mayor of London said the capital needs to “get out” of plan B restrictions as soon possible to help save businesses but people should continue to wear face coverings, particularly on TfL services.

Mr Khan argued that masks would help “increase public confidence” on public transport even as infection rates plunge .

 

[island]

I can say that personally masks reduce my confidence in using public transport as they make me feel less safe, less comfortable, and less happy about my travel. In the 4 and a bit months when they were optional last year I used public transport considerably more than before and after. Sadiq needs to stick to the knitting, balance the budget, sort out knife crime, and stop pettifogging about rules that people don't follow anyway.

 

[Class 33]

Khan's a bloody nuisance. At it again I see, urging the government to keep this mandatory face mask on public transport nonsense. "Increase public confidence" wearing face masks on public transport??!! What an absolute joke!! He should have realised that the vast majority of people are sick of wearing face masks now and want all this to be scrapped for good! Why doesn't he make himself more useful and concentrate on more important matters such as gun crime in London??

 

[greyman42]

I was replying to the point that it was "well known." I'm sure plenty of young people didn't know much about it. Thinking about it, I was laid up for a few days that winter. I'd been out and about over the weekend, felt rubbish Sunday afternoon and barely left my bed in the early part of the week. Then I got better and didn't give it a second thought.

I see Sadiq Khan is at it again. What needs to happen for him to change his mind on this?

MSN

www.msn.com

And how long does he think that we should carry on wearing masks on TfL for?
The best thing we can do is to stop wearing them and send him a message.

 

[westv]

I noted that on the BBC website the health secretary was "cautiously optimistic" that plan B can be "substantially reduced" next week.

 

[greyman42]

Khan's a bloody nuisance. At it again I see, urging the government to keep this mandatory face mask on public transport nonsense. "Increase public confidence" wearing face masks on public transport??!! What an absolute joke!! He should have realised that the vast majority of people are sick of wearing face masks now and want all this to be scrapped for good! Why doesn't he make himself more useful and concentrate on more important matters such as gun crime in London??

Whilst arguments about mask wearing are at the fore, it deflects from more important matters such as gun and knife crime.

 

[Dent]

I noted that on the BBC website the health secretary was "cautiously optimistic" that plan B can be "substantially reduced" next week.

"Substantially reduced"? It legally expires in its entirety. The health secretary really should know that, and someone should have reminded him if he has forgotten.

 

[Bikeman78]

I can say that personally masks reduce my confidence in using public transport as they make me feel less safe, less comfortable, and less happy about my travel. In the 4 and a bit months when they were optional last year I used public transport considerably more than before and after. Sadiq needs to stick to the knitting, balance the budget, sort out knife crime, and stop pettifogging about rules that people don't follow anyway.

The number of passengers gradually increased after July last year until Omicron was in the news. At the same time, the number of masks gradually reduced. How does Mr Khan explain that? Does he think that if 100% of passengers wore them all the time that there would be more people travelling? I seriously doubt that. No doubt there are plenty of opinion polls that prove me wrong but the people that don't use public transport are bound to vote in favour because it doesn't affect them.

 

[Berliner]

Seems in Scotland most restrictions are to be lifted on Monday. Testing before meeting up and work from home will still be encouraged though. It again, nonsensical to encourage or expect WFH when all other aspects of life can include mixing freely again as it seems social distancing rules will also be scrapped. All WFH does is further damage the economy at this point by reducing public transport and city centre business use.

No mention of vaccine passport status,. isolation or masks yet, but I'm sure more information will come when Sturgeon speaks.

 

[davetheguard]

There is this current petition which could do with a few more signatures. Revoke compulsory wearing of facemasks on public transport and in shops - Petitions (parliament.uk)

Signed!

 

[Bikeman78]

Signed!

Likewise. I'm not sure it will get to 10,000 signatures though. It's very easy not to wear one; enforcement is close to zero and there are plenty of legitimate ways around it. If it were enforced with an iron rod, I think there would be more of a backlash.

 

[duncanp]

Khan's a bloody nuisance. At it again I see, urging the government to keep this mandatory face mask on public transport nonsense. "Increase public confidence" wearing face masks on public transport??!! What an absolute joke!! He should have realised that the vast majority of people are sick of wearing face masks now and want all this to be scrapped for good! Why doesn't he make himself more useful and concentrate on more important matters such as gun crime in London??

Yes, the article says

Sadiq Khan has urged the Government to keep compulsory face mask laws in place for public transport after Covid restrictions are lifted.

Er, isn't that a contradiction in terms?

How can you still have compulsory face mask laws after COVID restrictions are lifted, given that compulsory face mask laws are a COVID restriction?

I hope Boris Johnson does abolish compulsory face masks in London, just to stick two fingers up at Mr Khan.

 

[Drogba11CFC]

Likewise. I'm not sure it will get to 10,000 signatures though. It's very easy not to wear one; enforcement is close to zero and there are plenty of legitimate ways around it. If it were enforced with an iron rod, I think there would be more of a backlash.

Not officially, but there were plenty of little Hitlers willing to step in and enforce it.

 

[LAX54]

I noted that on the BBC website the health secretary was "cautiously optimistic" that plan B can be "substantially reduced" next week.

Another site says, that all rules will be removed, and the wearing of masks, will be 'no need, unless you want to'. I also see on CNN that Spain is thinking of treating Covid the same as Flu very soon.

 

[Crossover]

Another site says, that all rules will be removed, and the wearing of masks, will be 'no need, unless you want to'. I also see on CNN that Spain is thinking of treating Covid the same as Flu very soon.

That messaging would be a step forward, for sure!

 

[cuccir]

Though what's under discussion is not the measures that have taken place so far and whether they should have taken place, but rather what any future measures against Covid in future winters should be. I suspect that the typical Covid death rates in future winters will be below the flu death rate in 1999/2000, given the tendency for each successive mutation to be less dangerous than the last. We should, of course, take non-punitive measures such as prepare the health service properly to deal with it.

Ah apologies. Yes, I agree and I expect that this is the end point. The question I guess is how many winters that takes. I know most on here expect this to be the last one with any restrictions. While I would hope that, I think I'd be of the expectation that it may take a few winters and rounds of vaccinating the vulnerable to get to that level. But to be clear, I'm imagining scenarios much closer to England's winter (or lighter) than the measures in Scotland/Wales.

What has been missing throughout though is a clear exit strategy. I can completely sympathize with the concerns without one of endless restrictions, power grabs, and unnecessary politically motivated legislation. We need a clear projection: what level of serious infections and deaths is tolerable to avoid restrictions. What level of serious infections and deaths are intolerable and would require them.

 

[3rd rail land]

I hope Boris Johnson does abolish compulsory face masks in London, just to stick two fingers up at Mr Khan.

Given Sadiq got told to jog on when he asked the government to make mask wearing a bylaw on TFL services it gives me great hope that he won't get his wish this time either.

 

[kristiang85]

Another site says, that all rules will be removed, and the wearing of masks, will be 'no need, unless you want to'. I also see on CNN that Spain is thinking of treating Covid the same as Flu very soon.

Yet one of the goons on independent SAGE yesterday said 'maybe we should consider 200-300 deaths a day from winter flu as too high...'.

But Dr Kit Yates, a member of the Independent Sage pressure group, suggested those rates were not low enough and called for more action to tackle flu.

Dr Yates, from the University of Bath, tweeted: 'Even if the 200-300 daily flu deaths figure were correct, it doesn't follow that we should be doing less to prevent Covid deaths.

'Perhaps it's time we started talking about doing more to prevent flu.'

If this line of thinking continues, it's will end up with us being in lockdown all winter every year and anything joyous in life that might be bad for us will be banned (alcohol, sweets, extreme sports, etc. etc.) until everybody lives to 100, mostly dribbling away in the dark corner of a care home we are locked in.