How bizarre - someone who has been shielding for two years could hardly make their world any smaller. A friend of mine who was kept off work due to shielding (he'd had cancer and the treatment for it recently) decided he had had quite enough of it and came back earlier than necessary, with the opinion that it was hardly worth prolonging his life if it meant permanent cabin fever.
-
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!
End of all remaining Covid restrictions in England
- Thread starter Dent
- 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
I guess it depends on your circumstances but this afternoon I went for a country drive, the other week I spent all day photographing a steam special I don't spend all day sat in the house, I might put my mask on and go get a takeaway or get one delivered where they do it but on the other hand I'm not going to spend 2 hours in a Restaurant with no mask at this present time
I'm due for a 4th jab on Monday I will get an antibody test a few weeks after that, if that comes back as positive rather than as undetectable as previously possibly I might consider a little more risk, but I can see why other shielder's and myself will be very concerned about the easing of restrictions.
Of course I didn't expect any sympathy on this forum, it has a very one sided viewpoint on covid aided by the views of administrator 'Yorkie' but I thought I would at least try and put a different viewpoint.
I suppose the thing is this (based on my personal knowledge of a family member who is vulnerable): she avoided places like restaurants and busy shops whether or not restrictions were in place, because she knew that the "restrictions" were not going to prevent the possibility of her becoming infected - there's been enough anecdotal and hard evidence to support the theory that distancing, masks, ventilation etc. may reduce but by no means remove risk - hence the Belgian Antarctic expedition getting Covid despite multiple precautions.
However she was also happy to admit that just because she would not want to risk going to these places didn't mean that the entire country should also avoid it - and as time went on she gradually started to realise that you only live once anyway and there's inherent risk just in being alive, so since her third vaccination she has been living a fairly normal life again.
However she was also happy to admit that just because she would not want to risk going to these places didn't mean that the entire country should also avoid it - and as time went on she gradually started to realise that you only live once anyway and there's inherent risk just in being alive, so since her third vaccination she has been living a fairly normal life again.
Are you taking private antibody tests at your own expense, or those supplied by the NHS as part of a study?
Those supplied by the NHS do NOT detect antibodies to the spike protein, and therefore will not detect antibodies from any of the vaccines available in this country. They will only detect antibodies from infection with the disease itself (or some of the vaccines such as Sinovac and Covaxin that have not been administered in the UK).
I'm taking a private one as previously
Indeed. Somone who criticises others for being cold hearted and writes "your existence is not appealing to many of us" needs to take a log, hard look at himself.
johncrossley
Established Member
I think he meant that other people would not like to live that kind of life.
How much more of my life are you going to steal?
It's quite clear what 'existence' means in that post. Nice try.
Enthusiast
Established Member
- Joined
- 18 Mar 2019
- Messages
- 1,222
So if the government should decide to "manage as we are now" for a little longer, how much longer would you like that to be? And what would be the conditions required for you to accept that testing and isolation can end? Now that a precedent has been set, will you be calling for similar testing and isolation regulations to be brought in for other viral illnesses (many of which you will be equally likely to encounter in normal times) which might compromise the health of people like yourself?
Because, of course, as many people are now concluding, there is more to life than simply remaining alive.
I sympathise with your situation but you can't reasonably expect other people to compromise their wellbeing for yours no?
You should try not to be so worried if you can.
Your trips out sound good
You have my complete sympathy and i'd be very surprised of anyone opposing youur views actually didn't, you are in an utterly crap situation and have been dealt a bad hand. At the same time you cannot expect sympathy to equal agreement though, at least not with everyone. Covid is becoming endemic and similarly dangerous (or even less) in nature to flu, a virus that arguably would be killing more people right now than it's more famous cousin had it not existed. We didnt shut down society for that and we shouldn't for this.
But i'm not alone in saying i've had enough. I've had financial hardship directly related to this. I've got an 8 year old child who has effectively lost nearly a year of education and no matter what is thrown at that he won't get that valuable education back, at least not how it was intended. I've got a 16 year old who has had severe mental health struggles throughout and has seen a criminal lack of support for it along with continuing uncertainty about exams that are less than 3 months away. These shape her life.
I sympathise but maybe feel that you should as well.
I'm not sure how the few restrictions we have left can be described as life stealing would seem to be little more than an inconvenience for most people.
Yes I am aware that people have suffered in various ways which is not good but then are people who have died because of covid, there are no winners in this pandemic except maybe those that make PPE the vaccines etc, I now earn much less than I did before the pandemic
I have relatives and friends who have children and yes they are concerned about the loss of education for them, but certainly one of my relatives puts into context when his wife was seriously ill with of covid, loss of education verses the potential loss of their mother at a young age.
Covid is much more transmissable than flu and yes it appears to becoming milder but it seems to me its still not totally clear how it will pan out with potential new variants as yet.
The virus isn't going to go away though.
You cannot predict the severity of a SARS-CoV-2 infection based on levels of antibodies.
Indeed people who have the best immunity and who are able to shake off the virus without developing symptoms may have very low antibody levels whereas someone who had a more severe infection may have high antibody levels.
Those who are shielding have no right to try to restrict the lives of others. They are going to be infected with SARS-CoV-2 eventually; shielding simply delays the inevitable.
Your different viewpoint is going to continue to be challenged by me because it is based on false premises and misunderstandings.
I note you didn't answer the questions I asked earlier; I don't think you are having a debate in good faith if you choose not to answer these reasonable, valid questions.
I think you need to have a look at what was actually said rather than what you think was said. Nevertheless I have clarified the post by using alternative wording that may be easier for you to understand the point I was making.
I agree except it's s false premise that other people being subject to restrictions will benefit anyone; all it may achieve is delaying infections which are ultimately inevitable.
None of this justifies continuing restrictions.
SARS-CoV-2 continues to evolve and adapt through natural selection in a manner that is consistent with expectations and in line with previous Coronaviruses, such as OC43.
Last edited:
Eyersey468
Established Member
- Joined
- 14 Sep 2018
- Messages
- 2,192
I do sympathise with the position @37424 is in and can understand why they are concerned especially given the appalling messaging of the last 2 years, however at some point things like free tests, mandatory isolation etc has to end, if we don't end it soon how much longer do we keep them in place for? Covid isn't going to be eradicated contrary to what some seem to think.
I completely agree; those who seek to impose restrictions on others are not looking at the bigger picture and are not considering others.
I wonder if similar arguments were made 130 years ago during the pandemic which now appears to have likely been down to OC43. Probably not; indeed we only know there is a pandemic going on right now due to inappropriate mass testing and by listening to / viewing the news.
I wonder if @37424 made similar arguments during bad 'flu years, at times when there were many more deaths and hospitalisations than are occurring right now. Again, probably not.
Freightmaster
Established Member
- Joined
- 7 Jul 2009
- Messages
- 3,537
Like others on this thread, I can sympathise with the fear and anxiety that transitioning back to '2019 normal' must be putting you through, but...
As everyone else has tried to point out countless times, Covid is not going to "go away" for many years, if ever.
In the future there will almost certainly be new variants and/or more seasonal 'waves' and more vulnerable people
are inevitably going to be hospitalised and a few will sadly die, but it is up to them and their families to take steps
to mitigate against the ongoing risks rather than naïvely and unrealistically expecting the other 95% of the population
to permanently change their way of life.
Before anyone criticises me for being selfish, my own wife is in the vulnerable category due to a chronic condition,
but she absolutely hates the idea of others (myself included!) being inconvenienced in any way on her behalf.
MARK
Bantamzen
Established Member
Hold on a second, you are now arguing that we should keep restrictions because we don't know how the virus will mutate in the future? Really? Because I hate to be the one to break it to you but at any time, any virus could mutate to be an extinction event for all of us. So should we baton down the hatches indefinitely, and if we do how do you propose to deliver key services such as health, security, food production etc etc? I ask because you have neatly dodged my previous question on how you would secure such vital services were forced isolation on testing positive would mean potentially hundreds of thousands of workers would be unable to do their jobs each week.
@johncrossley - that was my understanding of the original intent as well.
@Darandio - don't go there.
@yorkie - thank you for the revision. It was the original wording that was flawed, not my understanding.
@Darandio - don't go there.
@yorkie - thank you for the revision. It was the original wording that was flawed, not my understanding.
Excuse me?
Reading this thread demonstrates a fundamental flaw with the way the past 2 years have been handled by our government, and how a heavy-handed, one-sided approach can lead to problems which were not foreseen whilst planning and implementing such an approach.
Let's go back to March 2020. The government were actually instructed by SAGE in a paper released on 22nd March to scare the population with hard-hitting emotional propaganda to increase compliance:
(https://assets.publishing.service.g...ce-to-social-distancing-measures-22032020.pdf)
I'm not sure about anyone else, but reading this in an official government document actually makes me feel uncomfortable. Putting that aside, however, it's clear to me that doing this will lead to the following happening:
1) Those who were not that scared and had done a sufficient amount of research into the situation would not be affected, as their existing knowledge would overrule any sensationalist propaganda rolled out by the government. They understand the true risk level, and are willing to adjust their behaviour (in a way they see as proportionate) to mitigate the risk to a level they deem acceptable
2) Those who were not that scared but had not done any/a sufficient amount of research into the situation would likely perceive the risk level as significantly higher than they first estimated. This would lead to increased compliance and support for restrictions which would not have been possible otherwise. As time has went on, members of this group have likely developed their own view on the situation (depending on their personal circumstances and just how struck they were by the initial launch of 'project fear', as it's often referred to). Some in this group will, after vaccination, deem the risk low enough to live an unrestricted life, whereas others may still support baseline mitigations (such as mask mandates and vaccine passports), as they make them 'feel safer'.
3) Those who were already scared of the virus (due to clinical vulnerability, media reports showing overwhelmed hospitals, or another reason) would have their fear level substantially increased to the point where they felt unable to leave their home/live an ordinary life anymore. They have been psychologically conditioned (through a grossly disproportionate government fear campaign) into viewing any human interaction as a potential threat to life. Many in this group currently think that this virus (regardless of its true virulence) at this stage will still be potentially lethal (after two years of hard hitting fear campaigns making them fear for their life, I do have sympathy for this group). As a result, many have (predictably, and understandably) developed a specific form of health anxiety (a condition I have suffered from in the past) related to SARS-CoV-2, making it extremely difficult for them to dismiss the fear and anxiety that have been built up over the past 2 years. Just how this damage is undone, I'm not quite sure how this damage can be easily undone.
The biggest problem is that, at the moment, many politicians are using the fears and anxieties of the latter group to justify their political decisions earlier in the pandemic (admitting they scared the population needlessly isn't going to encourage anyone to vote them back in!) and some (I'm looking at Sturgeon, Drakeford etc...) are using these to twist the narrative of the pandemic to gain them political foothold against other parties.
I've found that the more research into the actual epidemiology I do, the less scared I become of the virus, and the angrier I become at the government who I can now see have terrified the population beyond belief for what I believe was a complete overreaction to an novel virus being introduced into a population. I don't think I'll ever be able to forgive the politicians who have caused this for the damage they have done to lives, livelihoods, education, health and the economy. I respect those who were initially in support (as a result of the fear campaign) but are willing to apologise and admit that their views were wrong, but anyone who still supports the action we have taken over the past 2 years despite the evidence we have now is, in my view, unforgiveable.
Let's go back to March 2020. The government were actually instructed by SAGE in a paper released on 22nd March to scare the population with hard-hitting emotional propaganda to increase compliance:
(https://assets.publishing.service.g...ce-to-social-distancing-measures-22032020.pdf)
I'm not sure about anyone else, but reading this in an official government document actually makes me feel uncomfortable. Putting that aside, however, it's clear to me that doing this will lead to the following happening:
1) Those who were not that scared and had done a sufficient amount of research into the situation would not be affected, as their existing knowledge would overrule any sensationalist propaganda rolled out by the government. They understand the true risk level, and are willing to adjust their behaviour (in a way they see as proportionate) to mitigate the risk to a level they deem acceptable
2) Those who were not that scared but had not done any/a sufficient amount of research into the situation would likely perceive the risk level as significantly higher than they first estimated. This would lead to increased compliance and support for restrictions which would not have been possible otherwise. As time has went on, members of this group have likely developed their own view on the situation (depending on their personal circumstances and just how struck they were by the initial launch of 'project fear', as it's often referred to). Some in this group will, after vaccination, deem the risk low enough to live an unrestricted life, whereas others may still support baseline mitigations (such as mask mandates and vaccine passports), as they make them 'feel safer'.
3) Those who were already scared of the virus (due to clinical vulnerability, media reports showing overwhelmed hospitals, or another reason) would have their fear level substantially increased to the point where they felt unable to leave their home/live an ordinary life anymore. They have been psychologically conditioned (through a grossly disproportionate government fear campaign) into viewing any human interaction as a potential threat to life. Many in this group currently think that this virus (regardless of its true virulence) at this stage will still be potentially lethal (after two years of hard hitting fear campaigns making them fear for their life, I do have sympathy for this group). As a result, many have (predictably, and understandably) developed a specific form of health anxiety (a condition I have suffered from in the past) related to SARS-CoV-2, making it extremely difficult for them to dismiss the fear and anxiety that have been built up over the past 2 years. Just how this damage is undone, I'm not quite sure how this damage can be easily undone.
The biggest problem is that, at the moment, many politicians are using the fears and anxieties of the latter group to justify their political decisions earlier in the pandemic (admitting they scared the population needlessly isn't going to encourage anyone to vote them back in!) and some (I'm looking at Sturgeon, Drakeford etc...) are using these to twist the narrative of the pandemic to gain them political foothold against other parties.
I've found that the more research into the actual epidemiology I do, the less scared I become of the virus, and the angrier I become at the government who I can now see have terrified the population beyond belief for what I believe was a complete overreaction to an novel virus being introduced into a population. I don't think I'll ever be able to forgive the politicians who have caused this for the damage they have done to lives, livelihoods, education, health and the economy. I respect those who were initially in support (as a result of the fear campaign) but are willing to apologise and admit that their views were wrong, but anyone who still supports the action we have taken over the past 2 years despite the evidence we have now is, in my view, unforgiveable.
Agreed. I have hardly taken any tests; only on the rare occasion that I've felt unwell. They've come back negative anyway. My policy is simple, I will go to work and generally get on with my life unless I feel ill in which case I will stay at home. Which is what I did before 2020.
bramling
Veteran Member
This is a very well written and well justified post.
There’s certainly a significant risk that politicians will, potentially for some time, need to keep the show running, in order to avoid having to justify past decisions which are likely to increasingly appear - in hindsight or under scrutiny - hard to defend.
This risk continues even once Covid itself dies down, for as we see the numerous consequences people are going to increasingly look back at the past two years and question what was done.
We also remain in the territory of Covid being used as a smokescreen for unrelated aims, many of these being rather nefarious. We can bet the politicians will also make full use of the Ukraine situation as a means of burying bad stuff.
Back in March 2020 I did a bit of digging around to see if Covid was a threat to children (I have two young children). The answer was very rarely. Since then, I've not really been bothered about it. Any one of a 100 things could wipe me out any day of the week so I'm not losing sleep over Covid.
If you understood what I was saying, why did you respond in the manner in which you did?
Let's try to have a constructive debate; I am happy to debate any point with you if you can state what your view is.
I'm not sure what you mean by this? If you wish to disagree with someone, why not say what you disagree with and what your view is?
The original wording wasn't flawed; the word 'existence' can mean "a way of living".
Oddly there are people who use social media sites to campaign for the reintroduction of restrictions in schools to ''protect'' children, yet those people ignore the much greater risks the RSV virus poses to children (not to mention the harms caused by such restrictions)
Last edited:
Eyersey468
Established Member
- Joined
- 14 Sep 2018
- Messages
- 2,192
I agree, I doubt I will ever be able to forgive the politicians for the damage they have done over the last 2 years, it will certainly be years if ever before I even contemplate voting for any of the main political parties.
Speaking as someone who did suffer from probably, in retrospect, excessive anxiety in the early days in 2020, I hope SAGE are proud of themselves for making people feel frightened. It's also of note that the 20-second hand-washing recommended by the government every time you touched something that might be contaminated led me to develop a skin condition.
Sorry if this sounds a bit strongly-worded but the tactic of deliberately making people scared is to my mind completely unacceptable. I do wonder also whether SAGE are completely blind to the mental health and financial problems many people have suffered, or just consider that as necessary collateral damage.
Last edited:
Eyersey468
Established Member
- Joined
- 14 Sep 2018
- Messages
- 2,192
It is completely unacceptable to me too
Indeed. BTW the '20-minute handwashing' was a typo... I have now corrected it. Probably SAGE would have liked us to do that though...
BackOnTheTrain
Member
- Joined
- 23 Jan 2016
- Messages
- 159
The NHS-supplied tests originally only detected antibodies from infection. They’ve detected antibodies from both vaccination and infection since at least September though.
- Status