Omicron variant and the measures implemented in response to it

[takno]

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

In what sense is this undoubtable? We really don't know how many lives would have been lost overall by doing literally nothing, how many lives were lost from other causes as a result of doing what we did, and whether there were a whole series of more effective but more acceptable measures.

I wouldn't pretend we've got all the answers here, but it's a mistake to regard something as undoubtable when it's actually a really open question.

 

[hst43102]

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.

A brilliant post @Huntergreed . If anything, this pandemic (specifically the last couple of months) has really made me think about how I want to be living my life - and how I would want to look back on it when I'm elderly. Like many on here I've seen elderly relatives and friends slowly deteriorate both physically and mentally, even though many of them died at 95+, they were barely "alive" for the final few years. I would much rather live my life to its absolute fullest and die at a "younger" age than be kept alive by an endless supply of pills and care staff.
It's also made me prioritize my relationships with friends and family more than studies and work - previously my goal of life was to get an excellent job, make lots of money and do lots of things with that. Now I'm hoping to get a more relaxed life - find people who I love spending time with and use my job to complement my activities and travels with them. In a way I think this has been one of the most positive outcomes from this pandemic - although I've had some really dark times and lots of struggles, I feel that I've matured a lot more and have a lot more plans than if this situation didn't happen.

 

[43066]

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

That doesn’t necessarily follow given that there’s little correlation internationally between the harshness of lockdowns and other restrictions and the death rate. Sweden with its light touch approach has done slightly worse than its neighbours but not significantly so. Then of course we still don’t actually know how many deaths from other causes will be caused by lockdowns and other restrictions. In stark contrast to their enthusiasm for the pronouncements of a certain discredited Imperial college professor, the government never even bothered getting detailed modelling on this before jumping into the knee jerk lockdowns. Non-Covid excess deaths have been above normal for months now and it may yet become clear that the response to Covid ends up causing more deaths than disease itself would have, even had it been allowed to spread unchecked, and of much younger patients than your average Covid victim who is in their eighties.

It’s also crazy to suggest that society should be regulated to prevent pressure on the NHS. The NHS essentially stopped treating anything other than Covid for long periods, and in fact was quieter than usual for much of the last two years between the waves, yet little has seemingly been done to increase capacity despite enormous amounts of money being thrown around. Thousands of infections and deaths are estimated to have been caused by poor NHS infection control, and of course we now know the “pressure” was shamefully and cynically exaggerated in the figures trotted out by Jenny Harries recently.

 

[Yew]

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 feel that continuing suppression efforts into the summer was counterproductive, in effect it 'saved them up' for the winter, when hospitals are usually busier. Indeed, a large autumn wave is exactly what the modelling suggested would happen if we suppressed for too long.


Maybe there was hope of vaccines coming through before the winter respiratory virus season, but I feel it was mainly due to the purpose of restrictions being understood, they weren't to "stop you getting COVID" they were to make sure there was a hospital bed for you if you needed it.

 

[35B]

For those who use Twitter to obtain information, people have been compiling lists of people who are worth listening to:

https://twitter.com/MarkGermaine/status/1480484397489041410

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.

There are some of those listed there whose credibility is at least as questionable and hyper-partisan as the likes of Ding and Greenhalgh - Hoeg, Makary, Prasad in particular. On the other hand, I find Balloux (with reservations) and Kall (without) truly excellent.

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.

You conflate "protect from own mortality" with "protect from new threats". I've used the example of a relative before; his mortality is not in question (late 80s, COPD, frail), but at the same time, the presence of Covid radically changed his risk profile.

 

[BRX]

Sweden with its light touch approach has done slightly worse than its neighbours but not significantly so.

You what?

An interactive visualization of COVID-19 | 91-DIVOC

An interactive, data-forward visualization of COVID-19 data by Prof. Wade at The University of Illinois. Updated daily.

91-divoc.com

I think we have to be very careful about drawing too many conclusions from differences between countries, because there are so many factors involved (probably including many we don't know about or understand) that you can't just assume the differences are down to the things you are most interested in.

It *is* true that Sweden appears to have done OK, compared to the EU average, and compared to the UK, despite having implemented less strict restrictions. But it really isn't true that they've not done much worse than their neighbours (the countries you could argue offer the most meaningful reference points). And Sweden saw big pressure on their healthcare system too; they also saw treatments for other diseases postponed and cancelled.

 

[35B]

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.

That, with respect, is something of a strawman position about care homes - by no means all their occupants are in anything like that position. The response to those in care homes needs to be based on who they are, not a caricature.

 

[nw1]

I feel that continuing suppression efforts into the summer was counterproductive, in effect it 'saved them up' for the winter, when hospitals are usually busier. Indeed, a large autumn wave is exactly what the modelling suggested would happen if we suppressed for too long.

I did find it hard to understand the continued lockdown or semi-lockdown after the 'alpha' wave, for example not even opening retail until April 12th and preventing indoor use of pubs until May 17th. This seemed rather late in both cases. Was there really a huge risk of spread during the spring which necessitated keeping the economy shut well into the lighter months?

 

[seagull]

his mortality is not in question (late 80s, COPD, frail), but at the same time, the presence of Covid radically changed his risk profile.

Before the vaccines, yes, I'd agree. But not now. And the miraculous way that 'flu disappeared, well.. one could now argue that one risk has simply been replaced with another. Or that statistics are inaccurate.

 

[BRX]

I personally do agree that some people are kept alive longer than they themselves would have wanted, and this is a problem and an increasingly large one, but an incredibly difficult one to solve for what you'd hope are obvious reasons.

But some things written on this thread are getting very uncomfortably close to suggesting using Covid as a kind of euthenasia, but in a non-discriminatory way, that is, deciding that being vulnerable to Covid-19 equates to being at a stage of life where there is no meaning or enjoyment left in it. It doesn't.

 

[Freightmaster]

I did find it hard to understand the continued lockdown or semi-lockdown after the 'alpha' wave, for example not even opening retail until April 12th and preventing indoor use of pubs until May 17th. This seemed rather late in both cases. Was there really a huge risk of spread during the spring which necessitated keeping the economy shut well into the lighter months?

Don't you remember the famous mantra of Data, not dates, Dates, not data?







MARK

 

[Dent]

But some things written on this thread are getting very uncomfortably close to suggesting using Covid as a kind of euthenasia, but in a non-discriminatory way, that is, deciding that being vulnerable to Covid-19 equates to being at a stage of life where there is no meaning or enjoyment left in it. It doesn't.

Who said that? It sounds like a strawman to me.

 

[yorkie]

I personally do agree that some people are kept alive longer than they themselves would have wanted, and this is a problem and an increasingly large one, but an incredibly difficult one to solve for what you'd hope are obvious reasons.

But some things written on this thread are getting very uncomfortably close to suggesting using Covid as a kind of euthenasia, but in a non-discriminatory way, that is, deciding that being vulnerable to Covid-19 equates to being at a stage of life where there is no meaning or enjoyment left in it. It doesn't.

This is nonsense; viruses exist for a reason and there is only so much we can do to "play god" before it becomes impracticable and inhumane. Yes it is a difficult subject with no simple solution, but I reject the idea that we should focus on quantity of live over quality and that the aim of live should be to prevent elderly people getting viruses on the basis that we can keep them alive as long as possible.

 

[Spamcan81]

This is nonsense; viruses exist for a reason and there is only so much we can do to "play god" before it becomes impracticable and inhumane. Yes it is a difficult subject with no simple solution, but I reject the idea that we should focus on quantity of live over quality and that the aim of live should be to prevent elderly people getting viruses on the basis that we can keep them alive as long as possible.

I agree about quality over quantity but many of those who have died of Covid have not been at death's door so have had quality life taken from them too soon. Would you have the same attitude if you were a healthy 70+ year old? As for viruses existing for a reason, do you think we should stop research into how to combat them? Bring back smallpox and other killers?

 

[Dent]

You conflate "protect from own mortality" with "protect from new threats". I've used the example of a relative before; his mortality is not in question (late 80s, COPD, frail), but at the same time, the presence of Covid radically changed his risk profile.

It is not new, it has been around for nearly two years now, and through vaccination and a more mild variant it has already been reduced as much as it possibly can be.

 

[Spamcan81]

I personally do agree that some people are kept alive longer than they themselves would have wanted, and this is a problem and an increasingly large one, but an incredibly difficult one to solve for what you'd hope are obvious reasons.

But some things written on this thread are getting very uncomfortably close to suggesting using Covid as a kind of euthenasia, but in a non-discriminatory way, that is, deciding that being vulnerable to Covid-19 equates to being at a stage of life where there is no meaning or enjoyment left in it. It doesn't.

Agreed. It seems that there are some members of society who feel that we should not protect the elderly and let the virus do its worse. Whilst we can't shut down for ever, making some changes to give some sort of protection to the vulnerable isn't too much to ask IMO.

 

[172007]

This is nonsense; viruses exist for a reason and there is only so much we can do to "play god" before it becomes impracticable and inhumane. Yes it is a difficult subject with no simple solution, but I reject the idea that we should focus on quantity of live over quality and that the aim of live should be to prevent elderly people getting viruses on the basis that we can keep them alive as long as possible.

Virus's exist due to a chance happening eons ago in the same way that fungi, fauna and flora exist surely. They may now have a reason in only so much that they are a cog in the natural order of the world.

 

[VauxhallandI]

Agreed. It seems that there are some members of society who feel that we should not protect the elderly and let the virus do its worse. Whilst we can't shut down for ever, making some changes to give some sort of protection to the vulnerable isn't too much to ask IMO.

And if I wanted to see your quest for this pre-2020 about other conditions where would I go to review that?

 

[35B]

It is not new, it has been around for nearly two years now, and through vaccination and a more mild variant it has already been reduced as much as it possibly can be.

I find it useful to remember that humankind is new, on a global scale - relatively speaking, about 1 minute if the earth were a day old. Two years is still a very short time, and there is much we don't know about Covid.

You may be right that the combination of vaccines and a fortuitously mild variant in omicron has reduced that risk to a minimum level; I'm not sure I'd take that bet on a disease that has come up with nasty surprises. I actually agree that how we view risk needs to change towards acceptance rather than prevention, but object to the implied portrayal of those at risk as being somehow dispensable.

I personally do agree that some people are kept alive longer than they themselves would have wanted, and this is a problem and an increasingly large one, but an incredibly difficult one to solve for what you'd hope are obvious reasons.

But some things written on this thread are getting very uncomfortably close to suggesting using Covid as a kind of euthenasia, but in a non-discriminatory way, that is, deciding that being vulnerable to Covid-19 equates to being at a stage of life where there is no meaning or enjoyment left in it. It doesn't.

Who said that? It sounds like a strawman to me.

It's strongly implied in a number of posts, where the portrayal of those in care homes focuses on the most severe cases and disregards the very many who are simply frail, not just being kept alive by all means. @BRX is right to distinguish between the wider ethical issues around end of life, and the specific questions about the implications for some of the most vulnerable of denying them protection. I have mentioned my relative; I also know someone else who died after enduring the full range and depth of Alzheimers, and am very glad that he died before Covid, so that he, his carers and his wife never had to deal with the constraints of early 2020.

I also find this focus on care homes interesting, especially from people who have expressed support for Great Barrington and the idea of "focused protection" - those in care homes being precisely the sort of people who were identified as in need of this protection.

 

[Dent]

I find it useful to remember that humankind is new, on a global scale - relatively speaking, about 1 minute if the earth were a day old. Two years is still a very short time, and there is much we don't know about Covid.

Relative to the age of the planet is not a useful benchmark. Relative to someone's life it is a long time.

You may be right that the combination of vaccines and a fortuitously mild variant in omicron has reduced that risk to a minimum level; I'm not sure I'd take that bet on a disease that has come up with nasty surprises.

We have now vaccinated everyone who wants to be vaccinated, what more are you waiting for before you are satisfied that the risk has been reduced as much as possible?

 

[43066]

You conflate "protect from own mortality" with "protect from new threats". I've used the example of a relative before; his mortality is not in question (late 80s, COPD, frail), but at the same time, the presence of Covid radically changed his risk profile.

I’m not sure how useful it really is to distinguish between those concepts. The reality is when someone is late 80s, frail, with COPD Covid is just one of a number of things that might carry them off. We would never dream of shutting down society to “protect” such a person from flu, for example. We are all going to die at some point and frankly living until your late 80s is a good innings; many don’t make it that far.

I seem to recall figures showing (even pre vaccine) a healthy octogenarian has around the same % chance of mortality in any given year from all causes as they do from contracting Covid. So it certainly wasn’t ever the case that an elderly person catching Covid was an automatic death sentence.

By the way I have not once argued for doing nothing, and I think it’s very clear that far more could have been done early on to protect those in care homes. During the first wave the NHS was merrily discharging Covid positive patients back to care homes which alone accounted for many thousands of deaths.

It *is* true that Sweden appears to have done OK, compared to the EU average, and compared to the UK, despite having implemented less strict restrictions. But it really isn't true that they've not done much worse than their neighbours (the countries you could argue offer the most meaningful reference points). And Sweden saw big pressure on their healthcare system too; they also saw treatments for other diseases postponed and cancelled.

A little worse than I remembered, I concede. However, as you note, not substantially worse when compared to the rest of the EU which includes many countries which have implemented appallingly draconian restrictions the likes of which have not been seen since WW2. I’d also be interested in seeing how excess deaths (all causes) compare between countries now and over the next few years. My strong suspicion is that non Covid excess deaths over the next few years will be higher in those countries which have had strict restrictions.

That, with respect, is something of a strawman position about care homes - by no means all their occupants are in anything like that position. The response to those in care homes needs to be based on who they are, not a caricature.

Nobody is in a care home because they’re fit and well. They’re either physically or mentally incapable of living independently (or both). Of course this is even more the case in nursing homes and hospices where care is essentially palliative.

Agreed. It seems that there are some members of society who feel that we should not protect the elderly and let the virus do its worse.

Nobody has said that. Many of us take the view that “protecting the elderly” is laudable enough, but not if the measures required to do so result in thousands of preventable deaths amongst much younger people, for example.

 

[yorkie]

Virus's exist due to a chance happening eons ago in the same way that fungi, fauna and flora exist surely. They may now have a reason in only so much that they are a cog in the natural order of the world.

Viruses are absolutely essential.

If you're interested, check out this interview:

Leading virologist, Professor Khansarinejad answers John’s questions with patience and understanding. The answers are amazing. One way to realise you have understood a scientific concept is when you experience that sense of awe at the nature of reality.

If it wasn't for viruses, we would be consumed by bacteria.

I think the messaging regarding Sars-CoV-2 was completely inappropriate from the start, demonising a strand of RNA, going on about how we need to "beat it" and other nonsense, when it was becoming increasingly obvious once it spread so rapidly in Europe that ultimately it was always destined to become the 5th endemic Coronavirus with which we live in a state in endemic equilibrium.

Agreed. It seems that there are some members of society who feel that we should not protect the elderly and let the virus do its worse. Whilst we can't shut down for ever, making some changes to give some sort of protection to the vulnerable isn't too much to ask IMO.

Are you disagreeing with my post? If so, what part are you disagreeing with, and what are your reasons? What changes are you proposing?

I am not saying I have the answers and this is a very difficult subject, but at the end of the day the extreme views which I was objecting to are not sustainable, sensible, or morally justifiable. That doesn't mean the solution has to be an extreme at the opposite end of the scale.

 

[43066]

You may be right that the combination of vaccines and a fortuitously mild variant in omicron has reduced that risk to a minimum level; I'm not sure I'd take that bet on a disease that has come up with nasty surprises.

But just what is an acceptable “minimum level”? Unfortunately that argument is being deployed by those with an agenda to argue for perpetual restrictions.

 

[yorkie]

But just what is an acceptable “minimum level”? Unfortunately that argument is being deployed by those with an agenda to argue for perpetual restrictions.

Quite. It's also interesting that pro-restriction people generally like to portray mutations and adaptations as bad (and, hillariously, as avoidable, as if humans can stop the evolution of a virus!), and then when these turn out to help us live alongside the virus, they turn round and say "that was luck". And we got lucky with the 4 pre-existing HCoVs, and the hundred plus Rhinoviruses, and so on. Yeah, right...

 

[Spamcan81]

And if I wanted to see your quest for this pre-2020 about other conditions where would I go to review that?

Pardon?

 

[VauxhallandI]

Pardon?

Where were your writings on the way we should protect people from the Flu before Covid? You see quite keen to make changes to the status quo, where were these feels expressed for every other or any case other than Covid?

 

[Spamcan81]

Where were your writings on the way we should protect people from the Flu before Covid? You see quite keen to make changes to the status quo, where were these feels expressed for every other or any case other than Covid?

Whatever.

 

[VauxhallandI]

Whatever.

So you are just triggered. Thanks.

 

[BRX]

This is nonsense; viruses exist for a reason and there is only so much we can do to "play god" before it becomes impracticable and inhumane. Yes it is a difficult subject with no simple solution, but I reject the idea that we should focus on quantity of live over quality and that the aim of live should be to prevent elderly people getting viruses on the basis that we can keep them alive as long as possible.

That is not what I said at all. Please do not put words in my mouth. You could even apologise for having done so here, if you want. Maybe you didn't read my post properly.

 

[brad465]

Viruses are absolutely essential.

If it wasn't for viruses, we would be consumed by bacteria.

Viruses also help train our immune system to keep it in shape for more serious infections; our overly hygienic society pre-covid is one reason being touted for why allergies are on the rise. There are certainly infections we want to avoid at all costs, many of which we already have very good vaccines for. To an extent this included covid in the early days, but a combination of immunity build-up and new treatments should have helped manage it better before vaccines came along. There certainly shouldn't be anywhere near the level of concern now as there was back in March 2020. In any case the underlying problem has been a health service with an acute staff shortage and other problems that meant it wasn't in good shape going into the pandemic.