Omicron variant and the measures implemented in response to it

[Class 33]

44 deaths recorded today, so what is this "crisis" we're supposed to be in and need restrictions for exactly?

Indeed. Deaths are steadily heading down, and hospitalisations are relatively static. Absolutely no need whatsoever for any further blasted restrictions!!!

 

[kristiang85]

44 deaths recorded today, so what is this "crisis" we're supposed to be in and need restrictions for exactly?

Mondays tend to have lower deaths, but the average is currently around 100. That still means that for every death for any reason within 28 days of a positive COVID test, there are 16 others a day from other causes.

 

[Simon11]

Growth already seems to be slowing, on a day-of-week basis (credit to Andrew Lilico):

Ahh, the benefit of closing schools/ universities down and should hopefully continue! The government should have stopped schools a week earlier and this would have made a huge difference.

44 deaths recorded today, so what is this "crisis" we're supposed to be in and need restrictions for exactly?

If you look at the national hospital statistics, they look pretty fine however if you look at London statistics, you see the additional pressure happening. In London, looking at the Daily count of confirmed COVID-19 patients in hospital at 8am, patient numbers have doubled from 1,000 to 1,819 within the space of around two weeks.

 

[21C101]

I think we should lock down the whole country when there are too many staff shortages with train crews.

After all it elimates the risk of a crush at a station and eliminates the risk of more deaths in the roads due to commuters switching to driving.

After all if it saves one life it's worth it!

 

[Class 33]

When are we going to find out for sure what the plans are? And will they have to be approved via a parliament vote first???

 

[21C101]

Mondays tend to have lower deaths, but the average is currently around 100. That still means that for every death for any reason within 28 days of a positive COVID test, there are 16 others a day from other causes.

If Omnicron was increasing as fast and as deadly as they claimed it would, the numbers would still be up even with Mondays having a lower figure.

 

[DustyBin]

Indeed, which is precisely how social credit systems work.

Note how many of the 'restrictions' we've had have involved getting permission to do something ('need to wear a mask', 'need to sign in', 'need to check there aren't too many people in here already', 'need to book ahead') that previously we've done freely.

We've got fairly used to this behaviour change, and it appears we're about to have one more round of it, so then they can 'make it all easier' with a Covid app (or, as they are experimenting with in Sweden, a microchip implanted in the wrist - yep, another conspiracy theory comes true...)

Tin-foil-hat time? Maybe, but doesn't it seem rather closer and rather more likely now, than when I was saying the same things 15 months ago?

This is what concerns me. People may choose to dismiss what you're saying out of hand, and it does seem a distant threat at this stage, however there's a definite direction of travel and I'm not comfortable with it. The time to voice your opposition to this is now; by the time it happens (if indeed it does - I'm not saying it definitely will) it will be too late. It's not about tinfoil hats or conspiracy theories, it's about sending a message that authoritarianism and state overreach isn't welcome and won't be tolerated, so don't even try. Surely nobody can argue with that?

 

[MikeWM]

If you look at the national hospital statistics, they look pretty fine however if you look at London statistics, you see the additional pressure happening. In London, looking at the Daily count of confirmed COVID-19 patients in hospital at 8am, patient numbers have doubled from 1,000 to 1,819 within the space of around two weeks.

Of course this may just be a highly virulent disease going around a hospital in winter in much the same way norovirus, amongst others, does every year.

 

[Simon11]

Of course this may just be a highly virulent disease going around a hospital in winter in much the same way norovirus, amongst others, does every year.

Agreed, and we don't really know how many patients they can handle, then how many more than can handle if they stop certain services ect

 

[21C101]

Protecting patients firstly. Making sure we're not in a situation where people needing a hospital bed are turned away. Also protecting NHS staff from burn-out.

So you would presumably support locking the country down and destroying peoples livlihoods and mental health if a particularly virulent wave of Norovirus hit NHS hospital staff levels sufficiently hard?

What you are calling for is for the country to shut down whenever the NHS staff absence levels pass a certain point.

Can you not see the outrageous absurdity of this?

 

[quantinghome]

I could argue that differently, patient turned up, given bed to be later chucked out - so unfortunately for me that’s a big no! (family relative)

How are we protecting patients first? I don’t follow or get that? I could be having a heart attack waiting hours then possibly die - how is that protecting me? (nothing personal at you here), that’s not protecting that’s negligence?

The point of restrictions to "protect the NHS" is to try to limit the rate at which the virus spreads in order to stop an influx of Covid patients from overwhelming the NHS's capacity (which is already reduced due to Covid protocols on top of years of cuts). Thus allowing patients with other conditions (such as heart attacks) still to be treated.

 

[kez19]

The point of restrictions to "protect the NHS" is to try to limit the rate at which the virus spreads in order to stop an influx of Covid patients from overwhelming the NHS's capacity (which is already reduced due to Covid protocols on top of years of cuts). Thus allowing patients with other conditions (such as heart attacks) still to be treated.

I'll bite a bit here so when do we then expect then to turn round that its no longer us that protects the NHS its them that protects us? (I don't mind if we have to lay blame at governments on that part).

 

[quantinghome]

So you would presumably support locking the country down and destroying peoples livlihoods and mental health if a particularly virulent wave of Norovirus hit NHS hospital staff levels sufficiently hard?

What you are calling for is for the country to shut down whenever the NHS staff absence levels pass a certain point.

Can you not see the outrageous absurdity of this?

I can certainly see the outrageous absurdity of your posts.

No doctor or medical professional has ever suggested that everyday viruses like Norovirus require any kind of societal intervention on the scale that has been undertaken for Covid. Surely that would give you some kind of indication of the relative scale of the threat posed?

If you are seriously comparing Covid to Norovirus then there's no point continuing this discussion.

 

[greyman42]

People are mostly going along with masks, unfortunately, but I'm not sure they're going along with too much else (I suppose the weekend reports of limited footfall and empty pubs may show that to be wrong, but I've not too seen much evidence of that myself).

I do not go along with these reports of empty pubs. I was out in York on Saturday night and it was packed to the rafters.
I have noticed that the BBC go to the City of London, which is bound to be quiet when most are working from home, to do their pub reports.

 

[quantinghome]

I'll bite a bit here so when do we then expect then to turn round that its no longer us that protects the NHS its them that protects us? (I don't mind if we have to lay blame at governments on that part).

Sorry, I'm afraid I don't follow your question.

 

[brad465]

Well there won't be a press conference at 5pm I'm guessing, as we're 20 minutes from that time and no news still. So they will either have on later on this evening, or wait till tomorrow and leak the outcomes to the papers.

 

[kez19]

Sorry, I'm afraid I don't follow your question.

What I mean is when do we drop the whole protecting the nhs and have it running as normal as it should/close to be? (I lay blame at governments door if need be)

 

[quantinghome]

44 deaths recorded today, so what is this "crisis" we're supposed to be in and need restrictions for exactly?

Reported deaths are always a lot lower on a Monday because of the weekend effect. It's pointless to look at a day's figures like that.

Also we wouldn't expect to see a significant change in deaths for another week or so, and then at first only in London, where Omicron has hit hardest and where we've seen hospitalisations increase.

 

[yorksrob]

Ahh, the benefit of closing schools/ universities down and should hopefully continue! The government should have stopped schools a week earlier and this would have made a huge difference.


If you look at the national hospital statistics, they look pretty fine however if you look at London statistics, you see the additional pressure happening. In London, looking at the Daily count of confirmed COVID-19 patients in hospital at 8am, patient numbers have doubled from 1,000 to 1,819 within the space of around two weeks.

View attachment 107312

I wonder if the higher pressure in London has anything to do with its lower vaccination rate compared with elsewhere in the country. It might be that such pressures aren't manifested elsewhere to the same extent.

 

[MikeWM]

The point of restrictions to "protect the NHS" is to try to limit the rate at which the virus spreads in order to stop an influx of Covid patients from overwhelming the NHS's capacity (which is already reduced due to Covid protocols on top of years of cuts). Thus allowing patients with other conditions (such as heart attacks) still to be treated.

But that does give rise to the question at which point missed diagnoses and missed treatments from this going on for two years or more, outweigh what would be an unpleasant *but much shorter* period of time that the NHS may be 'overwhelmed' without restrictions. I'm not saying that is an easy decision to make - far from it - but the longer this goes on, the more the collateral damage from 'flattening the curve' increases too.

In the end, there was a pandemic of a new and fairly unpleasant virus. We don't seem able to accept as a society anymore that if that happens, some people will unfortunately die.

 

[adc82140]

If you are seriously comparing Covid to Norovirus then there's no point continuing this discussion.

Are you aware of what Norovirus can do to a elderly person?
--------------

I've just finished cancelling my new year's eve gathering. In it's place, I now have a new year's eve business meeting, with alcohol and pizza. My family live here, so they are allowed to join.

 

[Mag_seven]

I do not go along with these reports of empty pubs. I was out in York on Saturday night and it was packed to the rafters.

I walked around the part of my town where there are lots of pubs / restaurants last night (Sunday night) and whilst I would not describe them as full they certainly were not empty either.

 

[21C101]

I can certainly see the outrageous absurdity of your posts.

No doctor or medical professional has ever suggested that everyday viruses like Norovirus require any kind of societal intervention on the scale that has been undertaken for Covid. Surely that would give you some kind of indication of the relative scale of the threat posed?

If you are seriously comparing Covid to Norovirus then there's no point continuing this discussion.

Right so you say that if hospitals are unable to treat people because so many staff are off with Norovirus we can carry on as normal

But if hospitals are unable to treat people because so many staff are off with Coronavirus we have to lock down.

I would also note that with Norovirus said staff would be craned over a toilet throwing up and wholly unable to work.

With Coronavirus most of them are not actually ill but have just failed a test and would be quite capable of working but are forbidden by government isolation rules requiring ten days isolation even if they haven't failed a test since day 2.

 

[quantinghome]

What I mean is when do we drop the whole protecting the nhs and have it running as normal as it should/close to be? (I lay blame at governments door if need be)

The aim at the moment is to try and run the NHS as normal as possible by attempting to limit the influx of Covid patients.

Once that's done it will take a long time for the NHS to return to normal, presumably in the following stages:

1. When the demand on it from Covid has dropped to a level where Covid is just one among other considerations.
2. When the risk of Covid outbreaks in hospital is sufficiently low that Covid precaution measures in hospital can be lifted.
3. When the backlog of non-Covid cases built up through 2020-2021 has been dealt with.

Of course, has we not cut services and capacity over the past 10 years this would be easier.

 

[Bungle73]

Reported deaths are always a lot lower on a Monday because of the weekend effect. It's pointless to look at a day's figures like that.

Also we wouldn't expect to see a significant change in deaths for another week or so, and then at first only in London, where Omicron has hit hardest and where we've seen hospitalisations increase.

Pointless? No it's not. If it's such big crisis why isn't it being seen? The fact that numbers are still so low makes the whole thing a farce.

And another week? We were supposed to know now!!

 

[brad465]

The Times released an article at 2.30pm claiming no further restrictions are to be imposed before Christmas:

The Times & The Sunday Times

News and opinion from The Times & The Sunday Times

www.thetimes.co.uk

Boris Johnson is unlikely to impose further coronavirus restrictions before Christmas after delaying a decision today.

The prime minister called a cabinet meeting this afternoon to discuss the latest data on the spread of the Omicron variant and whether a two-week circuit breaker banning indoor mixing was needed.

The Times has been told that both he and cabinet ministers do not believe the latest information is sufficient to justify a circuit breaker.

Johnson has pledged to recall parliament if he decides to implement further restrictions, a process that takes 48 hours. Given that millions of people are travelling for Christmas in the coming days, a government source said that the logistics meant it was unlikely there would be pre-Christmas restrictions.

A government source said: “The data isn’t there yet to justify further restrictions. There’s still so much that we don’t know about the severity of the variant and the extent to which vaccination and boosters sever the link between cases and hospitalisations.”

However, ministers are still considering plans for a circuit breaker after Christmas. This would ban people from different households from mixing indoors and introduce possible restrictions on hospitality. December 28 has been pencilled in by officials as a possible starting point for new curbs — taking into account the 48 hours needed for recall.

Johnson had faced a cabinet revolt over the prospect of further restrictions before Christmas. A third of the cabinet have made clear that they will not support them and have questioned official modelling.

Speaking for the first time since he resigned on Saturday, Lord Frost, the former Brexit minister, said that while he supported Johnson personally he could not back the ‘coercive’ rules.

The Times disclosed this morning that Rishi Sunak was one of at least ten cabinet ministers who were resisting calls by scientific advisers for tougher curbs to be introduced before Christmas.

Sunak is said to have wanted to delay introducing restrictions until the information became clearer. He also suggested that more models be considered before making a decision that could cost the economy billions.

Other ministers who had similar concerns included Kwasi Kwarteng, the business secretary, Jacob Rees-Mogg, the leader of the Commons, and Grant Shapps, the transport secretary. Liz Truss, the foreign secretary, was also said to be “instinctively opposed” to further restrictions. Javid and Michael Gove, the levelling up secretary, were said to be the strongest proponents of further restrictions.

There were suggestions that there could be more resignations if Johnson pushed ahead and announced new Covid restrictions.

Whether a post-Christmas circuit breaker is considered still isn't clear, but Sunak seems to stand out as a strong rebel for further restrictions, but JRM, Shapps, Kwarteng and Liz Truss also seem to be opposed/concerned about more restrictions as well.

 

[island]

When are we going to find out for sure what the plans are? And will they have to be approved via a parliament vote first???

Any changes to the rules will, like all the others so far, be made under the "emergency" procedure of section 45R of the Public Health Act 1984, requiring a vote of endorsement by both Houses of Parliament within 28 days after their return from the Christmas break on 05•JNR•22.

 

[MikeWM]

The 28th is a bank holiday. Parliament certainly *could* sit then, but it would be very unusual indeed, and a lot of MPs would be very unhappy at being recalled between Christmas and New Year, especially those who are already not content at the current direction.

 

[Snow1964]

The Times released an article at 2.30pm claiming no further restrictions are to be imposed before Christmas:

The Times & The Sunday Times

News and opinion from The Times & The Sunday Times

www.thetimes.co.uk

Whether a post-Christmas circuit breaker is considered still isn't clear, but Sunak seems to stand out as a strong rebel for further restrictions, but JRM, Shapps, Kwarteng and Liz Truss also seem to be opposed/concerned about more restrictions as well.

And if the PM announces a circuit breaker on Boxing Day, then it will clearly be a political pampering fudge, because not going to be getting better data collection on Christmas Day.

Already get some lower weekend numbers as stats sometimes not collected weekend and bank holidays.

 

[quantinghome]

Right so you say that if hospitals are unable to treat people because so many staff are off with Norovirus we can carry on as normal

But if hospitals are unable to treat people because so many staff are off with Coronavirus we have to lock down.

I would also note that with Norovirus said staff would be craned over a toilet throwing up and wholly unable to work.

With Coronavirus most of them are not actually ill but have just failed a test and would be quite capable of working but are forbidden by government isolation rules requiring ten days isolation even if they haven't failed a test since day 2.

I'm beginning to suspect you are actively trying to make the anti-lockdown argument sound ridiculous.

No doctor or medical professional has ever in my lifetime argued for lockdowns or other extreme impositions on society. But they have in the case of Covid. You think they're doing this for fun?