Omicron variant and the measures implemented in response to it

[DustyBin]

That’s not going on strike. Mass denial of booster take up will kill some people. It might not be you, but it will be someone.

Have they actually quantified the risk to a double jabbed, healthy 40 year old for example, versus one who’s been “boosted”? Offering third primary doses to the immunocompromised seems to be based on actual science, but boosters for all yields diminishing returns.

We’re supposed to believe that the vaccines are really good, yet at the same time we now require a booster as the “protection” (read anti-body levels) wanes after a few months? How will they justify the fourth jab I wonder? Personally I’m incapable of performing sufficient mental gymnastics to get past thinking this is blatant profiteering, or we’ve been lied to, or more than likely both.

Don’t get me wrong, if people are comfortable with boosters they should get them, it should be a personal choice. For me at this stage though the vaccines are just another element to the never ending Covid **** show I’m afraid (heresy I know)!

 

[Towers]

Another question I have that intrigues me is , is this new variant the actual thing that could overwhelm and put pressure onto the NHS ? Or is the fact there is a NHS staff shortage that means they will struggle to cope with hospitalisations and the goverment haven’t really done anything of note to prevent that infact quite the contrary they have treated NHS staff like they have the public appallingly from the moment Covid came about the NHS staff have been amazing , true heroes the thing that makes me proud to be part of the UK they were working flat out all hours , risking their lives including the possibility they could have caught covid themselves and infected their loved ones ,

The NHS has very obviously been on the verge of collapse for a generation or more. Successive governments fiddle around the edges and make a few noises but do nothing of any substance, and then every winter the scare stories come out that the whole thing is about to fall over. Covid is the once in a lifetime event that politicians and NHS senior managers alike must have been dreading - and hoping would never come - for a very long time.

On the flip side, the need to cope with Covid has provided a 'legitimate' reason to essentially shut down large swathes of the rest of service, which of course leads to a huge backlog but also comes with a built in excuse which will explain away the waiting lists for years to come.

My personal view is that the service needs to start levying a treatment tariff, much as NHS dentistry already does. Unpopular political move though, which of course is at the heart of a lot of problems in society! Anyway, we're way OT now!

 

[adc82140]

Dr Zubaida Haque from SAGE says these restrictions don't go far enough. Quelle Surprise.

She's from pretend SAGE, not the real one.

 

[Dent]

Another question I have that intrigues me is , is this new variant the actual thing that could overwhelm and put pressure onto the NHS ?

Has this new variant caused even a single hospital admission anywhere in the world? I haven't seen any reports of any, so no reason to expect it to put any pressure on the NHS.

 

[Eyersey468]

Has this new variant caused even a single hospital admission anywhere in the world? I haven't seen any reports of any, so no reason to expect it to put any pressure on the NHS.

I am not aware of any either, the pressure on the NHS seems to me to be caused partly by time of year and partly due to the fact that for so long other treatments were suspended.

 

[adc82140]

Has this new variant caused even a single hospital admission anywhere in the world? I haven't seen any reports of any, so no reason to expect it to put any pressure on the NHS.

I have seen one reported in Botswana. Patient was not vaccinated.

 

[Drogba11CFC]

She's from pretend SAGE, not the real one.

Is there even a difference at this point? Shut both down and make them work in fast food/retail/hospitality.

 

[richa2002]

It's quite simple in that whether you take or a vaccine or not should solely be based on health reasons. Not to take it to 'buy' your freedom or to refuse it to protest against the government.

 

[Eyersey468]

These are from Independent Sages website, I do find it rather ironic they talk about the recovery from covid when certain members seem to want restrictions forever more

 

[nw1]

TBH, I was surprised how little has changed on the mask front for most people e.g in restaurants and pubs, which I'm glad about. Fed up with seeing people with masks round their chins etc etc. For God's sake, if you're going to wear one, at least wear it properly. Speaking as a non mask warrior on either side, thoroughly bored with the subject.

Also speaking as someone who has no strong opinion either way on masks: it is of course impossible to wear a mask in a pub or a restaurant for very obvious reasons.

I agree with you that, in my view, masks are not the issue. It's the harsher restrictions that are the problem.

 

[21C101]

Refusing to get a booster sends no message to anyone. The vast majority of people are getting boosters and will dismiss any anti-vax protest as an eccentricity (if they are being polite). If anything, it would likely harden public opinion against vaccine refusers and make vaccine passports more likely.

It's a completely different situation to a rail strike where virtually all staff are in a union which can agree and enforce strike action, where crossing a picket line is an absolute no-no and where strike action has an immediate impact on the employer's bottom line.

Its efective enough a protest to get you spending time responding. The government will know very rapidly if the number of people getting boosters drops.

 

[brad465]

Just seen a breaking news flash that Johnson and Carrie have just had their next child (Boris Johnson's 7th+ child?), which is the perfect distraction from most of the covid mess at the moment. Makes me wonder why he didn't just wait for that before implementing Plan B, and/or if they induced labour for today just for the dead cat?

 

[DustyBin]

Also speaking as someone who has no strong opinion either way on masks: it is of course impossible to wear a mask in a pub or a restaurant for very obvious reasons.

I agree with you that, in my view, masks are not the issue. It's the harsher restrictions that are the problem.

The issue with masks though (well one of the issues!) is that high compliance gives the government the green light to go further. What better way to test the public mood than ask us to display a symbol of obedience?

 

[nw1]

Just seen a breaking news flash that Johnson and Carrie have just had their next child (Boris Johnson's 7th+ child?), which is the perfect distraction from most of the covid mess at the moment. Makes me wonder why he didn't just wait for that before implementing Plan B, and/or if they induced labour for today just for the dead cat?

Oh no, more Johnsons to make our lives miserable (well those of us still alive, which probably won't include myself I have to admit) in around 50 years or so.

But the fact that people are actually interested in this kind of celebrity tittle-tattle (celebrity has a baby! So what?) as opposed to the serious consequences of work-from-home orders and the like, is one of the problems of the way we are these days...

The issue with masks though (well one of the issues!) is that high compliance gives the government the green light to go further. What better way to test the public mood than ask us to display a symbol of obedience?

Though many people can accept masks but would complain loudly at lockdowns and travel restrictions, and would be unhappy about work-from-home orders which impact upon the wider economy. I don't want to get into a mask dicussion as it isn't something I feel strongly about and the arguments have been made elsewhere: but if they were to say 'mask wearing on public transport and in shops will be compulsory until Easter, but there will be NO OTHER restrictions' I would be happy. I don't think it's true that agreeing to wear a mask makes you receptive to harsher restrictions.

 

[quantinghome]

Its efective enough a protest to get you spending time responding. The government will know very rapidly if the number of people getting boosters drops.

If wasting my time is your objective, well congratulations, consider it met. But your protest is not going to have any noticeable effect on the booster programme. It will leave you more at risk from infection though, so I would strongly urge you to reconsider.

 

[DustyBin]

Though many people can accept masks but would complain loudly at lockdowns and travel restrictions, and would be unhappy about work-from-home orders which impact upon the wider economy. I don't want to get into a mask dicussion as it isn't something I feel strongly about and the arguments have been made elsewhere: but if they were to say 'mask wearing on public transport and in shops will be compulsory until Easter, but there will be NO OTHER restrictions' I would be happy. I don't think it's true that agreeing to wear a mask makes you receptive to harsher restrictions.

I agree, some people accept masks as they feel they are a relatively unintrusive NPI, whether they believe in their effectiveness or not. It's also easier just to go along with it. That doesn't mean these people are receptive to further restrictions; most people categorically do not want them. It does however demonstrate a willingness to comply, however begrudgingly.

 

[MikeWM]

It's quite simple in that whether you take or a vaccine or not should solely be based on health reasons. Not to take it to 'buy' your freedom or to refuse it to protest against the government.

I entirely agree, and I've been saying exactly that all year.

However, if recent events are leading people to seek out more information about *why* they 'need' boosters - given I don't believe there has been any real case put forward for that so far, except for in the immunocompromised/very elderly - then that's not a bad thing.

 

[nw1]

I entirely agree, and I've been saying exactly that all year.

However, if recent events are leading people to seek out more information about *why* they 'need' boosters - given I don't believe there has been any real case put forward for that so far, except for in the immunocompromised/very elderly - then that's not a bad thing.

There are some odd inconsistencies in the politicians' arguments on these matters.

a) 'We need boosters'. OK fair enough, the vaccines only last a certain number of months, so this is probably true.

BUT

b) 'Omicron is really dangerous and the vaccine provides limited protection, so we have to implement harsh measures'

Given a), why is statement b) valid? Surely they can just step up the booster programme and there won't be any need for harsh measures? Otherwise, what's the point of the booster programme? They can't both be right.

Also:

c) 'It's a good idea to get the booster, even if you personally don't get ill with Covid yourself, because it reduces transmission'. OK - fair enough.

BUT (and this argument is not being made in the UK so much, but is being enforced in some other countries - I do not want to say which)

d) It's mandatory FOR PEOPLE OVER A CERTAIN AGE (let's say 60, though this varies) to take the booster, to be able to eat in restaurants etc.

Why the over 60s? If the main reason for enforcing vaccine passports is to prevent transmission, why does it make any difference if you are over 60? Surely an un-boostered under-60 is equally likely to spread the virus as an over-60?

OK, over-60s might be more at-risk personally, but this relates to their own risk, not the risk of transmission to others. So an over-60 without a booster should not be denied enjoying an activity which a 59 year old is allowed to do. It would be a bit like allowing a 39 year old to consume fish and chips, but making it illegal for a 40 year old to do so because they are more at risk of a heart attack.

 

[21C101]

If wasting my time is your objective, well congratulations, consider it met. But your protest is not going to have any noticeable effect on the booster programme. It will leave you more at risk from infection though, so I would strongly urge you to reconsider.

So what. Not having the flu jab leaves me more at risk of flu. Going out of the house leaves me more at risk of being run over.

Were all going to die, something has to kill you and having had two lots of vaccine it is exceptionally unlikely to be Covid.

Even the government don't think the restrictions, their "offline" actions show that. Unfortunately the likes of Johnson are weak weak weak, so they take the easy option and cave into the authoritarian doomsters rather than standing up to them.

I entirely agree, and I've been saying exactly that all year.

However, if recent events are leading people to seek out more information about *why* they 'need' boosters - given I don't believe there has been any real case put forward for that so far, except for in the immunocompromised/very elderly - then that's not a bad thing.

You take a vaccine for various reasons. The promised being free of the restrictions helped tip the balance for me. Now they have ratted on that and I have had two doses and almost certainly been exposed to the virus and fending it off commuting and having kids at school the last two years, basically they can get stuffed.

 

[Busaholic]

I don't think it's true that agreeing to wear a mask makes you receptive to harsher restrictions.

You're quite right - there have been many impassioned and eloquent pieces I've read and heard from people who hate the idea of further restrictions and lockdowns saying basically that even if mass mask-wearing in indoor spaces only cuts transmission by 5% (which is at the low end of what most expert scientists seem to agree on, with 15 to 20% at the upper end) it could make a huge difference to the further spread of the virus in its various mutations. It is obvious to me we will have to learn to live with it, and if part of this means mask wearing for those able to in those crowded indoor settings, it will be worth it for the general good of the nation short, medium and long term. I don't LIKE wearing them either and find difficulty putting them on, but will continue to do so when I consider it necessary e.g. a supermarket, but not cafe or pub, or some small shops where none of the staff are wearing them and no-one else is around. I.e. I'm not being receptive to government diktat but the mood and circumstances around me. We are fortunate that we don't live in a country which insists its citizens wear masks from the moment they leave the house (and enforces it) and if my approach, and those of so many other sane people,keeps that at bay it will have been worth it. I know this is not a popular thing to say on this forum, though I'd point out that the vast majority of members never contribute to this part of it or seemingly peruse it.

 

[NorthKent1989]

Refusing to get a booster sends no message to anyone. The vast majority of people are getting boosters and will dismiss any anti-vax protest as an eccentricity (if they are being polite). If anything, it would likely harden public opinion against vaccine refusers and make vaccine passports more likely.

It's a completely different situation to a rail strike where virtually all staff are in a union which can agree and enforce strike action, where crossing a picket line is an absolute no-no and where strike action has an immediate impact on the employer's bottom line.

I think the ‘anti vax’ argument is rapidly becoming true in so much that the vaccine hasn’t returned us to normality and why should people get a boos if they’re going to keep on with pointless restrictions

 

[AlterEgo]

I think the ‘anti vax’ argument is rapidly becoming true in so much that the vaccine hasn’t returned us to normality and why should people get a boos if they’re going to keep on with pointless restrictions

This leaves you with the situation where you either:

- get a booster and have a marginal amount more protection, and there are still restrictions

or

- don’t get the booster to thumb a nose at the government, don’t get marginally more protection, and there are still more restrictions

 

[DustyBin]

You're quite right - there have been many impassioned and eloquent pieces I've read and heard from people who hate the idea of further restrictions and lockdowns saying basically that even if mass mask-wearing in indoor spaces only cuts transmission by 5% (which is at the low end of what most expert scientists seem to agree on, with 15 to 20% at the upper end) it could make a huge difference to the further spread of the virus in its various mutations. It is obvious to me we will have to learn to live with it, and if part of this means mask wearing for those able to in those crowded indoor settings, it will be worth it for the general good of the nation short, medium and long term. I don't LIKE wearing them either and find difficulty putting them on, but will continue to do so when I consider it necessary e.g. a supermarket, but not cafe or pub, or some small shops where none of the staff are wearing them and no-one else is around. I.e. I'm not being receptive to government diktat but the mood and circumstances around me. We are fortunate that we don't live in a country which insists its citizens wear masks from the moment they leave the house (and enforces it) and if my approach, and those of so many other sane people,keeps that at bay it will have been worth it. I know this is not a popular thing to say on this forum, though I'd point out that the vast majority of members never contribute to this part of it or seemingly peruse it.

Your point of view is perfectly valid, I understand your logic. Personally I think widespread compliance with the mask mandate only serves to embolden the government to go further. Again though, that doesn't mean wearing a mask means you actually support further restrictions.

 

[NorthKent1989]

If wasting my time is your objective, well congratulations, consider it met. But your protest is not going to have any noticeable effect on the booster programme. It will leave you more at risk from infection though, so I would strongly urge you to reconsider.

I think you’re hoping that people will still comply, last night royally p*ssed off a lot of people

All it’s done is confirm the vaccine hesitant’s correct suspicions that the two jabs haven’t returned us to normal, and I for one refuse to be a pin cushion any longer just so a bunch of bedwetters can feel ‘safe’ Covid is here forever it’s time to deal with it and accept it

 

[MikeWM]

There are some odd inconsistencies in the politicians' arguments on these matters.

a) 'We need boosters'. OK fair enough, the vaccines only last a certain number of months, so this is probably true.

...well, but is it? As I asked a few days ago, the key question is whether the vaccines give long-term protection or not. If they do, there is no need for boosters for the general population. And if they don't, we need to know why not, and everyone needs to know that they are signing up for six-monthly boosters *for life* - and that has a significant difference to the risk-benefit analysis of vaccination as opposed to just risking catching the disease.

You take a vaccine for various reasons. The promised being free of the restrictions helped tip the balance for me.

As did a number of people, and it is entirely understandable, but I've argued consistently on here over the past year that the only reason for undergoing any medical treatment or procedure should be because it is of *medical* benefit to *you* [1]. We quickly go down a very nasty slippery slope if we start doing it for any other reason - as indeed we're already starting to see with the spectre of mandatory vaccinations now being mooted.


[1] the one exception is that clearly you can be altruistic if you want to be, and donate blood, or bone marrow, or a kidney etc.. But they should be altruistic acts and should never be coerced or mandated.

 

[jumble]

My only surprise is that this didn't happen sooner. Vaccine passports have been hanging over us like the Sword of Damocles all year.

And apparently (I have better things to do than actually watch these things, like - well, literally anything) I note our esteemed leader said that this would be considered in the context of boosters. So don't think that 'mandatory vaccinations' will apply to 1 or 2 doses. It will be whatever number they determine 'necessary' - and note some countries are *already* talking about rolling out dose #4...

Anyhow, good to see that the vaccines were indeed the route to freedom.

You are correct
This is encouraging both myself and my partner to delay the booster as long the Vaccine passports still claim we are fully vaccinated with our 2 doses
Then we will get the booster to revalidate the passport
In the long term we will have less vaccinations by doing this but keep the idiot passports up to date
Take away my choice and you will find it counter productive
( The same applies to the spaniel Needs vaccinating against Kennel cough each year for the insurance to be valid
Do it every 13 months as there is a 2 month grace window Over 13 years we only pay for 12 vaccines )

I am far more concerned about the disgusting talk mandatory vaccinations as The Austrians and Germans and Boris are threatening
As a matter of interest does anyone who posts on here think it appropriate ?

If we force this then we are changing the whole concept of informed consent and that is a very slippery slope
Covid vaccination is mandatory so why not Flu jabs being mandated as this would free up our overstretched NHS resources
Obese people are taking up hospital beds so why not mandate gastric bands as this would free up our overstreatched NHS recourses
Forcible sterilisation as someone having 20 kids on benefits is not particularly good for our society

Consent to treatment

Find out what consent is, how it can be given, when it's needed, as well as situations when it's not needed.

www.nhs.uk

The principle of consent is an important part of medical ethics and international human rights law
Defining consent
For consent to be valid, it must be voluntary and informed, and the person consenting must have the capacity to make the decision.

The meaning of these terms are:

voluntary – the decision to either consent or not to consent to treatment must be made by the person, and must not be influenced by pressure from medical staff, friends or family

 

[adc82140]

I am quite pleased today that partygate is still dominating the news agenda. The dead cat thrown on the table has another life left and wandered off.

 

[Islineclear3_1]

For consent to be valid, it must be voluntary and informed, and the person consenting must have the capacity to make the decision.

But the government thinks we are all stupid and therefore, don't have the mental capacity to consent

 

[Bantamzen]

Your point of view is perfectly valid, I understand your logic. Personally I think widespread compliance with the mask mandate only serves to embolden the government to go further. Again though, that doesn't mean wearing a mask means you actually support further restrictions.

I agree, as the government start to push restrictions back on us and enough people say "well its only a small thing we have to do", they will always see this as a chance to push more as they desire. Its just mission creep, and unless enough people start to push back they will just say "they are only some more small things" until we are on the edge of a full lockdown.

 

[kristiang85]

This amused me greatly.

Tom Newton Dunn
@tnewtondunn

Exchange of the day at today's lobby briefing on Plan B:

"If I'm in a theatre watching a musical, can I take my mask off to sing?"

No10: "Yes. There is a general exemption for singing"

So could I walk into Tesco without a mask as long as I'm singing?

No10: "Essentially, yes"