• Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both 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!

Omicron variant and the measures implemented in response to it

Status
Not open for further replies.

Bikeman78

Established Member
Joined
26 Apr 2018
Messages
5,496
The people behind the regulations being caught ignoring/bending them has also removed scales. Not so much from the hypocracy angle but from the angle that they know all the things about this that we don't and if they are not obeying the rules out of fear, then we have nothing to fear either.
I think that is the killer blow for a lot of people. We've been taken for fools. The people at those parties were clearly not worried about their own safety or that of their friends and families.

Also worth remembering that we don't live forever. Come March next year, 1,000,000 British people will have died since Covid became a problem in the UK. They will all have missed out on time with friends/family and anything else they might have had planned in their last few months. Many of them will not have had a proper send off thanks to the Covid rules.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

danm14

Member
Joined
24 Jun 2017
Messages
741
Northern Ireland has removed the "severe distress" exemption from wearing a face covering, and the onus is now on the person to prove medical exemption. Businesses are also legally required to enforce the requirement.

The regulations for this have now been published, and they go far, far beyond what was stated in the press release.

Exemption is, as stated, no longer available for "severe distress", but also not for "illness" or "injury".

It is now only available for "disability (within the meaning of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995)", which is defined as "a physical or mental impairment which has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on his ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities."

They also clarified that proof of medical exemption can be requested not just by a "relevant person", but by "any person acting in the course of their employment".

Other changes include the removal of the requirement to wear a face covering while outdoors on a ferry (previously subject to two metre social distancing) or while outdoors at a public transport service premises (previously required, including at roadside bus stops). (Edited - I had previously misread these amendments)
 
Last edited:

Horizon22

Established Member
Associate Staff
Jobs & Careers
Joined
8 Sep 2019
Messages
9,571
Location
London
Does the NHS has the same policy for Colds and Flu

For flu yes, you really shouldn’t be going in. A “cold” I suppose is very subjective - a lot of NHS feel duty bound to go in, certainly from family & friends I know who work there.
 

danm14

Member
Joined
24 Jun 2017
Messages
741
Considering the people that this could affect this is disgusting.
That is the intention - Sir Michael McBride, Chief Medical Officer for Northern Ireland has previously publicly encouraged challenging those who do not look visibly disabled but are not wearing a face covering, and stated that he does so himself.
 

yorkie

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
6 Jun 2005
Messages
73,814
Location
Yorkshire
That is the intention - Sir Michael McBride, Chief Medical Officer for Northern Ireland has previously publicly encouraged challenging those who do not look visibly disabled but are not wearing a face covering, and stated that he does so himself.
If I caught anyone doing that, they'd get an earful.
 

102 fan

Member
Joined
14 May 2007
Messages
788
Quite amusing this sudden concern from Sinn Fein among others to try and prevent untimely deaths.


It's hard to take, the armed wing of that party were quite happy to have myself and relatives of mine in the sights of their weapons now caring about us.

The depressing thing is that there'll be no change in the election in May as every vote is a constitutional one here. I wouldn't be at all surprised if GB was back to normal and NI still had restrictions.
 

Freightmaster

Verified Rep
Joined
7 Jul 2009
Messages
3,875
That is the intention - Sir Michael McBride, Chief Medical Officer for Northern Ireland has previously publicly encouraged challenging those who do not look visibly disabled but are not wearing a face covering, and stated that he does so himself.
Wow.

Does he "publicly encourage" people to do the same thing when they see seemingly 'able bodied' people
legitimately using disabled parking spaces, I wonder???

I'm sure the answer to that question is "of course not, because that would amount to openly inciting discrimination
against people with hidden disabilities", so why does he feel that it's fine to do exactly that when it comes to people
who have a legitimate mask wearing exemption due to 'hidden' mental issues?:rolleyes:





MARK
 

102 fan

Member
Joined
14 May 2007
Messages
788
Wow.

Does he "publicly encourage" people to do the same thing when they see seemingly 'able bodied' people
legitimately using disabled parking spaces, I wonder???

I'm sure the answer to that question is "of course not, because that would amount to openly inciting discrimination
against people with hidden disabilities", so why does he feel that it's fine to do exactly that when it comes to people
who have a legitimate mask wearing exemption due to 'hidden' mental issues?:rolleyes:






MARK

Welcome to the mad world of Northern Ireland!
 

danm14

Member
Joined
24 Jun 2017
Messages
741
I wouldn't be at all surprised if GB was back to normal and NI still had restrictions.
There is an argument that because Northern Ireland does not get any revenue other than what is allocated through the Barnett Formula - whereas Scotland and Wales have their own powers of taxation - there is a perverse incentive for Northern Ireland to retain restrictions unnecessarily to reduce health expenditure (responsibility of Stormont), whilst being shielded by the financial impacts (taxation goes directly to Westminster, and the Barnett allocation is based on expenditure in England)
 

102 fan

Member
Joined
14 May 2007
Messages
788
There is an argument that because Northern Ireland does not get any revenue other than what is allocated through the Barnett Formula - whereas Scotland and Wales have their own powers of taxation - there is a perverse incentive for Northern Ireland to retain restrictions unnecessarily to reduce health expenditure (responsibility of Stormont), whilst being shielded by the financial impacts (taxation goes directly to Westminster, and the Barnett allocation is based on expenditure in England)

If I was a younger man I'd be looking to emigrate. That is a depressing fact.
 

Nicholas Lewis

On Moderation
Joined
9 Aug 2019
Messages
7,341
Location
Surrey
No its not. Those being treated for other things who have asymptomatic or sniffles covid continue to be treated for other things, just aa they wouid with a cold. The extra PPE etc is a pain but not the end of the world.
Given the predominance against masking up on this sub forum its bit unreasonable to expect the NHS staff to just have them all day long to do their jobs but i get the point of where your coming from .
Completely different from people coming in with breathing difficulties having to be put in intensive care and on ventilators because their lungs are foobarred.
Hadn't bothered looking at mechanical ventilation numbers as they've been relatively low for a very long time but they make interesting reading over last 7 days in london which helps reinforce the reduced severity assessment.

1640383173205.png
 

philosopher

Established Member
Joined
23 Sep 2015
Messages
1,460
If I was a younger man I'd be looking to emigrate. That is a depressing fact.
Given there is complete freedom of movement between the four nations of the United Kingdom, and between the UK and Republic of Ireland I do wonder how many in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland must be tempted to move to England where restrictions are generally lighter.

There are very few cultural and no language barriers between any of the nations of the British Isles and in many cases people could move through an internal company transfer and so would not even have to change jobs.
 

102 fan

Member
Joined
14 May 2007
Messages
788
Given there is complete freedom of movement between the four nations of the United Kingdom, and between the UK and Republic of Ireland I do wonder how many in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland must be tempted to move to England where restrictions are generally lighter.

There are very few cultural and no language barriers between any of the nations of the British Isles and in many cases people could move through an internal company transfer and so would not even have to change jobs.

At this moment, if I wasn't married with a family, I'd be looking at moving to England.
 

Peterthegreat

Established Member
Joined
22 Feb 2021
Messages
1,576
Location
South Yorkshire
Given there is complete freedom of movement between the four nations of the United Kingdom, and between the UK and Republic of Ireland I do wonder how many in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland must be tempted to move to England where restrictions are generally lighter.

There are very few cultural and no language barriers between any of the nations of the British Isles and in many cases people could move through an internal company transfer and so would not even have to change jobs.
Probably very few. Despite the clear majority on here I doubt many are temped to move (yet) just because of restrictions
 

21C101

Established Member
Joined
19 Jul 2014
Messages
2,555
At this moment, if I wasn't married with a family, I'd be looking at moving to England.
I must admit I am surprised to see the DUP going along with this. Many of their Westminster MPs seem to be quite in line with the majority view on this forum.

(For what it is worth I think the reason why this forum is so hawkish on the matter is because most have worked on the front line right through it, and routinely do things that, if done wrongly, are far more dangerous to the average life than that virus have so have a better perspective on its true threat than most, who have been sat at home with wall to wall shroud waving on TV and terrified into thinking something akin to the Great Plague is on the loose).
 

102 fan

Member
Joined
14 May 2007
Messages
788
Probably very few. Despite the clear majority on here I doubt many are temped to move (yet) just because of restrictions

If ever there was a border poll that showed support for a United Ireland, you can expect quite a few looking to move.
 

102 fan

Member
Joined
14 May 2007
Messages
788
I must admit I am surprised to see the DUP going along with this. Many of their Westminster MPs seem to be quite in line with the majority view on this forum.

(For what it is worth I think the reason why this forum is so hawkish on the matter is because most have worked on the front line right through it, and routinely do things that, if done wrongly, are far more dangerous to the average life than that virus have so have a better perspective on its true threat than most, who have been sat at home with wall to wall shroud waving on TV and terrified into thinking something akin to the Great Plague is on the loose).

I think the DUP are looking ahead to the May election. The health minister is an Ulster Unionist, so It's probable they hope to garner votes from them by highlighting it wasn't their MLA that brought the restrictions. I do know several Nationalists who are saying they will vote DUP as SF are pro restriction!
 

yorkie

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
6 Jun 2005
Messages
73,814
Location
Yorkshire
I don't think people would be likely to change jobs or move home due to Covid restrictions; not many people would be able to do that or could afford it.

I am aware of people who do work from home jobs switching their location during the pandemic,.

If anyone would like to discuss matters relating to Northern Ireland in more detail, you are welcome to create a new thread:)
 

21C101

Established Member
Joined
19 Jul 2014
Messages
2,555
If ever there was a border poll that showed support for a United Ireland, you can expect quite a few looking to move.
Not likely to happen. Much as the restrictions to save the NHS are annoying, there are quite a few Catholics who would prefer having things like an NHS to rule from Dublin and paying to visit the doctor, but wouldn't admit it outside the polling booth.

Not more than a small minority I grant you, but enough to make a difference in a close vote. I once went to a talk by a young Catholic member of the Ulster Unionist Party in London. The subject was "Why Catholics should be Unionists". It was quite an eye opener (and got quite er..lively)

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==

I think the DUP are looking ahead to the May election. The health minister is an Ulster Unionist, so It's probable they hope to garner votes from them by highlighting it wasn't their MLA that brought the restrictions. I do know several Nationalists who are saying they will vote DUP as SF are pro restriction!
As ever strategic matters on the Big Issue take precedence.

The nationalists voting DUP is a reminder that things there are not as black and white as portrayed.

Few on this side of the Irish Sea know, for example, that Wolf Tone who led the United Irish revolt circa 1800 was Protestant and his revolt was composed of Catholics and nonconformist Protestants who the Church of Ireland rulers treated in much the same way as Catholics.

The echo now of that is the Unionist split between the largely working class, presbyterian DUP and the more middle class Church of Ireland Ulster Unionists.

EDIT - just seen Yorkies post. Apologies for going O/T.
 
Last edited:

Drogba11CFC

Member
Joined
15 Sep 2009
Messages
891
When it first hit, after those videos of China going mad welding people in their flats, most people gave the government the benefit of the doubt. We knew little about it and few knew Fergusons previous form.

I think people accepted it at face value as a once in a century one off.

People have since learned the hard way that there is a slew of people among the great and good who are never happier than when they are restricting people, they have also realised that if the Black Plague is in the Premier League of killer virus, Covid is in the Vauxhall Conference south trying to avoid relegation into the Isthmian league.

The people behind the regulations being caught ignoring/bending them has also removed scales. Not so much from the hypocracy angle but from the angle that they know all the things about this that we don't and if they are not obeying the rules out of fear, then we have nothing to fear either.

If Johnson holds off from more regulations the devolved leaders will look silly and authoritarian. This is a particular problem for Labour, as whatever mealy mouthed things Starmer and Co say at Westminster, Drakeford has shown what Labour will do if given the slightest opportunity.

I suspect the Tories will be ahead in the opinion polls by spring again. At a time like this of mid term turbulence, labour need to be 12-15% ahead regularly to have a cats chance come an election.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==


No its not. Those being treated for other things who have asymptomatic or sniffles covid continue to be treated for other things, just aa they wouid with a cold. The extra PPE etc is a pain but not the end of the world.

Completely different from people coming in with breathing difficulties having to be put in intensive care and on ventilators because their lungs are foobarred.
And have been ripped apart by Winchester City in their own backyard in the second qualifying round of the FA Cup.
 

BRX

Established Member
Joined
20 Oct 2008
Messages
4,142
here we go again...

And your argument is this is for the benefit of the NHS, not yourself?

Does the emergence of Omicron really make it more beneficial to society for people to shift their mode of transport from buses and trains towards cars? Is a society that avoids public transport really going to benefit the NHS? If you think you have a case, it's probably best you explain your position in a new thread, where I will go into more detail regarding why I reject this idea.

I'm not going to attempt to respond to the entirety of your post - much of which seems to be trying to put words in my mouth - on Christmas eve. Maybe I will try and come back to it.

But to respond to your remarks above - you are jumping to so many conclusions about what I am arguing and why. It's not something that makes pursuing a conversation feel worthwhile.

Anyway. I'm about as far from an advocate for car use as you can get. I don't own a car. I am constantly arguing for reductions in car use and dependancy. I am reliant on public transport. I stopped using it, as per the rules, during the lockdowns, which meant that for several months the only places I went were places I could get to by foot or bicycle from my front door. When I said I have been avoiding public transport for the past week or so, that means I have not been going anywhere other than on foot. That's quite restrictive but I live in London so this is quite feasible in the short term. I can walk to the shops and so on. I've nowhere said anything about people shifting their mode of transport towards cars being beneficial for society. I mentioned a voluntary short term change in my own habits, done with the aim of reducing the possibility of me picking up an infection that I then pass on to my parents, who are in a group (unlike me) with one of the highest vulnerabilities to severe disease resulting from Covid. But this comment about my own individual small decision has prompted you to question me on why I think society avoiding public transport is going to benefit the NHS, as if this is some kind of long term proposal. I'm even invited to "explain my position" in a new thread! A position that I don't hold - rather, one that you seem to have imagined I must hold, because I'm on "the other side", possibly even an extremist!




But this can be debunked by looking at various examples throughout the world. For example the argument was made that if the UK had not acted in a certain way, things would have been far worse. But the model used to demonstrate that was applied to Sweden, and it turned out Ferguson's predictions were wrong.

Anyone who calls for restrictions for Omicron on the basis that Ferguson might be right for a change is having a laugh.

On the general subject of Ferguson always being wrong, or over-estimating the impact, here are some of the predictions from his team from March 2020. Page 13 of the report here - https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/im...-College-COVID19-NPI-modelling-16-03-2020.pdf


Screenshot 2021-12-25 at 00.20.30.jpg

The actual number of deaths in the UK in the intervening nearly two years has been in the region of 150,000 - 170,000. You can insist on using excess deaths if you want, and maybe it's closer to 100,000. That's with various restrictions being enacted at various points. The very highest estimate, with restrictions having been used, in this table is 120,000. So is the complaint about Ferguson's predictions that he was over-optimistic? And if he was over-optimistic about his predictions for what might happen with restrictions being used, what do we think about his predictions about what would have happened with no restrictions?
 

Jonny

Established Member
Joined
10 Feb 2011
Messages
2,574
The regulations for this have now been published, and they go far, far beyond what was stated in the press release.

Exemption is, as stated, no longer available for "severe distress", but also not for "illness" or "injury".

It is now only available for "disability (within the meaning of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995)", which is defined as "a physical or mental impairment which has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on his ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities."

They also clarified that proof of medical exemption can be requested not just by a "relevant person", but by "any person acting in the course of their employment".

Other changes include the removal of the requirement to wear a face covering while outdoors on a ferry (previously subject to two metre social distancing) or while outdoors at a public transport service premises (previously required, including at roadside bus stops). (Edited - I had previously misread these amendments)

Anyone who removes a "severe distress" clause is the sort of person who is at least OK with causing severe distress. We have seen a glimpse of the true face of the Northern Irish devolved government in that.
 

duncanp

Established Member
Joined
16 Aug 2012
Messages
4,856
Yawn.

So yet again some dodgy SAGE "modelling" is released last thing on Christmas Eve in order to try and bounce the government into introducing new restrictions in time for the new year.

The proposal is a return to Step 2 of the roadmap from earlier this year, starting on either December 28th or January 1st, and lasting till either January 15th, January 28th or March 28th.

The analysis found broadly that restrictions being adopted earlier and being in place longer had the biggest impact on reducing hospital admissions, the number of days people are in hospital, and deaths.

Well no **** Sherlock, who would have though that?

But guess what, the "modelling" includes "unknowns" and the data is "uncertain".

However, the researchers said their modelling includes many unknowns as some data is still uncertain.

For example, the Warwick team assumed omicron is half as likely to cause severe disease as delta, but the true figure, according to Sage, could be anywhere between 15 per cent and 80 per cent.

So why hasn't SAGE "modelled" what happens if Omicron is 80% less likely to cause severe disease than Delta? Well, they probably have, but presumably have not released the results because the numbers are not scary enough, and don't justify any extra restrictions.

It is so obviously an attempt to influence government and public thinking, and surprise, surprise, Locktivist Sky News have fallen for it this morning by mentioning "restrictions until the end of March" on the scrolling news on TV this morning, without mentioning the options of ending the restrictions on January 15th and January 28th.

In any case, going all the way back to step 2 isn't a binary choice for the government, because to do so would mean closing hotels and indoor hospitality.


Tougher Covid rules lasting until spring among several proposals drawn up by experts​

Restrictions starting as early as next week to curb omicron spread among scenarios modelled for government scientists

Tough new Covid restrictions would come in next week and last until the spring, under one scenario which has been modelled for government scientists.

Papers released by the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (Sage) included University of Warwick modelling looking at tighter rules starting on December 28 or New Year’s Day and lasting until January 15, January 28 or March 28.

The latest of those dates, if it was adopted by Boris Johnson, would mean England going back into tighter restrictions for three months after Christmas. It is longer than publicly suggested by some of the most cautious scientists and politicians.

A Downing Street source played down the possibility of that option being implemented, however, stressing that the modelling has not been submitted to government ministers yet for consideration.

However, the fact that government scientists are discussing the idea reflects how seriously the surge of the omicron variant of Covid-19 is being treated as they consider what to advise.

Changes in Covid restrictions only come into effect once the Prime Minister and his Cabinet agree what action to take and Parliament has voted through any legal changes.

Proposals could pile pressure on Cabinet​

The modelling came as two government scientists defended their analysis of the threat posed by omicron, dismissing critics who have dubbed scientific warnings “doomsday” scenarios.

Dr Jenny Harries, the chief executive of the UK Health Security Agency, insisted that omicron remains a “serious threat” despite new encouraging data about the variant, while Sir Patrick Vallance, the Government’s Chief Scientific Adviser, defended scientific models after criticism from Tory MPs.

The release of the modelling on Christmas Eve could heap pressure on the Cabinet, which is expected to meet early next week, to consider the possibility of new restrictions given the omicon surge.

The new statement from the Scientific Pandemic Influenza Group on Modelling (Spi-M), a government advisory group which sits alongside Sage, was published online on Christmas Eve.

The Spi-M statement made reference to modelling conducted by the University of Warwick, which was also published separately and considers possible options for tightening the rules.

The road back to step two?​

The intervention which was considered is returning to step two of the Government’s reopening roadmap, as was followed in the first half of 2021.

During step two, indoor socialising was not allowed outside your own household or support bubble, but outdoor socialising was allowed in a group of up to six people.

Pubs, bars and restaurants were closed indoors but could serve people outdoors, while working from home was encouraged. Hotels and hostels were closed.

The analysis looked at the impact of adopting the new rules on December 28, two days after Boxing Day, and January 1.

It also considered them ending with a return to Plan B restrictions, the current rules in England, on January 15, January 28 or March 28.

The analysis found broadly that restrictions being adopted earlier and being in place longer had the biggest impact on reducing hospital admissions, the number of days people are in hospital, and deaths.

The academics found that if step two restrictions are in place until March 28, then the number of deaths will be more than a third lower than if there are no restrictions beyond Plan B.

If restrictions are enforced between December 28 and January 15, then there will be just 18 per cent fewer deaths.

Delaying until New Year’s Day would still reduce the death toll, but by less than if they were brought in earlier.

However, the researchers said their modelling includes many unknowns as some data is still uncertain.

For example, the Warwick team assumed omicron is half as likely to cause severe disease as delta, but the true figure, according to Sage, could be anywhere between 15 per cent and 80 per cent.

Despite this, the Warwick researchers said: “In all the scenarios modelled, rapidly enacted Step 2 measures reduce the peak of hospital pressure to about half its level under Plan B only.”

Under Plan B, people in England must work from home, are legally mandated to wear masks in certain settings, and must show proof of vaccination or a negative test to get into venues with large crowds.

The modelling gave an insight into the measures government scientists are looking at but did not guarantee they will be implemented.

The Cabinet last week rejected suggestions by government scientists to bring in tougher new restrictions before Christmas in the face of the omicron case surge.

Boris Johnson sided with a group of Cabinet ministers who argued more data on the impact of the omicron variant on hospitalisations and the vaccines was needed before tough new action.

However, the Cabinet is expected to meet again early next week to discuss imposing new restrictions. Parliament would need to be recalled to vote through any legal changes agreed.

The Government is also encouraging people to take up their booster jab in a bid to beat the omicron variant. Every mobile phone owner in the UK will be sent a text message on Boxing Day urging them to get a booster jab if they have not already done so, following a request from ministers to BT and other networks.
 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
41,956
Location
Yorks
One only has to listen to the public being interviewed on the radio etc to realise that there will be no appetite for level 2 restrictions.

True, we can't do anything about things forced to close, but everything else will be ignored.

If they reintroduce tier two restrictions, they don't deserve power ever again, along with lockdown labour and the lunatic separatist fringe.
 
Last edited:

duncanp

Established Member
Joined
16 Aug 2012
Messages
4,856
One only has to listen to the public being interviewed on the radio etc to realise that there will be no appetite for level 2 restrictions.

True, we can't do anything about things forced to close, but everything else will be ignored.

If they reintroduce tier two restrictions, they don't deserve power ever again, along with lockdown labour and the lunatic separatist fringe.

I have a feeling that the most the government will do is go back to the "rule of six" for indoor hospitality, and pointlessly introduce more mask wearing in those places where it is not mandatory. (eg pubs and swimming pools)

Making pubs outdoors only for two, or even four, weeks isn't going to have much of an impact on reducing transmission, especially as January is usually a quiet month for pubs anyway.

I think we may even get away with "strengthened guidance", such as voluntarily limiting the number of people you mix with or going to pubs and hospitality venues at times of the day and days of the week when they are quiet.

In deciding whether to introduce more restrictions, the government must also take into account the fact that the growth in cases is slowing already, and the rollout of the booster program will provide an ever increasing level of protection against serious illness, hospitalisation and death. I bet the SAGE "modelling" does not take this last factor into acccount.
 

21C101

Established Member
Joined
19 Jul 2014
Messages
2,555
Given that most if not all broadcast media companies (including the BBC) derive revenue to a greater or lesser extent from subscription/pay per view TV, which inevitably gets more subscriptions if everyone is under house arrest. I'm wondering whether their hysterical lockdown mongering is wholly coincidental.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top