What does living with Covid mean?

[biko]

The thread on the HVAC systems in the Caledonian sleeper (https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/hvac-on-caledonian-sleeper.231108/) derailed (pun intended) very fast into one about whether it is still needed to worry about Covid and what living with Covid should mean. I mentioned I wouldn't reply there anymore as it was too off-topic, so I created this thread to continue.

As you appear to be misinformed, that's no bad thing.

I think this is an unfair comment, especially from a moderator. My view isn't just mine, it is based on the view of many epidemiologists over here and abroad. It gives me the impression other views than those of moderators are not welcome on the forum.

You misunderstand; the virus will continue to circulate at high levels until we reach a state of endemic equilibrium.

The only way to reach endemic equilibrium is for people to be exposed to the virus.

If you were successful in reducing cases now, you would only delay the infections, until the winter season.

Everyone is going to be exposed to SARS-CoV-2 multiple times in our lifetimes; this is no different to other similar viruses.

By all means implement whatever protections you want, if you wish to delay exposure to the virus.

You misunderstand why you would want to have some precautions. First of all, some people are vulnerable, even if vaccinated, or they cannot be vaccinated. That doesn't mean everybody else should be in lockdown until eternity, but the risk can be reduced if you're reducing the exposure. The reasoning in some countries to keep a mask in public transport is that many vulnerable people need to travel by public transport so we have a duty to help to reduce the risk we pose to them. Furthermore, it reduces the rates in the whole population, meaning it is less unsafe for vulnerable people to go to places where precautions are more difficult to take (e.g. a restaurant).

Another reason is to keep track of the virus (and other viruses too by the way). By slowing transmission down a little you buy some time to react without the need for a lockdown after everything got out of hand. That also contributes to tackling the problem of staff shortage due to illness.

Also, it is very possible to catch Covid multiple times. So not getting infected now doesn't mean delaying it, but it saves you one infection and one less chance of getting long covid. Having fewer people with long-term problems is beneficial for the whole country.

So living with covid should mean doing some things slightly different if they make a difference without too much trouble. Planning more parties outside for example or more parties around summer. Improving ventilation in schools (long overdue in any case). Washing hands regularly (if you didn't already do so). And wearing masks in crowded indoor places as long as infection rates are high. FFP2 for vulnerable people and those around them. etc.

The UK is no different to many other countries; in fact I would go further and say that countries I have been in recently have been much more "normal" than the UK. The idea that Austria is doing things correctly and the UK is an outlier is absolutely absurd and extremely wide of the mark.

The UK does far more testing than sensible countries and has a far higher proportion of people wearing masks (nearly all of the ineffective, loose fitting kind) compared to many other countries where people take a far more pragmatic approach and are simply living lives 100% normally.

It is Austria and countries west of there which are not yet accepting reality and are refusing to accept endemic equilibrium as inevitable. The UK, Scandinavia, Eastern Europe are the more forward thinking countries who re acting correctly and appropriately.

Countries like Denmark are leading the way.

I haven't been to the UK since the pandemic started so I can't comment on that. My general view on Austrian policy is that it's generally way too strict and doesn't consider fundamental rights. Austria certainly is an outlier, but not with respect to masks on trains. Most countries only require them in public transport.

Testing in the UK is very good, especially the sequencing. That enables fewer measure as it's much clearer what's going on in the population and can help preventing the need for strict measures as you can see what's coming before it's too late. I am not familiar enough with the testing regimes in the other countries you mention to comment on their policy.

Its up to each person to choose whether to be almost 100% protected (by wearing an FFP3 providing it's worn, handled and stored correctly and replaced regularly etc), or get close to that with FFP2, or indeed wear a flimsy, loose fitting ineffective mask or nothing.

Everyone can make their own choice; it does not impact on others because everyone has that choice and in any case , wearing an effective mask merely delays exposure to another occasion.

Ultimately we cannot avoid exposure, it is absolutely inevitable that we will be exposed multiple times in our lifetimes.

Once sufficient people have a high enough level of immunity, we will reach a state of endemic equilibrium.

We went through the same process with many other similar viruses, such as OC43.

Indeed, although it's a bit unfair that most people that require expensive wearing masks often have lower incomes. I agree we can remove the requirement to wear masks if we would provide vulnerable people with cheaper masks in some way or another. Still unfair for those who cannot wear a mask themselves, but those are a very small minority of the vulnerable people.

Exposure can not be fully avoided, but reducing exposure is also useful, for vulnerable people and for society as a whole. Spreading the timing of people getting infected (not only covid) is useful, see for example the wave of train cancellations because of Omicron. The consequences would have been less if staff illness was spread over a longer period.

With respect to the equilibrium, I really hope so, but experts are not sure, because of people getting infected repeatedly. I guess we'll see next winter.

 

[yorkie]

The thread on the HVAC systems in the Caledonian sleeper (https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/hvac-on-caledonian-sleeper.231108/) derailed (pun intended) very fast into one about whether it is still needed to worry about Covid and what living with Covid should mean. I mentioned I wouldn't reply there anymore as it was too off-topic, so I created this thread to continue.

Living with Covid means the same as living with OC43, influenza etc.

By all means you can take additional precautions if you want to.

I think this is an unfair comment, especially from a moderator.

I think your comments are unfair, but most importantly they are inaccurate, misguided and - I believe - dangerous. I do not see why being a moderator has anything to do with it.

My view isn't just mine, it is based on the view of many epidemiologists over here and abroad.

We are not really in an epidemic situation any more; cases are reducing despite no restrictions being in place. We are transitioning towards endemic equilibrium.

My view isn't just mine; it is based on the view of many people who are experts in health, not just epidemiologists, here and abroad.

While you will of course be able to get "experts" who take your viewpoint, I have listened to them and I reject their views because I've listened to more pragmatic experts, such as those whose views are determining the policy of countries such as Denmark, Sweden etc who take a more holistic, pragmatic and sustainable approach.

It gives me the impression other views than those of moderators are not welcome on the forum.

Everyone is welcome to their views but don't be surprised if incorrect information is corrected.

You misunderstand why you would want to have some precautions.

No; it is you who misunderstands.

First of all, some people are vulnerable, even if vaccinated,

Such people are vulnerable to many other viruses and could take whatever precautions they would have taken before Sars-CoV-2 came along, or they can take additional precautions, if they wish to do so.

or they cannot be vaccinated.

This is an absolutely tiny number of people; what proportion of the population do you think this applies to?

I'll also point out that at this stage, after around 26 months of widespread transmission, those who have not yet been vaccinated are highly likely to have been exposed to the actual virus by now.

That doesn't mean everybody else should be in lockdown until eternity, but the risk can be reduced if you're reducing the exposure.

If you wish to reduce your risk of exposure, that is your choice to make.

But you are going to be exposed to Sars-CoV-2, multiple times, in your lifetime. There is no realistic way to avoid this; all you can do is delay it.

The reasoning in some countries to keep a mask in public transport is that many vulnerable people need to travel by public transport so we have a duty to help to reduce the risk we pose to them.

This makes no sense; in all sensible countries virtually no-one wears a mask on public transport. I took many trains and trams today and I don't recall seeing anyone wear a mask, and quite rightly so.

I find it offensive that you claim we have a duty to wear a mask; you have no right to impose your own moral values - which are not shared by the majority - on others.

If you wish to wear one, that is your choice, but please leave us alone.

Anyone who feels vulnerable can choose to wear an effective (i.e. FFP2/3) mask if they wish to do so; they do not need others to wear ineffective masks.

Furthermore, it reduces the rates in the whole population,

This is not true; rates of infection in England went down after the mask mandate ceased, and yet in Scotland at the same time cases soared. Fast forward a few months and cases are now comparatively quite low in England, despite relatively few masks now being worn.

The only way to truly suppress rates of infection is to reach a state of endemic equilibrium. The idea that you can eliminate or suppress the virus by imposing indefinite restrictions is absurd and based on a complete misunderstanding of how viruses transmit and how we reach an equilibrium with viruses.

meaning it is less unsafe for vulnerable people to go to places where precautions are more difficult to take (e.g. a restaurant).

This is a fallacy; if a vulnerable person feels they need to take precautions and do not want to be exposed to virus particles, they may choose not to visit a restaurant if that is what they wish to do.

The idea that everyone else should be restricted in order to bring levels of the virus - which cannot be contained, eliminated or suppressed through such restrictions anyway - down to low levels without reaching endemic equilibrium on the basis that vulnerable people who want others to wear masks can take off their masks to eat, is one of the most absurd concepts I've ever heard.

Another reason is to keep track of the virus (and other viruses too by the way).

I don't understand what you mean by this.

By slowing transmission down a little you buy some time to react without the need for a lockdown after everything got out of hand. That also contributes to tackling the problem of staff shortage due to illness.

There is no need for lockdowns, and therefore your proposals to avoid the need for lockdowns is based on a fallacy.

The only way forward is to reach endemic equilibrium; we are heading in the right direction. Your idea of suppressing the virus without building up the required level of immunity in the population is doomed to failure; even if you were successful in reducing cases this Summer, all that would happen is you would see a resurgence in the winter. How would that be a good thing?

Also, it is very possible to catch Covid multiple times.

We are exposed to Coronaviruses on a regular basis; this cannot be prevented.

So not getting infected now doesn't mean delaying it, but it saves you one infection and one less chance of getting long covid.

You need to learn how endemic equilibrium works; the idea that if we all wear masks we can reduce the number of infections is absurd.

Yes we will be reinfected but that really isn't a big deal; every exposure will boost our immunity to the virus and this has been the case for Coronaviruses for centuries.

Having fewer people with long-term problems is beneficial for the whole country.

The idea that everyone wearing masks is going to reduce the number of people with "long-term problems" is misguided.

So living with covid should mean doing some things slightly different if they make a difference without too much trouble.

I disagree; most countries are either treating Sars-CoV-2 as any other Coronavirus right now or have plans to do so soon, and rightly so. The idea that we should change our way of life is absurd.

Planning more parties outside for example or more parties around summer.

You can do that if you want, but the rest of us have the right to live our normal lives without you telling us what we should or shouldn't do.

Improving ventilation in schools (long overdue in any case).

Reducing exposure to viruses in schools isn't really going to do much given that we all have to build up immunity against viruses when we are young.

Washing hands regularly (if you didn't already do so). And wearing masks in crowded indoor places as long as infection rates are high. FFP2 for vulnerable people and those around them. etc.

You do that if you want but you have no right to tell us to do these things, nr would doing these things make any material difference to anything, other than perhaps delaying infections from this summer to the winter and delaying the inevitable onset of endemic equilibrium.

I haven't been to the UK since the pandemic started so I can't comment on that. My general view on Austrian policy is that it's generally way too strict and doesn't consider fundamental rights

I agree with you on that.

. Austria certainly is an outlier, but not with respect to masks on trains. Most countries only require them in public transport.

Some countries are victimising public transport; it is unclear why this is and it enrages me and is part of the reason why I am so vocal against such restrictions. There is no logic behind it.

However the countries that are doing this appear to be doing so as an intermediate step and I suspect it is to placate the mask activists who are unhappy that mask mandates are being dropped and also as part of (as another member put it) a "glide path" back to normality in stages.

Sensible countries do not require masks on public transport.

Testing in the UK is very good, especially the sequencing. That enables fewer measure as it's much clearer what's going on in the population and can help preventing the need for strict measures as you can see what's coming before it's too late. I am not familiar enough with the testing regimes in the other countries you mention to comment on their policy.

Vaccines have prevented the need for strict measures. There will be no more strict measures in the UK and if anyone tried to implement them, many people would not consent.

Indeed, although it's a bit unfair that most people that require expensive wearing masks often have lower incomes.

No-one requires such masks. People can make the choice if they wish but it will not change the fact they are going to be exposed to Sars-CoV-2 eventually.

I agree we can remove the requirement to wear masks if we would provide vulnerable people with cheaper masks in some way or another. Still unfair for those who cannot wear a mask themselves, but those are a very small minority of the vulnerable people.

Even if you gave all "vulnerable" people a lifetimes supply of FFP3 masks if they want it, you are not going to be able to avoid the fact that everyone is ultimately going to be exposed to the virus.

Exposure can not be fully avoided, but reducing exposure is also useful, for vulnerable people and for society as a whole.

No it isn't; we need exposure to reach endemic equilibrium and then transmission will reduce naturally. Each year we will get a new round of infections, as we do with the 4 pre-existing human Coronaviruses and numbers will naturally decline and that cycle will continue.

Spreading the timing of people getting infected (not only covid) is useful, see for example the wave of train cancellations because of Omicron.

Cases are already reducing, due to a build up of immunity. The idea that we should try to delay reaching the levels of immunity we need to reach endemic equilibrium demonstrates a complete lack of understanding. It is counter productive.

The consequences would have been less if staff illness was spread over a longer period.

You don't want this to end, do you?

Also I will point out that we need as many of those who have not yet been exposed to be exposed this Summer before the onset of the next winter season. Your logic of delaying infections until winter does not hold water.

With respect to the equilibrium, I really hope so, but experts are not sure, because of people getting infected repeatedly. I guess we'll see next winter.

Different experts have different opinions.

The proportion of infections that are reinfections are quite low and of those that are reinfections they tend to be milder.

We will all get reinfections of all the common Coronaviruses from time to time and each reinfection gives our immune system a boost.

 

[MikeWM]

First of all, some people are vulnerable, even if vaccinated, or they cannot be vaccinated.

Yes, but that applies to many viruses that have been with us for a very long time indeed. Why single this one out for making radical changes to how our society works?

The reasoning in some countries to keep a mask in public transport is that many vulnerable people need to travel by public transport so we have a duty to help to reduce the risk we pose to them.

No, *absolutely not*. There is no 'duty' for me to take precautions against transmitting a disease if I have no symptoms of that disease and no particular reason to believe I have it. There never has been and there never should be.

Another reason is to keep track of the virus (and other viruses too by the way). By slowing transmission down a little you buy some time to react without the need for a lockdown after everything got out of hand.

Again, this applies to all manner of viruses. Why single this one out and spend vast amounts of money 'keeping track' of it? What does that achieve?

Anyway, we tried the 'react without the need for a lockdown' approach in autumn 2020, when we had 'tiers' and the 'rule of six' and a whole load of other nonsense. It didn't work, and then we locked down anyway.

So living with covid should mean doing some things slightly different if they make a difference without too much trouble.

Again, why single out this specific virus as a reason to start doing things 'slightly different', presumably you mean forever, and what will that achieve?

And how do we define what is 'too much trouble' and how do we determine if doing such things are worth any trouble at all?

Finally, all of the above also assumes that doing any of these things (masks, lockdowns, etc.) actually helps slow down the spread of the virus. But we have a vast amount of data now on all sorts of different measures that have been tried around the world, and it is very clear that there is effectively no difference in eventual outcome *whatever* you do. The only remaining question is how miserable you make the lives of the population in an attempt to control what cannot be controlled, and what collateral physical, mental and economic damage you cause in such futile attempts.

'Living with Covid' should mean exactly the same as living with all the other annoying, and occasionally dangerous, bacteria and viruses we've co-existed with since the start of time - we carry on as before.

 

[Bantamzen]

What does living with covid mean? Exactly what it says, covid is here to stay despite all the empty of politicians around the world. This is the reality of life, viruses exist and at some point society has to decide to just get on with things, or hide away for all eternity. We have vaccines, drugs, & treatments to deal with it's effects. We can identify those most at risk & help them make decisions & take precautions to help safeguard themselves, just as we do with all the other diseases out there.

I hate to say this but the risk of covid to the vast majority has been severely overplayed by politicians spooked at the thought of dead bodies littering the streets back in early 2020. Yes it does represent risk to some people, but as I've stated we can now mitigate this risk for them meaning that normal life can, and indeed should return. In fact this should have happened a long time ago. Sadly some of those politicians I mentioned are still trying to be the ones to "defeat" the virus, and so continue to impose oppressive, and almost wholly ineffective measures on their citizens. You only have to look at what is happening in China to realise that covid restrictions are purely political measures with very little grounding in science.

Let's put things into context, we are a ape-like species with a limited lifespan, sitting on a big body of mainly molten rock spinning at over 1,600Kmh, orbiting a giant nuclear reactor at over 16,000kmh, which is also moving through the galaxy at over 850,000Kmh, which in turn moves through space filled with rather large rocks, gaseous bodies, and lots & lots of radiation strong enough to vaporise us in a moment, all at something like 2,000,000Kmh. Do we really stop life as we know it for a virus that statistically represents a risk very similar to influenza? Of course we don't.

 

[yorksrob]

For me, "living with covid" should mean:

• Maintaining good hand hygeine
• Maintaining good ventilation
• Providing the necessary jabs to those who require them
• Enabling people to test where appropriate - i.e if they are likely to be spending long periods of time with someone vulnerable.

 

[Eyersey468]

@biko May I ask do you believe then that we should take precautions on behalf of vulnerable people for all other viruses then? If not why single out Covid?

 

[Bantamzen]

For me, "living with covid" should mean:

• Maintaining good hand hygeine
• Maintaining good ventilation
• Providing the necessary jabs to those who require them
• Enabling people to test where appropriate - i.e if they are likely to be spending long periods of time with someone vulnerable.

I'd agree wholeheartedly with the first three, but we don't test for anything else so should we be constantly testing for covid? As someone who has lost loved ones to the effects of influenza & the common cold, I don't really understand why covid is any more a reason to test for than all the other diseases out there.

 

[Eyersey468]

I'd agree wholeheartedly with the first three, but we don't test for anything else so should we be constantly testing for covid? As someone who has lost loved ones to the effects of influenza & the common cold, I don't really understand why covid is any more a reason to test for than all the other diseases out there.

I don't think @yorksrob is saying everyone should be testing just those who are regularly in contact with vulnerable people

 

[yorksrob]

I'd agree wholeheartedly with the first three, but we don't test for anything else so should we be constantly testing for covid? As someone who has lost loved ones to the effects of influenza & the common cold, I don't really understand why covid is any more a reason to test for than all the other diseases out there.

I don't think @yorksrob is saying everyone should be testing just those who are regularly in contact with vulnerable people

Indeed. I would have it more as a matter of personal choice. I certainly don't agree with everyone testing themselves all the time for the sake of it.

 

[pdq]

For me, "living with covid" should mean:

• Maintaining good hand hygeine
• Maintaining good ventilation
• Providing the necessary jabs to those who require them
• Enabling people to test where appropriate - i.e if they are likely to be spending long periods of time with someone vulnerable.

I also agree with this. Points 1 and 2 make a lot of sense in the wider context.
Hand hygiene - I would like to see (for example) the means to wipe down supermarket trolleys and baskets retained as a common sense approach to general hygiene and protection against all sorts of pathogens that are transmitted to surfaces from the mouth via one's hands.
Ventilation - a ventilated space has a better mix of Oxygen vs CO2, helping with concentration levels, and is simply a more pleasant environment to be in.

I also wish that the courtesy and concern we all showed to our fellow humans in the early stages would return and become the norm, but I fear that boat has sailed.

 

[Cdd89]

Masks are rightly getting the most pushback on this thread, but I think ventilation needs challenging too.

“Open a window when it’s not too cold” or “have ventilation part of new build codes” are both fine. However, those demanding ventilation are well past such simple helpful suggestions.

I disagree that spending billions on retrofitting schools to have great HVAC systems is a good use of public money. There is an opportunity cost to every £ spent and I can think of 100 things that need funding more urgently than “ventilation in schools”, especially given the very low risk of most respiratory viruses to children.

To those pushing for this, I would ask: if the only way this could be funded is with existing money, what educational funding would you cut in order to achieve it? Or is it not, in fact, that important?

 

[yorksrob]

Masks are rightly getting the most pushback on this thread, but I think ventilation needs challenging too.

“Open a window when it’s not too cold” or “have ventilation part of new build codes” are both fine. However, those demanding ventilation are well past such simple helpful suggestions.

I disagree that spending hundreds of billions on retrofitting schools to have great HVAC systems is a good use of public money. There is an opportunity cost to every £ spent and I can think of 100 things that need funding more urgently than “ventilation in schools”, especially given the very low risk of most respiratory viruses to children.

To those pushing for this, I would ask: if the only way this could be funded is with existing money, what educational funding would you cut in order to achieve it? Or is it not, in fact, that important?

I'm thinking more along the lines of where practical. I'm not sure that billion pound retrofit schemes are justifiable.

Also, as someone who likes pokey old pubs, there should be an element of choice (and maybe information) as well.

 

[Snow1964]

The ventilation one is a bit of a red herring, as far as living with covid is concerned. If a building has no ventilation then other things are a problem from build up of vapours from cleaning chemicals, to gradual reduction in oxygen, and ability to pass on other illnesses like colds and flu.

To say a building needs ventilation solely because of covid, doesn’t explain why it was allowed to be unventilated 2 years ago.

The argument about ventilating schools is a farce, when blowing the air around more increases risks of passing on other childhood illnesses like chicken pox. And that is much more likely to put a child out of action for a few days than a dose of covid.

 

[MikeWM]

Masks are rightly getting the most pushback on this thread, but I think ventilation needs challenging too.

Agreed. I have found it a very unfortunate trend for years - well before Covid - that good ventilation appeared to be getting worse and worse. As a trivial example the fact that so few office buildings (and, perhaps a little more controversially, trains) now have windows that can be opened. At all. Its really quite bizarre.

But, while I fully support a move back to taking this into consideration in the future, is it now really worth spending billions of pounds retrofitting buildings, specifially schools, in a (futile!) attempt to stop people getting a virus that is of very small risk to them? We need to pass a proportionality test to justify things such as this, and this doesn't remotely do so.

 

[Dent]

Agreed. I have found it a very unfortunate trend for years - well before Covid - that good ventilation appeared to be getting worse and worse. As a trivial example the fact that so few office buildings (and, perhaps a little more controversially, trains) now have windows that can be opened. At all. Its really quite bizarre.

Isn't that because they have air conditioning, so opening windows would result in the expensively cooled air being blown out of the windows rather than cooling the room? That's not bizarre at all, but perfectly sensible.

 

[MikeWM]

Isn't that because they have air conditioning, so opening windows would result in the expensively cooled air being blown out of the windows rather than cooling the room? That's not bizarre at all, but perfectly sensible.

It depends if you think the ventilation (and the temperature control) is better achieved by the HVAC. I'd say that quite often it isn't. For example, in the office I work in, there is some separate system pumping fresh air from outside into the office space, on top of the air conditioning system - separate vents. The air quality is noticeably better as a result, but such things are rare in my experience. And we have windows we can open too!

I'd add that while no-one is happier than me to encounter a good aircon system on a hot day - and I have much lower tolerance for heat than most - this is yet another area where individual choice has been replaced by some central authority that 'knows best'. You're stuck with whatever has been centrally decided, even if you personally find it too warm (or too cool), usually with no available mitigations.

 

[Dent]

It depends if you think the ventilation (and the temperature control) is better achieved by the HVAC. I'd say that quite often it isn't. For example, in the office I work in, there is some separate system pumping fresh air from outside into the office space, on top of the air conditioning system - separate vents. The air quality is noticeably better as a result, but such things are rare in my experience. And we have windows we can open too!

I'd add that while no-one is happier than me to encounter a good aircon system on a hot day - and I have much lower tolerance for heat than most - this is yet another area where individual choice has been replaced by some central authority that 'knows best'. You're stuck with whatever has been centrally decided, even if you personally find it too warm (or too cool), usually with no available mitigations.

None of that changes the point letting the expensively treated air from the air conditioning get blown straight out off the windows is:
1. Wasting the energy put into treating it
2. Making the air conditioning less effective at its purpose, and overloading the system.

 

[MikeWM]

None of that changes the point letting the expensively treated air from the air conditioning get blown straight out off the windows is:
1. Wasting the energy put into treating it
2. Making the air conditioning less effective at its purpose, and overloading the system.

I agree, and I don't think there is a simple answer because as I said, I rather like a good aircon system myself.

But the fact that many people do feel the need to open a window, irrespective of Covid, implies that HVAC isn't ideal (at least in many/most cases) and people feel more ventilation is necessary, either for air quality or temperature reasons. Or that 'one size fits all' isn't actually true.

I'm currently on an SWR 450 and the temperature is fine but the air quality doesn't seem great - an open window would help.

(I think I may be pulling this thread off-topic a little though from Covid-related stuff - if so, apologies).

 

[Yew]

But, while I fully support a move back to taking this into consideration in the future, is it now really worth spending billions of pounds retrofitting buildings, specifially schools, in a (futile!) attempt to stop people getting a virus that is of very small risk to them? We need to pass a proportionality test to justify things such as this, and this doesn't remotely do so.

I'm willing to consider that lots of schools probably have old Boilers, and a move to a modern Heating system could bring benefts. Hot Air furnaces, as are popular in the US, are highly thermodynamically efficient.

 

[MikeWM]

Not sure this is entirely the correct thread for this, but I don't see a better one.

The UK government have (very quietly) announced that the domestic NHS Covid Pass will 'no longer be available' from May 12th. See https://www.gov.uk/guidance/nhs-covid-pass

I'm not sure what exactly that means in practice (do they just withdraw the verifier app? That seems the easiest way to do it) but is good to see nevertheless. I'm not aware of anyone still using this at this point, but removing it entirely is definitely a welcome move.

 

[Bantamzen]

Not sure this is entirely the correct thread for this, but I don't see a better one.

The UK government have (very quietly) announced that the domestic NHS Covid Pass will 'no longer be available' from May 12th. See https://www.gov.uk/guidance/nhs-covid-pass

I'm not sure what exactly that means in practice (do they just withdraw the verifier app? That seems the easiest way to do it) but is good to see nevertheless. I'm not aware of anyone still using this at this point, but removing it entirely is definitely a welcome move.

I used mine a sum total of once, at a Bradford City football match before the requirement was quickly dropped again. Good riddance to a bad idea.

 

[kristiang85]

I've not used the domestic one at all, thankfully.

Hopefully by the start of summer even the international one will only need to be sparingly used.

 

[biko]

Basically the difference in opinion arises from a general difference in view on how to approach things: most people on here hope it will be fine, I take a more careful approach as we don't know yet how this current situation with vaccine-escaping, more infectious but less severe ill-making mutations will evolve. Experts also vary in view on this. Why I am cautious is that it seems a lot of people have long covid symptoms which sometimes fade away and in many cases don't. There is little knowledge yet why and if those will ever go away. Recent studies show for example that being vaccinated doesn't seem to help against long covid symptoms.

Furthermore, many (if not all) experts believe the next mutation will be even more infectious and trying to escape the immunity that vaccines gave us. The trend is towards being more mild, but it is not linear to use mathematical terminology. There can be 'peaks' in both directions. Those can give nasty surprises to those who thought covid was fully over. I think we will be able to say a lot more about this next year, but for now it is useful to track what's happening in the sense which variants occur and what their properties are.

Another important point is that a new wave can be quite destructive in society if many employees are absent at the same time. Here in the Netherlands even now, the number of hospitalisations has reduced, but there are still too many people in hospital and too few staff to be able to start clearing up the backlog of patients with other problems. That's another thing to consider for the next months.

Now some replies:

Living with Covid means the same as living with OC43, influenza etc.

Not yet unfortunately, but eventually it will.

I think your comments are unfair, but most importantly they are inaccurate, misguided and - I believe - dangerous

I think you're reacting very strongly. It isn't as black and white as you suggest and most of what you say is just one school of thought. Actually what I propose is a lot less dangerous than acting as if covid doesn't exist anymore. Cautious behaviour isn't dangerous.

We are not really in an epidemic situation any more; cases are reducing despite no restrictions being in place. We are transitioning towards endemic equilibrium.

We are in between waves, a temporary pause. The latest predictions are a new wave before next winter as BA.4 and BA.5 are even more infectious than previous sub variants of omicron.

My view isn't just mine; it is based on the view of many people who are experts in health, not just epidemiologists, here and abroad.

So that confirms that there is no consensus among experts yet as many other experts suggest implementing some reasonable measures to reduce the spread of many airborne viruses.

While you will of course be able to get "experts" who take your viewpoint, I have listened to them and I reject their views because I've listened to more pragmatic experts, such as those whose views are determining the policy of countries such as Denmark, Sweden etc who take a more holistic, pragmatic and sustainable approach.

So you reject views because you don't like them and don't think they are pragmatic. I'm not sure you could say they propose sustainable and holistic approaches by ignoring the facts that long covid exists, re-infection happens much quicker than with flu and that there are huge backlogs in hospitals which we cannot solve if staff is ill and more patients need to be hospitalised. I believe it's sensible to take those things into account and find a balance between living as close as we can to what we did before covid, but still not forgetting we have a new virus among us.

But you are going to be exposed to Sars-CoV-2, multiple times, in your lifetime. There is no realistic way to avoid this; all you can do is delay it.

Yes, but the question is how often and to which variants. The more often you're exposed to it, the higher the probability one will be ill and of course the higher the probability one will get long covid (with current variants). It will be better to be exposed to a normal cold coronavirus than the omicron variant of Sars-Cov-2, which is already better than the alpha variant for example. So it matters to which variant one is exposed and delaying as you put it (I would call it skipping an infection with current variants) helps if the next variant is milder as you suggest. Furthermore, over time the knowledge on long covid will increase and hopefully treatment or ways to prevent it will be found.

This makes no sense; in all sensible countries virtually no-one wears a mask on public transport. I took many trains and trams today and I don't recall seeing anyone wear a mask, and quite rightly so.

There is no reasoning in your reply. The reasoning of the Dutch scientific board was basically: simple masks reduce the emission of virus particles from someone, FFP2 and better additionally reduce the inflow. Vulnerable people are better protected of those around them wear a mask, so they advised to keep wearing masks in public transport. I agree with this as long as the government doesn't help vulnerable people by providing them with FFP2 masks with a discount or something similar.

I find it offensive that you claim we have a duty to wear a mask; you have no right to impose your own moral values - which are not shared by the majority - on others.

From a Dutch point of view, there is a duty for the government to protect vulnerable people and the health of the population: it is in the constitution. It's also the case in many other countries. Maybe the choice of words wasn't good enough, for that I apologise. I was using 'you' where I should have used 'one' or 'the government'.

Anyone who feels vulnerable can choose to wear an effective (i.e. FFP2/3) mask if they wish to do so; they do not need others to wear ineffective masks.

Indeed, unfortunately the costs can be prohibitive. I think governments should step up there.

This is not true; rates of infection in England went down after the mask mandate ceased, and yet in Scotland at the same time cases soared. Fast forward a few months and cases are now comparatively quite low in England, despite relatively few masks now being worn.

These statements are not useful as a lot of other things changed at the same time, so the comparison is useless.

This is a fallacy; if a vulnerable person feels they need to take precautions and do not want to be exposed to virus particles, they may choose not to visit a restaurant if that is what they wish to do.

This is not as black and white as you say. Of course if one is very vulnerable, one just locks oneself in the house. But many other people are reasonably vulnerable (I know a few people) and like to do something else than sitting at home all day. With lower case rates in the population, the risk is simply lower.

I don't understand what you mean by this.

I meant that it is more doable to keep track of variants and immunity if the infection rates are lower. But this is just a side effect, not the main goal of taking some precautions.

The only way forward is to reach endemic equilibrium; we are heading in the right direction. Your idea of suppressing the virus without building up the required level of immunity in the population is doomed to failure; even if you were successful in reducing cases this Summer, all that would happen is you would see a resurgence in the winter. How would that be a good thing?

Ehm, you mean the immunity which probably isn't sufficient as you can be reinfected easily? That resurgence will probably happen anyway when the next more infectious variant emerges. If you're reducing cases through some measures, the rate of increase in number of cases of the next resurgence will be lower, so companies and hospitals can cope more easily with absent staff and more patients, because fewer people are ill at the same time. Small measures can help a lot if you apply them on time. That was the main mistake most countries made with previous waves.

You need to learn how endemic equilibrium works; the idea that if we all wear masks we can reduce the number of infections is absurd.

Yes we will be reinfected but that really isn't a big deal; every exposure will boost our immunity to the virus and this has been the case for Coronaviruses for centuries.

If everyone wears a mask, the number of cases at a given moment will be reduced. Boosting immunity is done best through vaccination.

The idea that everyone wearing masks is going to reduce the number of people with "long-term problems" is misguided.

You pick out wearing masks. I mentioned it next to some other small measures. Together those will reduce case numbers and therefore the number of people with long covid.

You can do that if you want, but the rest of us have the right to live our normal lives without you telling us what we should or shouldn't do.

I'm not telling you what to do, I'm telling you what governments should or could do and what sensible people can do themselves if they want to slow the spread. You take it way too personally.

Some countries are victimising public transport; it is unclear why this is and it enrages me and is part of the reason why I am so vocal against such restrictions. There is no logic behind it.

I also don't like the singling out of public transport, but I partly understand the reasoning: many people close together for a longer period of time is a high-risk situation for spread of a virus. What I don't understand is why in other similar situations one didn't need to wear a mask.

Vaccines have prevented the need for strict measures.

Correct, as long as they protect against new mutations (not relevant if it evolves to an ordinary cold of course, but it is if severity remains the same or becomes higher again).

No-one requires such masks. People can make the choice if they wish but it will not change the fact they are going to be exposed to Sars-CoV-2 eventually.

That's incorrect. There are numerous people who are vulnerable and require such masks to be able to go out and about.

Even if you gave all "vulnerable" people a lifetimes supply of FFP3 masks if they want it, you are not going to be able to avoid the fact that everyone is ultimately going to be exposed to the virus.

Yes, but to which variant is the main question. And hopefully with better treatments specifically for them.

Cases are already reducing, due to a build up of immunity. The idea that we should try to delay reaching the levels of immunity we need to reach endemic equilibrium demonstrates a complete lack of understanding. It is counter productive.

We won't be able to agree. I don't accept all the side effects of just letting everybody get ill at the same time.

You don't want this to end, do you?

Yes, I certainly do. But I want this to end without millions of people with a chronic disease, I want to get there without constant problems due to staff shortages everywhere and I'd like to see the backlogs in hospitals solved.

Also I will point out that we need as many of those who have not yet been exposed to be exposed this Summer before the onset of the next winter season. Your logic of delaying infections until winter does not hold water.

According to one of your other statements, the next variant is more mild, so why not delay it then and reduce risks?

@biko May I ask do you believe then that we should take precautions on behalf of vulnerable people for all other viruses then? If not why single out Covid?

Yes, covid should have been a wake-up call, but unfortunately it wasn't. The small things we should do against covid also help with flu actually: ventilation and staying at home if having cold-like symptoms help against both.

I disagree that spending billions on retrofitting schools to have great HVAC systems is a good use of public money. There is an opportunity cost to every £ spent and I can think of 100 things that need funding more urgently than “ventilation in schools”, especially given the very low risk of most respiratory viruses to children.

Ventilation in schools is important as in many buildings CO2 levels are too high at the moment (in the Netherlands at least, I expect it to be the same in the UK). Only considering that aspect on its own should be enough to improve schools, but apparently it isn't. The risk of respiratory viruses to children is not always low by the way.

 

[Richard Scott]

Basically the difference in opinion arises from a general difference in view on how to approach things: most people on here hope it will be fine, I take a more careful approach as we don't know yet how this current situation with vaccine-escaping, more infectious but less severe ill-making mutations will evolve. Experts also vary in view on this. Why I am cautious is that it seems a lot of people have long covid symptoms which sometimes fade away and in many cases don't. There is little knowledge yet why and if those will ever go away. Recent studies show for example that being vaccinated doesn't seem to help against long covid

To be honest I'm not interested in new variants, long covid etc. The risk to my mental health is far greater than either of these. I know no-one with long covid, I knew one person who had it for three months but is fine now and I work in an environment where there are many different people. I do, however, know of many people suffering mental health issues due to the precautions of the past two years but that doesn't seem to count does it?

 

[yorkie]

Basically the difference in opinion arises from a general difference in view on how to approach things: most people on here hope it will be fine, I take a more careful approach as we don't know yet how this current situation with vaccine-escaping, more infectious but less severe ill-making mutations will evolve.

Ah, you're a vaccine sceptic?

We have excellent vaccines, which are highly effective at preventing serious disease; there has not yet been any variant which the vaccines have failed to protect against and there is no sign of this position changing.

The virus is evolving in a manner that is entirely consistent with what was expected as it has adapted for human cells through natural selection. This is a natural process which cannot be prevented; we inevitably will live a state of equilibrium with the virus.

If you wish to take additional precautions, that is your choice, but the vast majority of people have no interest in doing so (nor would there be any benefit in us doing so).

However for your position to be logical you would surely have already been taking such precautions with other viruses before the pandemic and continue to do so indefinitely.

There is no logical position too only taking precautions in the short term, for a limited time only; that argument doesn't make sense.

Experts also vary in view on this.

Genuine virology experts accept that it is inevitable we will reach endemic equilibrium with this virus.

Scaremongers such as Trish Greenhalgh, Chris Pagel, Eric Feigl-Ding et al are not really experts in the evolution of viruses.

Why I am cautious is that it seems a lot of people have long covid symptoms which sometimes fade away and in many cases don't. There is little knowledge yet why and if those will ever go away.

This is largely a myth and not helped by the fact that anyone can claim to be suffering from "long covid" as it is no singular thing and is an overarching term with no formal definition.

Looking back I certainly suffered from some of the symptoms cited as being associated with this broad term, but the reason for my symptoms was the imposition of restrictions and a fear that people with views such as yourself were going to be able to further reduce our freedoms or pose a barrier to freedom.

There is no way to avoid the inevitability that everyone on earth is going to be exposed to Sars-CoV-2 over the coming months and years, and multiple times at that.

You can wear an FFP3 mask, tightly sealed of course, and never remove it while you are in the presence of any other human (including anyone you live, work or associate with) and you would then have a good chance of delaying your exposure, but even you will be exposed eventually.

Recent studies show for example that being vaccinated doesn't seem to help against long covid symptoms.

Without a link and quote, this statement is meaningless. Of course you will be able to find a study written by people with an agenda which demonstrates what you say; you can do so for almost any Covid related claim. But real world evidence suggests what you say is nonsense.

To give one example, this study disagrees with you:

https://www.bmj.com/content/376/bmj.o407

People who had been fully vaccinated against covid-19 were around half as likely to develop long covid symptoms as people who had received only one vaccine dose or were unvaccinated, the UK Health Security Agency has said.1

It is entirely your right to be a vaccine sceptic if you want, but it is undeniable that vaccines we have are very good at doing what they were designed to do; now that everyone who wants to be vaccinated has been, it is time for us to live our normal lives.

If a small proportion of the population wants to distrust vaccines, that's fine. If a small proportion of the population wants to go round restricting themselves, that's fine too.

But none of this will change what is inevitable: the virus will continue to evolve through natural selection, we will continue to be exposed to it throughout our lifetimes and we will live with the virus in a state of endemic equilibrium. Do you deny that?

Furthermore, many (if not all) experts believe the next mutation will be even more infectious and trying to escape the immunity that vaccines gave us.

This sentence makes no real sense and demonstrates a lack of understanding on your part.

In fact, mutations are occurring literally all the time. Only the mutations which are not deleterious to the virus will survive.

The mutations that are most beneficial to the virus, i.e. improve its fitness (or "transmissibility", to use the term that some so-called experts love to use!) are those which will dominate.

The virus is not "trying" to do anything; natural selection means survival of the fittest.

Our immunity to the virus is now very good at a population level to avoid serious outcomes from this virus; there are no more deaths occurring now than would potentially be expected from influenza, which we have lived with for centuries.

The immunity we have through vaccination and through infection are providing us excellent immunity against severe outcomes and there is no evidence that any new variant is likely to be able to render the vaccines ineffective; this is just a straw man argument put up by vaccine effectiveness deniers.

The trend is towards being more mild, but it is not linear to use mathematical terminology. There can be 'peaks' in both directions. Those can give nasty surprises to those who thought covid was fully over.

Of course the virus is trending to becoming milder; it is adapting for humans in a manner that is consistent with what was expected and our immunity to the virus is growing stronger as more people are being exposed to the virus.

You like to conflate "Covid" with Sars-CoV-2 infections because it suits your agenda but, again, it highlights a lack of understanding on your part. Sars-CoV-2 infections will never be "over" but the original disease referred to as Covid19 is rarely seen in Sars-CoV-2 infections these days.

I think we will be able to say a lot more about this next year, but for now it is useful to track what's happening in the sense which variants occur and what their properties are.

Yes it would be great if in a years time you can admit that your fears were unfounded. I would very much like to see that happen.

Another important point is that a new wave can be quite destructive in society if many employees are absent at the same time.

There is no need for large numbers of absences as there is no longer any requirement to isolate. What needs to happen very soon is a removal of the guidance to stay at home if you test positive; once that happens there will be no need for any mass absences.

Here in the Netherlands even now, the number of hospitalisations has reduced, but there are still too many people in hospital

How many people are in hospital, how many is "too many", how does this compare to a bad 'flu year, and what proportion of people in hospital with Sars-CoV-2 infections are merely incidental cases?

and too few staff to be able to start clearing up the backlog of patients with other problems. That's another thing to consider for the next months.

The backlog is huge, partly created by some healthcare professionals not seeing patients when it was clear that they should have been. But how would you manage this situation? You have no solution. There is no way you can artificially suppress infections; they will reduce naturally as our immunity increases and then rise again in a seasonal cycle.

Any attempt to delay infections into the winter will be futile and counter productive. You post these things without any solution or alternative. What point are you trying to make?

Now some replies:

Not yet unfortunately, but eventually it will.

No, it means that now.

Sars-CoV-2 is less dangerous for the vast majority of the population than influenza right now. The reverse is probably the case for older people, but even then it would be true if we were in a bad 'flu year.

I think you're reacting very strongly. It isn't as black and white as you suggest and most of what you say is just one school of thought. Actually what I propose is a lot less dangerous than acting as if covid doesn't exist anymore. Cautious behaviour isn't dangerous.

What is it you are suggesting? People go round wearing flimsy loose fitting masks which is nothing more than virtue signalling? Or we all avoid all interactions with each other unless we are wearing correctly fitted/worn/handled/stored tight fitting masks and close all restaurants etc and try to suppress infections... until when exactly?

Behaviours you propose could actually be dangerous but it is unclear what you are proposing exactly. You offer no practical solutions and anything you say ignores the clear and obvious direction in which we are headed.

We are in between waves, a temporary pause. The latest predictions are a new wave before next winter as BA.4 and BA.5 are even more infectious than previous sub variants of omicron.

As I said, we are reaching endemic equilibrium which means infections of the virus will naturally reduce (regardless of any measures implemented to try to contain it!) and then naturally increase again in the winter (again regardless of any measures you can think of to try to prevent that happening).

This will happen indefinitely and there is nothing you can to to stop it.

So that confirms that there is no consensus among experts yet as many other experts suggest implementing some reasonable measures to reduce the spread of many airborne viruses.

The people who suggest implementing measures (presumably you are referring to masks) are not as clued up as the true experts who understand how endemic equilibrium works. What we need to do right now is continue building up high levels of immunity; that means going back to normal and accepting the inevitable fact that people will be exposed to Sars-CoV-2 and allowing the vaccines to do what they were designed to do.

Those who believe in suppressing the virus at this stage have no viable exit plan; what is their end game? Are they trying to delay infections until the winter? What benefit would that bring? Or do they hope the virus will simply go away (aint gonna happen) or do they plan to implement restrictions indefinitely?

You have no exit strategy, no plan.

So you reject views because you don't like them and don't think they are pragmatic.

That's rich coming from you.

I have listened to a wide range of views and it is clear to me that yours are not pragmatic in the slightest.

I'm not sure you could say they propose sustainable and holistic approaches by ignoring the facts that long covid exists, re-infection happens much quicker than with flu and that there are huge backlogs in hospitals which we cannot solve if staff is ill and more patients need to be hospitalised. I believe it's sensible to take those things into account and find a balance between living as close as we can to what we did before covid, but still not forgetting we have a new virus among us.

We no longer have a novel virus in an immunologically naive population. We have a relatively new virus which has adapted significantly for humans and continues to do so in a manner that is expected. We will live with this virus indefinitely and there is nothing you or anyone else can do to prevent that.

Our level of immunity needs to continue to increase and this will happen; people like you wish to delay the rate at which our levels of population immunity increase but that will not achieve anything other than kicking the can down the road into the winter. Infections cannot be avoided; they can only be delayed (and even then that is difficult to achieve).

Yes, but the question is how often and to which variants. The more often you're exposed to it, the higher the probability one will be ill and of course the higher the probability one will get long covid (with current variants).

This is completely untrue; the reverse is the case.

The more we are exposed to a pathogen the greater our immunity to it becomes. An infection gives us a natural boost.

Have you come out with this untrue claim yourself or did you read/hear it somewhere?

It will be better to be exposed to a normal cold coronavirus than the omicron variant of Sars-Cov-2, which is already better than the alpha variant for example.

We cannot pick and choose like that. Sars-CoV-2 is adapting to become the 5th endemic human Coronavirus and is becoming a so called "normal" Coronavirus (to use your terminology).

So it matters to which variant one is exposed

It does from the point of view that an Omicron infection is more likely to protect against another Omicron infection, whereas someone who was infected with a previous infection - before the many adaptations occurred - is much less likely to protect against an Omicron infection. But in any case, our protection against severe symptoms is strong.

and delaying as you put it (I would call it skipping an infection with current variants) helps if the next variant is milder as you suggest.

No because you are then pushing infections into the winter; is that a good idea?

Also while it is certainly true that Omicron is resulting in milder infections because it is better adapted for humans than previous variants and has become more of an upper respiratory disease than a lower one, what is really making the infections milder overall and consistently, is our increased immunity to it.

Furthermore, over time the knowledge on long covid will increase and hopefully treatment or ways to prevent it will be found.

We have plenty of treatments available.

You have no viable plan for how you could artificially suppress Sars-CoV-2 infections; what treatments exactly are you waiting for as part of your apparent proposal to somehow delay infections until they are available?

There is no reasoning in your reply.

Again that is ironic coming from you. You have provided misinformation, including false claims denying the effectiveness of vaccines and falsely claiming that our immunity weakens each time we are exposed to the pathogen when the reverse is true.

The reasoning of the Dutch scientific board was basically: simple masks reduce the emission of virus particles from someone, FFP2 and better additionally reduce the inflow.

If that was true, why did cases of Sars-CoV-2 increase in many countries after mask mandates were put in place, and why did infections plummet it so many countries after mask mandates were lifted?

Even if it was true, the vast majority of people have no interest in mask wearing and you cannot force people to do that. You can wear an effective FFP2/3 mask yourself if you wish to try to delay your exposure to the virus for as long as possible.

Delaying infections now (which would require effective FFP3 or similar masks to be worn correctly as well as stored/handled/fitted appropriately, and closing places such as restaurants etc which would result in masks being removed) simply kicks the can down the road.

Vulnerable people are better protected of those around them wear a mask, so they advised to keep wearing masks in public transport. I agree with this as long as the government doesn't help vulnerable people by providing them with FFP2 masks with a discount or something similar.

Vulnerable people should be vaccinated with at least 3, if not 4, doses of vaccine and have likely already been exposed to the virus. I do not think that any vulnerable person who has not yet been exposed to the virus should try to delay their infection until the winter as this could lead to more severe outcomes. However a vulnerable person is welcome to wear a tight fitting FFP2/3 mask if they wish to do so. In reality most people value their normal lives too much to avoid coming into contact with fellow human beings only when they are wearing a tight fitting mask.

I have visited numerous countries lately where virtually no-one wore masks on public transport, and rightly so. This demonisation of public transport is ludicrous, counter-productive and has no scientific basis whatsoever. I won't stand for it and will fight it whenever I see it.

From a Dutch point of view, there is a duty for the government to protect vulnerable people and the health of the population: it is in the constitution.


It's also the case in many other countries. Maybe the choice of words wasn't good enough, for that I apologise. I was using 'you' where I should have used 'one' or 'the government'.

However it is impossible for vulnerable people to avoid exposure to the virus! By all means they can choose to wear an effective tight fitting mask if they wish to delay their exposure for as long as possible. But for the rest of us, we should simply live our normal lives.

Indeed, unfortunately the costs can be prohibitive. I think governments should step up there.

As long as you pay for it!

I think the average person would rather we didn't over-borrow to cause more hyperinflation and doesn't want their taxes to go up to generate yet more waste which only serves to delay infections from now until the winter, thank you very much.

These statements are not useful as a lot of other things changed at the same time, so the comparison is useless.

Of course, you would say that when the data clearly does not support your position. But this has been replicated all over the world. This is not one small study. This is not theoretical data.

These real world observations and experiences cannot be dismissed as "useless"; if we were talking about one country then maybe but this is all over. Also how do you explain that after England lifted restrictions, cases plummeted and meanwhile Scotland kept restrictions going for longer and their cases remained stubbornly high? This happened in Summer 2021 and again in Spring 2022.

This is not as black and white as you say. Of course if one is very vulnerable, one just locks oneself in the house. But many other people are reasonably vulnerable (I know a few people) and like to do something else than sitting at home all day. With lower case rates in the population, the risk is simply lower.

Risk of what? exposure? Everyone is going to be exposed! The risk of exposure naturally reduces once everyone has been exposed, and then naturally rises seasonably in a state of endemic equilibrium.

The protection of vaccines massively reduces the "risk"; the true risk is not against exposure but severe outcomes, and the viruses are excellent at avoiding severe illness in vulnerable people.

I meant that it is more doable to keep track of variants and immunity if the infection rates are lower. But this is just a side effect, not the main goal of taking some precautions.

We cannot suppress the virus indefinitely to keep infection rates low; it is unrealistic. That's become a religious cult among the zero Covid fantasists. But the reality is we cannot afford restrictions and we cannot afford to delay the onset of endemic equilibrium any more than we have done. The purpose of mass vaccination was to enable normal life to resume. The vaccines have allowed that to happen and I won't allow vaccine effectiveness deniers to claim otherwise without being robustly challenged.

Ehm, you mean the immunity which probably isn't sufficient as you can be reinfected easily?

Coronaviruses reinfect people on a regular basis but as our immunity increases the chances of a severe infection reduces.

Nevertheless, reinfection rates are relatively low (still in single digits, as a proportion of all infections, I believe).

That resurgence will probably happen anyway when the next more infectious variant emerges.

The virus has already become fitter since the 'original' Omicron and yet cases continue to go down. New variants are failing to cause a surge in cases because they are facing a wall of immunity.

A rise in cases will be inevitable by the Winter and in the meantime it is better for us to generate as much immunity as possible during the Spring and Summer.

Cases are tumbling without much in the way of mask wearing, after rising when mask wearing was widespread; your argument holds no water.

If you're reducing cases through some measures, the rate of increase in number of cases of the next resurgence will be lower,

That's not true; indeed the opposite is the case. I really don't know where you get these ideas from!

The more immunity we build up, the lower the resurgence would be.

so companies and hospitals can cope more easily with absent staff and more patients, because fewer people are ill at the same time. Small measures can help a lot if you apply them on time. That was the main mistake most countries made with previous waves.

Delaying infections now until the winter is going to be a bad idea because you would end up with higher levels of absenteeism in the winter if you did that.

If everyone wears a mask, the number of cases at a given moment will be reduced.

Except that proved not to be the case; when mass masking occurred, cases were very high.

After the mandate was lifted, cases reduced.

This pattern has been seen in multiple countries throughout the world.

Cases are now naturally reducing due to rising levels of immunity; if you had your way, we would have far lower levels of population immunity and we would be enduring never ending restrictions.

Boosting immunity is done best through vaccination.

Says someone who is constantly denying the effectiveness of vaccines!

Once we are vaccinated we have excellent immunity against severe disease (ie. we are well protected against Covid19) but Omicron will infect us regardless of our vaccination status and until (almost) everyone has been exposed to Omicron, to generate immunity against the full and updated virus (not just the spike protein based on the original 'wildtype' variant) and therefore once we have been vaccinated we simply need to live our normal lives, accept that we will be exposed to the virus, let the vaccine get on with what it was designed to do, and live with the virus, just as we do with many other viruses.

You pick out wearing masks. I mentioned it next to some other small measures. Together those will reduce case numbers and therefore the number of people with long covid.

See above, but what other measures do you propose? In any case, "small measures" cannot stop Omicron.

I'm not telling you what to do, I'm telling you what governments should or could do and what sensible people can do themselves if they want to slow the spread. You take it way too personally.

In that case you can stop saying that Governments should tell us to wear a mask; we have had enough of it and it's not going to have the outcomes you seek and won't benefit us in any way whatsoever.

I also don't like the singling out of public transport

And yet you continue to support such measures?

but I partly understand the reasoning: many people close together for a longer period of time is a high-risk situation for spread of a virus. What I don't understand is why in other similar situations one didn't need to wear a mask.

But this argument applies to many other settings.

No-one "needs" to wear a mask and never did they really "need" to either.

If anyone wants to wear a flimsy loose fitting mask for virtue signalling purposes, they can.

If anyone wants to wear a tight-fitting mask, which would be effective if worn (& handled etc) correctly, they are protected while they are wearing it, regardless of what anyone else does or doesn't wear. But they are merely delaying an infection and cannot avoid exposure for the rest of their lives as that is impossible.

Correct, as long as they protect against new mutations (not relevant if it evolves to an ordinary cold of course, but it is if severity remains the same or becomes higher again).

See above.

That's incorrect. There are numerous people who are vulnerable and require such masks to be able to go out and about.

That's incorrect. No-one "requires" a mask. People may feel they wish to wear one but that does not actually mean they do need one.

Do you think such people do not exist in countries like Sweden?

Yes, but to which variant is the main question. And hopefully with better treatments specifically for them.

Do you go round saying the same thing about other viruses?

We won't be able to agree.

Clearly not as you have been mislead and are not prepared to listen to reason.

I don't accept all the side effects of just letting everybody get ill at the same time.

How is everybody going to get ill at the same time?

Right now, over 95% of the population is not taking your advice, and yet absense rates are low and many Sars-CoV-2 absences right now are due to adhering to "government guidance" rather than actually being ill; as I said above, we need to remove the guidance to isolate.

Yes, I certainly do. But I want this to end without millions of people with a chronic disease, I want to get there without constant problems due to staff shortages everywhere and I'd like to see the backlogs in hospitals solved.

Do you seriously think that we can avoid loads of infections (not delay them but completely avoid them) by telling people to wear masks?

Is your aim to avoid us ever reaching a state of endemic equilibrium or are you merely trying to delay the onset of endemic equilibrium?

Your argument makes no sense.

According to one of your other statements, the next variant is more mild, so why not delay it then and reduce risks?

Again, see above.

Yes, covid should have been a wake-up call, but unfortunately it wasn't. The small things we should do against covid also help with flu actually: ventilation and staying at home if having cold-like symptoms help against both.

Ventilation in schools is important as in many buildings CO2 levels are too high at the moment (in the Netherlands at least, I expect it to be the same in the UK). Only considering that aspect on its own should be enough to improve schools, but apparently it isn't. The risk of respiratory viruses to children is not always low by the way.

I think this is over exaggerated; do you have any real world evidence that avoiding exposure to endemic viruses in childhood leads to better outcomes in adulthood?

 

[BJames]

To be honest I'm not interested in new variants, long covid etc. The risk to my mental health is far greater than either of these. I know no-one with long covid, I knew one person who had it for three months but is fine now and I work in an environment where there are many different people. I do, however, know of many people suffering mental health issues due to the precautions of the past two years but that doesn't seem to count does it?

Sadly the ONS survey (which I take part in) with which we base a lot of this off asks the question "Do you identify as having long covid?" - This is hugely open to interpretation and, I might add, people simply stating yes because they've been feeling a bit under the weather. Maybe they genuinely have long covid - but it's really hard to get a true grasp of how many people have long covid in this country even through the ONS survey, which is widely seen as one of the more reliable indicators with a bigger sample size (although this is decreasing from this month I believe)

 

[Richard Scott]

Sadly the ONS survey (which I take part in) with which we base a lot of this off asks the question "Do you identify as having long covid?" - This is hugely open to interpretation and, I might add, people simply stating yes because they've been feeling a bit under the weather. Maybe they genuinely have long covid - but it's really hard to get a true grasp of how many people have long covid in this country even through the ONS survey, which is widely seen as one of the more reliable indicators with a bigger sample size (although this is decreasing from this month I believe)

This is a problem, someone I know was convinced she had it, when I said I doubt it for a number of reasons she thought I was being heartless. Turns out I was right, though!

 

[Cdd89]

If everyone wears a mask, the number of cases at a given moment will be reduced. Boosting immunity is done best through vaccination.

While measures reduce the spread by some percentage, I disagree that this reduces the total number of exposures.

We have seen from countries with harsh interventions that spread continues until immunity is reached. So if (hypothetically) we can reduce the spread by 30% by such measures, that just means any wave will continue for 30% longer, with the same total number of people infected.

I do not see the advantage of this. In fact I can see a major disadvantage which is that it prolongs the duration for which vulnerable people may need to take extra steps to protect themselves.

Ventilation in schools is important as in many buildings CO2 levels are too high at the moment (in the Netherlands at least, I expect it to be the same in the UK). Only considering that aspect on its own should be enough to improve schools, but apparently it isn't.

I would be in favour of installing amazing ventilation in every building if there were unlimited funds. Obviously it should be (and often is) part of new building codes.

However, since we have to prioritise spending, the cost-benefit analysis of ventilation retro-fits seems very poor to me. If you disagree, please advise which aspects of educational spending are less important and could therefore be cut to fund it.

 

[bramling]

To be honest I'm not interested in new variants, long covid etc. The risk to my mental health is far greater than either of these. I know no-one with long covid, I knew one person who had it for three months but is fine now and I work in an environment where there are many different people. I do, however, know of many people suffering mental health issues due to the precautions of the past two years but that doesn't seem to count does it?

The mental health consequences are certainly not to be overlooked.

We have one at my work - spent considerable amounts of time shielding (and, to be fair, this shielding was largely done “properly”, no discount dining here!), returned to work wanting to punch anyone not wearing a mask, put on a ton of weight since March 2020, and now signed off work with severe anxiety and depression. Not exactly the best outcome.

 

[Eyersey468]

I don't see the advantage in spreading out infections either especially with a less serious variant like Omnicron, I would also like @biko to advise what he would cut to pay for this super ventilation being fitted to schools.