covid-19

I completely disagree. Either we remain under lockdown restrictions forever, which is farcical and unliveable, or we learn to live with the virus in which case the virus needs to burn itself out, or learnt to be lived with.

The vaccine rollout is done effectively, the very few hospitalisations that are occuring are almost entirely concentrated within the tiny minority who have refused the vaccine. What are we supposed to do - keep restrictions in place forever to protect antivaxxers?

We're pretty close to herd immunity and the virus is just filling in the gaps where people haven't taken the vaccine, or aren't eligible for it (children). After that it will be over and burnt out as the virus smashes into a wall of vaccine-created herd immunity once it runs out of others to infect.

With respect the flaw in your logic is that there isn't an infinite pool of people for the virus to infect, so no it won't eventually eliminate the effectiveness since the virus will be burnt out before that happens.

If the virus isn't causing deaths or hospitalisations eventually we need to stop testing and panicking over this and just live with it like we do the flu and if it spreads, it spreads.

******

Another way of looking at it is that if a novel virus had arrived in normal circumstances with our post-vaccine infectiousness, hospitalisations and deaths as the default unvaccinated rate would we have ever locked down in the first place? No, we wouldn't. It would have just been considered like the flu and not been this pandemic. Actually fewer people are dying from this than the flu, post-vaccination this disease is less deadly than the flu. If the link between cases and hospitalisations/deaths has been broken then its time to stop worrying about cases.

Ah but you see RB that would mean taking away power from the government to run people's lives. Gotta keep the fear turned up as high as can be.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

I completely disagree. Either we remain under lockdown restrictions forever, which is farcical and unliveable, or we learn to live with the virus in which case the virus needs to burn itself out, or learnt to be lived with.

The vaccine rollout is done effectively, the very few hospitalisations that are occuring are almost entirely concentrated within the tiny minority who have refused the vaccine. What are we supposed to do - keep restrictions in place forever to protect antivaxxers?

We're pretty close to herd immunity

---

That's not what those recent infection numbers indicate. Am I saying you should be in lockdown forever? No. But you're not exactly in a real lockdown now anyway, are you? You've got a few restrictions still. Should they continue? Maybe, maybe not. If they should continue, it ought to be until you DO actually reach a herd-immunity status, or until the pandemic is brought under control elsewhere (looks at India). What is clearly and certainly NOT the case is your constant trumpeting that you have the virus licked and everything is absolutely normal and ok. Because if that were actually the case, you would not be seeing the infection spike your own sources reference.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy

That's not what those recent infection numbers indicate. Am I saying you should be in lockdown forever? No. But you're not exactly in a real lockdown now anyway, are you? You've got a few restrictions still. Should they continue? Maybe, maybe not. If they should continue, it ought to be until you DO actually reach a herd-immunity status, or until the pandemic is brought under control elsewhere (looks at India). What is clearly and certainly NOT the case is your constant trumpeting that you have the virus licked and everything is absolutely normal and ok. Because if that were actually the case, you would not be seeing the infection spike your own sources reference.

---

Not at all. There is no spike in hospitalisations or deaths which is all that matters. If the virus post-vaccine is reduced to essentially a common cold it doesn't matter how much the infection "spikes". And the data shows that ~90% of all adults in the UK now have antibodies against Covid either from vaccines or Covid so absolutely it is close to herd immunity and just filling in the gaps now.

Its irritating that the earth was salted by idiots like Trump and Toby Young etc saying absolute claptrap last year which is true now. Last year for both spikes if we didn't do the tests then the cases could be seen in deaths and hospitalisations anyway (see the first wave) so the suggestion that there'd be fewer cases if we did fewer tests was bloody stupid then. But its true now, we're doing a million tests per day and we're finding a few cases in that which aren't overloading the NHS or seeing people die. So frigging what?

Its worth noting that the UK has for some reason ramped up testing to the n-th degree while other countries are ceasing to do them. The UK's testing rate is an order of magnitude more than other nations and going up while the testing rate in other nations is a fraction in comparison and going down.

The UK is conducting more than twice as many tests per case found than the USA is, but because we're doing over 11x the tests per capita than the USA is, the UK is finding more cases. Does that mean the virus is more prevalent in the UK, or not? We don't know, but nor does it matter. In the USA there's probably plenty of cases spreading too - but since tests aren't happening, deaths aren't happening and hospitalisations aren't happening then its not being detected.

In the only ways that matters which is excess deaths and the risk of the NHS being overwhelmed the virus is completely licked and the only thing that is not normal is the restrictions on civil liberties; that is clear from the data.

People don't only die from Covid, they also get various long term health issues. Those also should be in consideration.

Twitter Link

Twitter Link

WTF!? :haha:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ziggy Stardust

People don't only die from Covid, they also get various long term health issues. Those also should be in consideration.

---

The government has the option of pursuing a very simple and effective strategy for dealing with PASC/long covid: not diagnose, not support, deny disability and rehab.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ziggy Stardust

People don't only die from Covid, they also get various long term health issues. Those also should be in consideration.

---

Yes people don't only die from Covid, they die from a myriad of diseases. Covid has for months provided <1% of all deaths in this country.

If people have a health issue, the NHS is there to serve them. We are not here to serve the NHS.

A final chart for now and this one is interesting too. Cases versus hospital occupancy - note that there's no scaling necessary on this since hospital occupancy scaled with cases in the second wave (obviously above in first wave due to lack of testing). Hospital occupancy data has been lagged by a week to take into account of the gap between cases and hospitalisations.
https://us.v-cdn.net/5020679/uploads...9o9c4j5nxn.png

The link between cases and hospitalisations, let alone deaths, has been utterly broken. The Warwick etc SAGE SPI-M modelling was completely broken and wrong.

Time to completely let rip and if some antivaxxers get sick and die, then some antivaxxers get sick and die. They've made their choice, but for everyone else this virus is no longer what it was.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

There is no spike in hospitalisations or deaths which is all that matters.

---

This is perhaps the dumbest take on public health this board has seen yet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer

This is perhaps the dumbest take on public health this board has seen yet.

---

why do you have to jinx it like that

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer

This is perhaps the dumbest take on public health this board has seen yet.

---

Why? Give a reason please.

Coronaviruses have long existed, they cause the common cold. Indeed there's reason to believe that current common cold strains began life causing pandemics like Covid19 before immunity meant that it was no longer an issue - Covid19 f***ed us last year since we had no immunity but now with vaccines we do.

If vaccines mean that this coronavirus joins the rest of the coronaviruses in background circulation basically causing common cold effects because it isn't causing hospitalisations and death then we should treat it like we treat the cold. If it spreads it spreads, who cares?

We don't lockdown the country for the flu or any other virus. If Covid19 is no longer causing deaths and hospitalisations, we should treat it exactly the same.

Plus if its going to spread amongst the unvaccinated then best for it to spread now in the summer when we don't have the NHS dealing with winter flu season.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/12/h...ty-future.html
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/371/6530/741

Good to see some good questions being asked and not zero covid nonsense.

Quote:

---

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-5...ost_type=share
"We have to ask very hard questions," a virus expert says, about what restrictions and the test and trace programme are achieving in a largely vaccinated population.

Prof Robert Dingwall, who sits on the government's New and Emerging Respiratory Virus Threats Advisory Group (NERVTAG), tells BBC Radio 4's The World At One programme there were "significant commercial interests" in prolonging things like test and trace but from a public policy point of view there were questions to be asked.

"We have never thought it was important to do differential diagnosis of school children with respiratory infections," he says. "If they're not well enough to go to school, they don't go to school, that's the sort of equilibrium we need to be moving towards when the school year restarts in the autumn."

On whether we should still be using the test and trace app he says: "It's very hard to see what the benefit of that is, if the most vulnerable people in the population have had the opportunity to be vaccinated and if those who are not vaccinated are confined predominantly to groups where the infection is a very low risk, what are we achieving by contact tracing, by isolation?

"Why is it relevant to me to know that someone in my network is infected when I have been vaccinated?"

---

Its time to call a halt to the pandemic, end testing, tracing and isolations etc

Either you're vaccinated in which case should hopefully be safe and are as safe as we can reasonably make you, or you're not in which case take your chances.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

Not at all. There is no spike in hospitalisations or deaths which is all that matters.

---

Your hospitalisations are spiking. Not as sharply but they've more than doubled and are still increasing.

Rand, there's usually a month between infections and deaths, a time span that has probably increased due to advances in treatment. Those same advances do a great job of preventing death, but perhaps not other long-term health issues.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy

Your hospitalisations are spiking. Not as sharply but they've more than doubled and are still increasing.

---

A very slow gradual increase from an incredibly low base is not what I'd define as a spike. Last time case numbers reached what they are now, following a similar path, the in-hospital figure was 12k - this time around it is 10% of that now and the evidence seems to be that the vast majority of those are people who refused their vaccine, which everyone is now eligible for. That about 10% have refused the vaccine and hospitalisations are about 10% seems an interesting coincidence - or not.

So what are we supposed to do? Lockdown the country to prevent some antivaxxers from getting infected? No, fuck them, they've made their choice, we've been locked down long enough. Lockdown went against all principles of civil liberties but it only ever made sense to take away fundamental human rights to prevent a collapse of the healthcare system (that's been achieved). There's no risk of the collapse of healthcare now, so if a few people get sick now then so be it, if a few people die so be it. People get sick and die every single day, it isn't the end of the world.

Some people seem to have lost all perspective. People need to realise they'll get their antibodies one way or another, you can get it the easy way with a needle, or the hard way naturally. But we're not going to lock the nation down to prevent something that's more like the cold for those who've had their vaccinations now from spreading.

PS if you're going to stay locked down to prevent antivaxxers from getting infected then how or when does this dystopian nightmare ever end? Staying locked down to develop and rollout vaccines is bad enough, but to do so post vaccines? What are we waiting for exactly before we say this thing is over and now its endemic rather than pandemic?

A good 5m British residents will not be able to travel to Schengen without a recent test because their shots are with an Indian version of the AZN vaccine.

That's silly and petty, the vaccine works.

I'm curious if I'm on that list since I had AZN. Though I have no intentions of travelling anywhere anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

Yes people don't only die from Covid, they die from a myriad of diseases. Covid has for months provided <1% of all deaths in this country.

If people have a health issue, the NHS is there to serve them. We are not here to serve the NHS.

---

What?

I was reacting to "In the only ways that matters which is excess deaths and the risk of the NHS being overwhelmed".

I disagree, and opt long term effects also should be in consideration.

Many things have long term effects. Smoking, obesity, diet, lack of exercise, alcohol and depression for example. Not a reason to have a lockdown and take away civil liberties. In fact there's a lot of evidence lockdown is making some of these worse - I don't know about smoking but all the others seem to have gotten worse for a chunk of the public due to lockdown.

If some people want to cower away in their home locking themselves away from the world and getting everything delivered to them then let them choose to do that, that's their choice. If some people want to wear a mask let them choose to do that, that's their choice. But for the rest of us, the vaccine has been rolled out and if people aren't dying and the hospitals aren't being overwhelmed there is no excuse to deny people their liberties.

Its time to end all legal restrictions, do away with masks and social distancing and everything else as an issue of law and let people make their own free choices.

All I am saying is; long term effects aren't irrelevant.

Not to the individuals who get them, no. And the NHS will need to be there in the future to support them, if needed.

But they're totally irrelevant to the argument we should remain locked down post-vaccinations. They're not an excuse to take away people's civil liberties which should only ever be a last resort. That a small minority of people may face long term effects is not a reason to take away people's fundamental human rights.

If people are afraid of the virus still, even post-vaccines, let them choose their own actions. Let them cower at home if they want to, I won't object. Personal choice, personal responsibility. But the pandemic is over now this is an endemic disease that needs to be lived with now just like any other coronavirus already present.

Randblade, the lead supporter. Cause screw the long term costs and still largely unknown scope of the long term side effects.

Oh don't be ridiculous. :rolleyes:

Using lead was avoidable and not a good idea. Stopping the use of lead didn't involve a draconian stripping away of people's civil liberties.

You're being farcical conflating the two. Not the same at all. Are we to live in a totalitarian state that tells us when we can leave our house forevermore in case there's some long term costs?

Except the phasing out and everything it entailed was considered draconian and far more restrictive than being told to wear a mask. It resulted in more government interference in how homes were built (pipes), how they were decorated (paint), how our cars were built and operated (gas) as well how the public maintained their own land (contamination). Usually resulting in higher upfront expenses placed on the citizens; I mean Christ, the gas alone took 25 years to phase out. Hell, the fuckup in Flint shows how we are still dealing with the civil liberties of lead restrictions.

Having product standards for health and safety is not remotely as draconian and telling people they can't be within a metre of each other by law, or that if seven people sit at the same table then that is a criminal offence etc

Product standards are hardly original, but taking away people's civil liberties is an order of magnitude worse.

Anyway the case needs to be proven that there's a good reason to remove liberties, not the other way around. Lead was banned once it was proved to be a problem and an alternative was there, that is not the case with Covid. Covid is not an end of the world problem, it is just a virus like any other virus now.

If you want to cower at home you have the right to do so, you should not have the right to take away other people's liberties though.

They're not irrelevant in the discussion about the lockdown. You might feel the long term effects aren't severe enough to warrant a lockdown, but that's different than calling them irrelevant.

Edit: using phrases like 'cowering at home' only makes you sound like an asshole.

Of course they're irrelevant. Unless you intend to lockdown forever, in which case argue for that, the only excuse for a lockdown is an immediate peril of deaths and the collapse of healthcare.

This is a problem with lockdown, I'm starting to think in hindsight that the Swedish government had this right in principle. People have so moved the Overton window that taking away people's freedoms is now considered acceptable even without the risk of imminent death or collapse of healthcare.

My apologies that I hurt your feelings with the terminology. If people wish to hide away from a virus they're immunised against then they can voluntarily shelter at home or whatever else you want to call it instead. Though when you're wanting to mandate people must stay at home or have other restrictions BY LAW even post vaccines then I think you're the asshole and I stand by the word cower.

If you're so terrified of the long term impacts of a virus whose vaccine program has been completed that you're willing to take away indefinitely people's human right then what exactly in your eyes is the end of this? What is your exit plan to get out of lockdown? Or do we cower/shelter at home indefinitely?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hazir

A good 5m British residents will not be able to travel to Schengen without a recent test because their shots are with an Indian version of the AZN vaccine.

---

On what basis? I assume the UK has the same quality and regulatory requirements for vaccines no matter where the were produced, so unless there's good reason to suspect those vaccines had production issues I see no reason not to accept those.

Also, your choice of words doesn't hurt anyone's feelings, it just makes you sound like a hysterical idiot (no offense, and I don't mean you are, but it makes you sound like one). Not just in this post, but your posting style in general. IDK if you think that's something to be proud of, but it takes away from your credibility.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

My apologies that I hurt your feelings with the terminology.

---

Listen asshole, I said it makes you sound like an asshole, not: you're hurting my feelings.

For the rest of your post, just go fuck yourself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ziggy Stardust

Listen asshole, I said it makes you sound like an asshole, not: you're hurting my feelings.

For the rest of your post, just go fuck yourself.

---

You first. *shrug*

You're the arsehole who thinks it's acceptable to forbid people by law from doing basic life events.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flixy

Also, your choice of words doesn't hurt anyone's feelings, it just makes you sound like a hysterical idiot (no offense, and I don't mean you are, but it makes you sound like one). Not just in this post, but your posting style in general. IDK if you think that's something to be proud of, but it takes away from your credibility.

---

What's hysterical is forbidding people by law from having a child's birthday party, when there's no risk of healthcare collapsing.

What's hysterical is making it illegal for a double vaccinated 91 year old to see their children and grandchildren together as they're from separate households, when nobody is dying from the virus.

The pandemic is over. It's time to restore our basic liberties. That's not hysterical.

As I said earlier this has become a zero covid cult for some people. The end of deaths or healthcare collapse isn't enough for some people. I have no time for such cultists.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

You first. *shrug*

You're the arsehole who thinks it's acceptable to forbid people by law from doing basic life events.

---

No I don't.

The only claim I made is that long term effects aren't irrelevant, so you're a liar as wel.

They're irrelevant to whether we should be taking away people's basic human rights.

What threshold are you putting on making it a criminal offence for people to engage in basic life events?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ziggy Stardust

No I don't.

The only claim I made is that long term effects aren't irrelevant, so you're a liar as wel.

---

Never attribute to mendacity that which can be adequately explained by functional illiteracy and stupidity. Old saying.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

What's hysterical is forbidding people by law from having a child's birthday party, when there's no risk of healthcare collapsing.

What's hysterical is making it illegal for a double vaccinated 91 year old to see their children and grandchildren together as they're from separate households, when nobody is dying from the virus.

---

Sure, fair argument. But your hyperbolic way of posting makes it very hard to take anything you write seriously. If that's what you want, you do you, but it's not constructive to the discussion.

Is it still illegal to visit other households in the UK? Because from your way of posting it's impossible to tell, and it's not like those of us who don't live in the UK know the rules there. I know at least some restrictions were lifted.

Quote:

---

The pandemic is over.

---

Arguably it isn't, at least not in all ways.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aimless

Never attribute to mendacity that which can be adequately explained by functional illiteracy and stupidity. Old saying.

---

Quite so.

I apologize for calling Rand a liar.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flixy

Sure, fair argument. But your hyperbolic way of posting makes it very hard to take anything you write seriously. If that's what you want, you do you, but it's not constructive to the discussion.

Is it still illegal to visit other households in the UK? Because from your way of posting it's impossible to tell, and it's not like those of us who don't live in the UK know the rules there. I know at least some restrictions were lifted.

---

What exactly is hyperbolic? If you have an issue then I'm happy to address it. I've not been hyperbolic at all that I know of: I said that I think the only possible reason to take away people's civil liberties is to prevent major amounts of deaths and the collapse of the healthcare system, disease as normal is something we simply have to live with and treat as a part of life as normal. I stand by that, that's not hyperbolic.

It is against the law to see friends or family indoors at the moment in groups of more than six, or two households. So for instance if I wanted to see my 91 year old grandad and my dad at the same time, that's against the law. Or having an indoors children's party, or a plethora of other indoor activities are all criminalised at the minute. Even though all the adults are vaccinated. :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Arguably it isn't, at least not in all ways.

---

In my opinion I've not seen any good arguments to say it isn't. Not when deaths and hospitalisations have stopped. Cases without deaths or hospitalisations isn't a pandemic in any meaningful definition.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flixy

On what basis? I assume the UK has the same quality and regulatory requirements for vaccines no matter where the were produced, so unless there's good reason to suspect those vaccines had production issues I see no reason not to accept those.

---

Why would you assume that they have the same regulatory requirements enforced? Neither their intentions nor their track record would give me that level of trust. Also, it's not how we work in general when medical products are concerned.