COVID-19

If Omicron is as mild as some claim then why have we had 12 deaths already from such a low figure of those with it?

 

Where did you get the numbers from?

 

12 deaths from people who happen to have Omicron.

 

Or 12 Deaths who died WITH the Omicron strain

 

Over 10m tests were taken in the last week. That is up 2m from the week before. This has generated an extra 200k cases.

50% of the adult population has received a booster jab, 89% has had at least 1 jab with 82% having had 2 jabs.

On the back of this it sound like we are about to be thrown into another lockdown or at the very least substantial restrictions.

Lets ignore real world data, after all we ignored real world data to bring in Covid Passports because if we used any real world data we could see they were totally pointless.

I'm sure lockdown is alot of fun when you live in a big house with a garden and end up getting paid to sit at home, if you are working shifts in a supermarket and live in a 3 bedroom flat with no garden with 4 kids, not so much.

 

Which real world data are you talking about re omicron?

Current best estimate from South Africa is that omicron kills two thirds less than delta.

Current best estimate that infections (not reported cases) highest they have been in the UK and rising fast.

Less deadly x more cases = potential for approximately the same outcomes as previous times.

Nobody knows for certain.

So choices seem to be (1) carry on regardless and see what happens - could be good (2) carry on regardless as it's likely already too late (quite possible) (3) add in some further restrictions, particularly around pubs / clubs etc. and flatten the curve of infections hopefully to give more leeway for vaccination effects and if the health service does get hit that it's not all in one go.

I think that's a fair representation of the basis for current decisions being made.

What real world data challenges the above re omicron?

BTW the real world data for COVID passports shows that they absolutely do work in having the effect they are intended to - which is to increase the number of people who consent to vaccination amongst the population. Every country that has introduced vaccine passports has seen an increase in the population vaccination rate. Most of the attention re passports has just not been focused on their actual aim.

 

I don't actually expect a full on lockdown. No it ain't fun. I have the luxury to work at home but it's in a 2 bed flat. I've been pretty down the last couple of weeks due to various circumstances. I think we all want to see the back of this now - that's a universal.

 

Don't let the fact that he couldn't even point to the bronchial tract distract from the skewed message presented!

Long term this could be good news - pandemic to endemic perhaps, that's been discussed already. Short term pain is what we are discussing.

 

Isn't that the exact problem and why people don't trust it?

It's a coercive compliance measure dressed up as a health benefit.

The aim isn't to protect you or stop the virus. It's to make you do as your told.

 

Yes I can quite understand that and why it's implementation is controversial. Of course.

Ultimately the aim is to protect people and stop the virus though - if you believe in vaccination as a population strategy and not an individual protection per se.

As above hopefully the virus will do itself in eventually but I fear it'll be a real PITA for a long time without wider acceptance that vaccination is for us all not just the person getting jabbed.

 

It was interesting that Boris did actually say that there would likely have to be a 'national conversation' about those who remain unvaccinated at some point. Putting aside the fact that it's unlikely to be an amicable conversation, I think they decided to trial passports to see if this did shift rates substantially without that 'conversation'.

 

No new restrictions.

 

No surprise, Boris now controlled by his ultra right backbenchers,

 

If the virus stops symptoms but doesn't stop infection or transmission (not 'stop' not 'reduce') then its no longer a population strategy. Its simply how much risk of illness the individual is going to take.

But dressing a compliance rule up as a public health rule is exactly what leads to conspiracies.

 

Interesting fact of today.

There are fewer Covid patients in UK hospitals (7,482) than there were at the beginning of the week (7,697), a month ago (8,071), and two months ago (8,007).
We're at one fifth of last winter's peak (39,000)

It's probably important to focus on this number. If the stays in hospital are shorter with Omicorn than they are with Delta (?) Then the admissions may not reflect this change. The number of people actually in hospital may become more of an indicator.

 

New rapid testing for London setup online.

 

I agree about the conspiracies. As in other countries the government should just be up front and say for this to be better for everyone we need more people vaccinated, therefore passports are one way of encouraging that.

Re population strategy - sorry but all vaccination programmes rely on population coverage to be as effective as they can be. If we didn't have omicron and only delta still and everyone was double jabbed then the levels of COVID would be insignificant. Instead we were continuing to run at 80-100k (real numbers) infections a day and between 100-200 deaths, and up to 1000 people a day developing long COVID the thing that is always ignored in these debates.