The big Coronavirus thread
Comments
-
-
Sequenced cases sure. But I mean was the delta line 90% of 1 million and the new line 90% of 10?kingstongraham said:- Genesis Croix de Fer
- Dolan Tuono0 -
Well then, the f it has a competitive advantage and is mild, let's all have Omicron parties.briantrumpet said:shirley_basso said:I need this
https://mobile.twitter.com/Coronavirusgoo1
That's more like it. Suggests that these new restrictions might be, er, reversible, once more is known.
Seems wishful thinking though doesn't it?
In fairness, the Oxford team predicted in October that it would be a mild endemic respiratory virus by the spring.
I know, let's be cautious for a couple of weeks, just in case?0 -
First.Aspect said:
Well then, the f it has a competitive advantage and is mild, let's all have Omicron parties.briantrumpet said:shirley_basso said:I need this
https://mobile.twitter.com/Coronavirusgoo1
That's more like it. Suggests that these new restrictions might be, er, reversible, once more is known.
Seems wishful thinking though doesn't it?
In fairness, the Oxford team predicted in October that it would be a mild endemic respiratory virus by the spring.
I know, let's be cautious for a couple of weeks, just in case?
Yup. After the past 18 months, I've rather given up being surprised by anything. Well, up until Johnson doing his irreversible reversal today in a timely fashion.0 -
Here's the thread.pangolin said:
Sequenced cases sure. But I mean was the delta line 90% of 1 million and the new line 90% of 10?kingstongraham said:
1 -
Surely tests pre travel to the UK should have been introduced as well. Seems the cases in Hong Kong were positive 4 and more days after travel so it seems like these 2 day tests are some sort of fudge compromise to make it seem like a response .
0 -
And the requirement for testing arrivals (and isolation until a negative test), doesn't come in until Tuesday.bm5 said:Surely tests pre travel to the UK should have been introduced as well. Seems the cases in Hong Kong were positive 4 and more days after travel so it seems like these 2 day tests are some sort of fudge compromise to make it seem like a response .
Why not today? or even better make it retroactive?
The older I get, the better I was.0 -
Sceptics: "Don't give in to fear!" (by the way, the government is engaged in a global conspiracy to lock you in your homes and inject you with poison.)1
-
kingstongraham said:
Sceptics: "Don't give in to fear!" (by the way, the government is engaged in a global conspiracy to lock you in your homes and inject you with poison.)
It is quite fun Telegraph-watching, as part of it wants to engage in the doom-mongering because of the lurid headlines and sales, and the other part wants to cry "Freedom at any cost!"0 -
There is a middle ground with scepticism - certainly for kids it's questionable whether the vaccine is in their individual interests.
I think some of you are too harsh on vaccine refusers - of which I am not one - it's individual choice as any medical treatment should be. Surely it is quite a step for the state to pretty much insist you are injected with a series of vaccines which are fairly new and which do have some serious side affects in admittedly rare cases.
There was a guy on the radio saying he had had his first jab - developed a headache which had never totally gone so he's decided against having his second or any boosters - he's being told by the doctors it's unrelated to the vaccine but is he really acting unreasonably?[Castle Donington Ladies FC - going up in '22]0 -
From the Graun live feed:The doctor who discovered the Omicron variant said the UK was “panicking unnecessarily” and that the symptoms are “extremely mild”.
Dr Angelique Coetzee, chair of the South African Medical Association, told The Andrew Marr Show she first encountered the variant in a man in his early 30s who presented with tiredness and a mild headache, but none of the usual coronavirus symptoms.
She said: “What we are seeing clinically in south Africa, and remember I’m at the epicentre - that’s where I’m practising - it’s extremely mild. For us, that’s mild cases.”
When asked if the UK was “panicking unnecessarily”, she said: “I think you already have it there in your country and you’re not knowing it, and I would say, yes, at this stage I would say definitely.
“Two weeks from now maybe we will say something different.”0 -
Fingers crossed that's true.
Well know more in 2-4 weeks I guess.0 -
shirley_basso said:
Fingers crossed that's true.
Well know more in 2-4 weeks I guess.
It would fit in with thoughts from (some?) virologists several months ago that the virus would eventually become less life-threatening but more endemic (IIRC).0 -
I get the feeling the mask mandate is more to do with the Delta variant - that fits with what Whitty said the other day.briantrumpet said:From the Graun live feed:
The doctor who discovered the Omicron variant said the UK was “panicking unnecessarily” and that the symptoms are “extremely mild”.
Dr Angelique Coetzee, chair of the South African Medical Association, told The Andrew Marr Show she first encountered the variant in a man in his early 30s who presented with tiredness and a mild headache, but none of the usual coronavirus symptoms.
She said: “What we are seeing clinically in south Africa, and remember I’m at the epicentre - that’s where I’m practising - it’s extremely mild. For us, that’s mild cases.”
When asked if the UK was “panicking unnecessarily”, she said: “I think you already have it there in your country and you’re not knowing it, and I would say, yes, at this stage I would say definitely.
“Two weeks from now maybe we will say something different.”
0 -
There is a middle ground - it's that without getting the vaccine there are things that you can't do because you pose an increased risk to public health. How far that goes is a political choice, depending on the circumstances. I don't think it is proportionate currently to stop people doing everything, but it does make sense to stop them doing jobs where they are breathing over vulnerable people.DeVlaeminck said:There is a middle ground with scepticism - certainly for kids it's questionable whether the vaccine is in their individual interests.
I think some of you are too harsh on vaccine refusers - of which I am not one - it's individual choice as any medical treatment should be. Surely it is quite a step for the state to pretty much insist you are injected with a series of vaccines which are fairly new and which do have some serious side affects in admittedly rare cases.
There was a guy on the radio saying he had had his first jab - developed a headache which had never totally gone so he's decided against having his second or any boosters - he's being told by the doctors it's unrelated to the vaccine but is he really acting unreasonably?
If every piece of public health guidance became law, most pubs would go out of business.0 -
Agree that it fits the theory but what little I've read says it does have a number of mutations which are not consistent with the other variants - unsure whether thats good or bad though - and not sure anyone knows yet.briantrumpet said:shirley_basso said:Fingers crossed that's true.
Well know more in 2-4 weeks I guess.
It would fit in with thoughts from (some?) virologists several months ago that the virus would eventually become less life-threatening but more endemic (IIRC).0 -
shirley_basso said:
Agree that it fits the theory but what little I've read says it does have a number of mutations which are not consistent with the other variants - unsure whether thats good or bad though - and not sure anyone knows yet.briantrumpet said:shirley_basso said:Fingers crossed that's true.
Well know more in 2-4 weeks I guess.
It would fit in with thoughts from (some?) virologists several months ago that the virus would eventually become less life-threatening but more endemic (IIRC).
The trouble is that we've been conditioned to think that mutations are always bad, but if it's a less serious illness and one that stops people catching Delta, it could be a good thing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oxlYyZ08cEg 1 -
I was thinking upon these lines this morning.briantrumpet said:shirley_basso said:
Agree that it fits the theory but what little I've read says it does have a number of mutations which are not consistent with the other variants - unsure whether thats good or bad though - and not sure anyone knows yet.briantrumpet said:shirley_basso said:Fingers crossed that's true.
Well know more in 2-4 weeks I guess.
It would fit in with thoughts from (some?) virologists several months ago that the virus would eventually become less life-threatening but more endemic (IIRC).
The trouble is that we've been conditioned to think that mutations are always bad, but if it's a less serious illness and one that stops people catching Delta, it could be a good thing.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oxlYyZ08cEg
If it out performs Delta in terms of spreading, yet only produces mild symptoms, could not Omicron becomes the variation of choice in the struggle to return to normal?
Or am I talking twaddle?"Science is a tool for cheaters". An anonymous French PE teacher.0 -
blazing_saddles said:
I was thinking upon these lines this morning.briantrumpet said:shirley_basso said:
Agree that it fits the theory but what little I've read says it does have a number of mutations which are not consistent with the other variants - unsure whether thats good or bad though - and not sure anyone knows yet.briantrumpet said:shirley_basso said:Fingers crossed that's true.
Well know more in 2-4 weeks I guess.
It would fit in with thoughts from (some?) virologists several months ago that the virus would eventually become less life-threatening but more endemic (IIRC).
The trouble is that we've been conditioned to think that mutations are always bad, but if it's a less serious illness and one that stops people catching Delta, it could be a good thing.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oxlYyZ08cEg
If it out performs Delta in terms of spreading, yet only produces mild symptoms, could not Omicron becomes the variation of choice in the struggle to return to normal?
Or am I talking twaddle?
No. It's not entirely impossible that the UK was banking on Delta being milder, and let the cat out of the bag one mutation too early, though the hospitalisation/death figures suggest that the impact could still have been a lot worse, especially if more people had been unvaccinated and boosters hadn't been rolled out quickly.
If they get solid data in a short time suggesting that it is mild, especially in largely-vaccinated populations, then it could be good news.0 -
This. I'm not supportive of compulsory vaccination (and don't think it's viable anyway - I guess we'll see with Austria). However, if you choose it's not for you then you have to accept you miss out on some of the privileges.kingstongraham said:
There is a middle ground - it's that without getting the vaccine there are things that you can't do because you pose an increased risk to public health. How far that goes is a political choice, depending on the circumstances. I don't think it is proportionate currently to stop people doing everything, but it does make sense to stop them doing jobs where they are breathing over vulnerable people.DeVlaeminck said:There is a middle ground with scepticism - certainly for kids it's questionable whether the vaccine is in their individual interests.
I think some of you are too harsh on vaccine refusers - of which I am not one - it's individual choice as any medical treatment should be. Surely it is quite a step for the state to pretty much insist you are injected with a series of vaccines which are fairly new and which do have some serious side affects in admittedly rare cases.
There was a guy on the radio saying he had had his first jab - developed a headache which had never totally gone so he's decided against having his second or any boosters - he's being told by the doctors it's unrelated to the vaccine but is he really acting unreasonably?
If every piece of public health guidance became law, most pubs would go out of business.1 -
Confused about mask mandates?
Well, it seems that Andrew Lilico is.
0 -
We should be in a position where a mask mandate now should specify it has to be a mask that actually works well, not one that helps about 10%. Every bit helps I suppose, but it's not very ambitious.0
-
kingstongraham said:
We should be in a position where a mask mandate now should specify it has to be a mask that actually works well, not one that helps about 10%. Every bit helps I suppose, but it's not very ambitious.
They could make it acceptable to the Tory Party by specifying that the manufacturers/importers need to have Tory MPs as part-time consultants.0 -
It does depend what you consider to be privileges. Working in medicine, visiting Sainsbury's, using public transport, visiting a friend's house.Pross said:
This. I'm not supportive of compulsory vaccination (and don't think it's viable anyway - I guess we'll see with Austria). However, if you choose it's not for you then you have to accept you miss out on some of the privileges.kingstongraham said:
There is a middle ground - it's that without getting the vaccine there are things that you can't do because you pose an increased risk to public health. How far that goes is a political choice, depending on the circumstances. I don't think it is proportionate currently to stop people doing everything, but it does make sense to stop them doing jobs where they are breathing over vulnerable people.DeVlaeminck said:There is a middle ground with scepticism - certainly for kids it's questionable whether the vaccine is in their individual interests.
I think some of you are too harsh on vaccine refusers - of which I am not one - it's individual choice as any medical treatment should be. Surely it is quite a step for the state to pretty much insist you are injected with a series of vaccines which are fairly new and which do have some serious side affects in admittedly rare cases.
There was a guy on the radio saying he had had his first jab - developed a headache which had never totally gone so he's decided against having his second or any boosters - he's being told by the doctors it's unrelated to the vaccine but is he really acting unreasonably?
If every piece of public health guidance became law, most pubs would go out of business.
[Castle Donington Ladies FC - going up in '22]0 -
Choices can have consequences.DeVlaeminck said:
It does depend what you consider to be privileges. Working in medicine, visiting Sainsbury's, using public transport, visiting a friend's house.Pross said:
This. I'm not supportive of compulsory vaccination (and don't think it's viable anyway - I guess we'll see with Austria). However, if you choose it's not for you then you have to accept you miss out on some of the privileges.kingstongraham said:
There is a middle ground - it's that without getting the vaccine there are things that you can't do because you pose an increased risk to public health. How far that goes is a political choice, depending on the circumstances. I don't think it is proportionate currently to stop people doing everything, but it does make sense to stop them doing jobs where they are breathing over vulnerable people.DeVlaeminck said:There is a middle ground with scepticism - certainly for kids it's questionable whether the vaccine is in their individual interests.
I think some of you are too harsh on vaccine refusers - of which I am not one - it's individual choice as any medical treatment should be. Surely it is quite a step for the state to pretty much insist you are injected with a series of vaccines which are fairly new and which do have some serious side affects in admittedly rare cases.
There was a guy on the radio saying he had had his first jab - developed a headache which had never totally gone so he's decided against having his second or any boosters - he's being told by the doctors it's unrelated to the vaccine but is he really acting unreasonably?
If every piece of public health guidance became law, most pubs would go out of business.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
Sure but being banned from a supermarket is not an obvious consequence of refusing a vaccine.[Castle Donington Ladies FC - going up in '22]0
-
Yes it is.DeVlaeminck said:Sure but being banned from a supermarket is not an obvious consequence of refusing a vaccine.
This has been a distinct possibility for nearly a year. Or is this project fear #2?The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
How about being given a lower priority when being allocated hospital beds?DeVlaeminck said:
It does depend what you consider to be privileges. Working in medicine, visiting Sainsbury's, using public transport, visiting a friend's house.Pross said:
This. I'm not supportive of compulsory vaccination (and don't think it's viable anyway - I guess we'll see with Austria). However, if you choose it's not for you then you have to accept you miss out on some of the privileges.kingstongraham said:
There is a middle ground - it's that without getting the vaccine there are things that you can't do because you pose an increased risk to public health. How far that goes is a political choice, depending on the circumstances. I don't think it is proportionate currently to stop people doing everything, but it does make sense to stop them doing jobs where they are breathing over vulnerable people.DeVlaeminck said:There is a middle ground with scepticism - certainly for kids it's questionable whether the vaccine is in their individual interests.
I think some of you are too harsh on vaccine refusers - of which I am not one - it's individual choice as any medical treatment should be. Surely it is quite a step for the state to pretty much insist you are injected with a series of vaccines which are fairly new and which do have some serious side affects in admittedly rare cases.
There was a guy on the radio saying he had had his first jab - developed a headache which had never totally gone so he's decided against having his second or any boosters - he's being told by the doctors it's unrelated to the vaccine but is he really acting unreasonably?
If every piece of public health guidance became law, most pubs would go out of business.
It does not seem terribly fair that somebody would be denied life saving surgery because all beds have been allocated to unvaccinated Covid patients.0 -
Extrapolating your pondering a further - it doesn’t seem fair that waiting lists in hospitals are so huge and you can’t get an important operation because of the amount of patients being seen who were smokers, or obese, or just having cosmetic surgery. Or because a cyclist fell off his bike in a sportive. Or a lifetime runner is having knee surgery.surrey_commuter said:
How about being given a lower priority when being allocated hospital beds?DeVlaeminck said:
It does depend what you consider to be privileges. Working in medicine, visiting Sainsbury's, using public transport, visiting a friend's house.Pross said:
This. I'm not supportive of compulsory vaccination (and don't think it's viable anyway - I guess we'll see with Austria). However, if you choose it's not for you then you have to accept you miss out on some of the privileges.kingstongraham said:
There is a middle ground - it's that without getting the vaccine there are things that you can't do because you pose an increased risk to public health. How far that goes is a political choice, depending on the circumstances. I don't think it is proportionate currently to stop people doing everything, but it does make sense to stop them doing jobs where they are breathing over vulnerable people.DeVlaeminck said:There is a middle ground with scepticism - certainly for kids it's questionable whether the vaccine is in their individual interests.
I think some of you are too harsh on vaccine refusers - of which I am not one - it's individual choice as any medical treatment should be. Surely it is quite a step for the state to pretty much insist you are injected with a series of vaccines which are fairly new and which do have some serious side affects in admittedly rare cases.
There was a guy on the radio saying he had had his first jab - developed a headache which had never totally gone so he's decided against having his second or any boosters - he's being told by the doctors it's unrelated to the vaccine but is he really acting unreasonably?
If every piece of public health guidance became law, most pubs would go out of business.
It does not seem terribly fair that somebody would be denied life saving surgery because all beds have been allocated to unvaccinated Covid patients.
How far do you go? Many people are in hospital because of some of their life (or lifestyle) choices.
I’m not arguing, it just throws up lots of points of views.2 -
But in the here and now decisions are being made throughout the Uk to prioritise Non-vaccinated Covid patients.wavefront said:
Extrapolating your pondering a further - it doesn’t seem fair that waiting lists in hospitals are so huge and you can’t get an important operation because of the amount of patients being seen who were smokers, or obese, or just having cosmetic surgery. Or because a cyclist fell off his bike in a sportive. Or a lifetime runner is having knee surgery.surrey_commuter said:
How about being given a lower priority when being allocated hospital beds?DeVlaeminck said:
It does depend what you consider to be privileges. Working in medicine, visiting Sainsbury's, using public transport, visiting a friend's house.Pross said:
This. I'm not supportive of compulsory vaccination (and don't think it's viable anyway - I guess we'll see with Austria). However, if you choose it's not for you then you have to accept you miss out on some of the privileges.kingstongraham said:
There is a middle ground - it's that without getting the vaccine there are things that you can't do because you pose an increased risk to public health. How far that goes is a political choice, depending on the circumstances. I don't think it is proportionate currently to stop people doing everything, but it does make sense to stop them doing jobs where they are breathing over vulnerable people.DeVlaeminck said:There is a middle ground with scepticism - certainly for kids it's questionable whether the vaccine is in their individual interests.
I think some of you are too harsh on vaccine refusers - of which I am not one - it's individual choice as any medical treatment should be. Surely it is quite a step for the state to pretty much insist you are injected with a series of vaccines which are fairly new and which do have some serious side affects in admittedly rare cases.
There was a guy on the radio saying he had had his first jab - developed a headache which had never totally gone so he's decided against having his second or any boosters - he's being told by the doctors it's unrelated to the vaccine but is he really acting unreasonably?
If every piece of public health guidance became law, most pubs would go out of business.
It does not seem terribly fair that somebody would be denied life saving surgery because all beds have been allocated to unvaccinated Covid patients.
How far do you go? Many people are in hospital because of some of their life (or lifestyle) choices.
I’m not arguing, it just throws up lots of points of views.
If somebody explained that to the man on the Clapham omnibus I suspect he would be more annoyed than with migrants landing on Kent beaches.1
