That analogy doesn’t really work
Sorry Binners, but i'd read the information in the NHS publication first.
70% of lung cancer is caused by smoking and thats hardly passing away quietly in your sleep.
We just dont ban it because of lobbying the tobacco companies do, but its still a high number of deaths that society deems acceptable.
A stupidity tax?
Applies to the fools who ride bikes down muddy hillsides at high speed to?
What about those who dare to cross a road in front of a car..?
Thin end of the wedge time.
We just dont ban it
We have far more restrictive laws around smoking than around Covid vaccination status. You can go absolutely everywhere in the UK without being vaccinated (you might have to have an LFT for big events, or a PCR for hospital visits/stays)... you can't smoke in a pub, or in a restaurant... or on a hospital ward.
I’m just saying that we pay an absolutely huge amount of additional tax over a (shortened) lifetime for indulging in our disgusting and smelly protracted suicide
So maybe if you refuse to have a vaccine, you get your national insurance rate doubled?
I can’t prove you wrong (about long-term stuff), but I hope you in turn would concede that, for some people at least, accepting a theoretical but unlikely risk is necessary to counter a known, and very real present one.
Absolutely I can concede however I do think there is a danger of becoming so fixated on the very real and current issue (and I extend that more broadly to other aspects of life as well) that you don't consider the longer term implications and may perhaps miss something important.
And I agree I may, indeed probably am, being over-cautious however I know a range of sensible, 'normal' people who share my views; nurses (not just my wife), doctors, other professionals and non-professionals. Everyday folk who have followed the guidance throughout, get their kids vaccinated and believe man landed on the moon. All of whom are not traditionally anti-vax conspiracy nut jobs (OK one of them is but they really are an idiot) just all of whom have reservations similar to mine. The only difference between them and I is they have the sense not to post their thoughts on internet fora 🙂 .
And at what point do we need to reassess our view of the known risk and begin to consider other growing risks (tanking economy, long term mental health issues - particularly in young people, educational issues etc). As others have stated recently on this thread we cannot maintain the status quo and at some point we are going have to move from where we are now regardless of whether Covid is still a 'thing'.
And at what point do we need to reassess our view of the known risk and begin to consider other growing risks (tanking economy, long term mental health issues – particularly in young people, educational issues etc).
Do you not think those "growing risks" have not been considered all along? Do you think they've just been ignored?
The education stuff is heartbreaking. This last term as been close to useless for the year 11 and A2 (state school) students I know, not nearly enough was done to try and make this term more normal for them. Yet another school year full of interruptions and gaps in their teaching.
Do you not think those “growing risks” have not been considered all along? Do you think they’ve just been ignored?
Not overlooked but certainly under-studied so to speak; certainly by the general public and to some extent politicians.
Unfortunately, if you have so many people dying or being made seriously ill that the NHS is getting ****ed up, the economy is getting tanked whichever approach you take.
88,000 cases today.
Regards @dannybegoode 's auto immune argument I have to agree with him - to some extent.....
My wife has an autoimmune disorder. Her GP calls her an expert patent as after almost 20yrs of living with the condition she knows more about it than her gp....
Both my wife and I knew that the az vaccine would have higher risks associated to it (just by reading up on how it works) with a possibility of triggering her condition and pfzier, although a new vaccine would be a better fit for her condition with less chances of flare ups. We as laymen could work this out.
Unfortunately back at the start of the year the gov were shouting about how az good it is, Oxford vaccine etc etc etc British is best etc.... so it was the only vaccine offered. & She was told if refused it could take months for a pfzier to become available to her if at all (by the lady at the vaccine center), they had been given no indication or dates by the gov that any pfzier would be reintroduced. So she had az as her first vaccine dose.
<span style="font-size: 0.8rem;">Unfortunately, she did have a reaction and it took around 6months + over the last year to get her condition back under control (something she has been managing for years). She had a high chance of blood clots, had three trips to hospital by ambulance (no admissions though thankfully). Her consultant also knew that his patients were being given this vaccine, but could not do anything about it as the gov were set on pushing it for everyone. Subsequently at her next check up advised my wife to refuse it and only go with Pfizer. Her follow up jabs (X2) have both been phzier with no issues.</span>
As far as my wife and I are aware, medics who knew her condition were advising the gov that some vaccines would suit some conditions better than others but at the time (Jan) the gov were only peddling the az vaccine as the Great British saviour so 100% of jabs were az. So only az was given.
My wife is also in constant contact with others of her condition and large numbers of them had similar issues, some still have issue now.
However - if you ask my wife would you have the az vaccine again as your 1st vaccine now knowing the risks she would say yes 100%. She'd rather have had that 1st jab than to isolate any longer than she was... Now, she is only having Pfizer.
If you’re referring to unvaccinated kids, no one is getting het up about it.
Adults, with no medical concerns, refusing to be vaccinated, is different. They have kept the NHS stretched to breaking point for months on end (more likely to be admitted… not the only ones being admitted), while people wait for treatment for other conditions for longer and longer.
Transmission is a whole other problem… and brings the conversation back to levels of vaccination in the population required for “herd immunity”… which goes around in ever decrease circles at this point. We’re sort of stuck now at “more immunity means a lower burden on health care” rather than “we can end this completely if enough people people are vaccinated”… that hope seems long gone in all countries.
I'm not talking about kids.
I'm also not sure about the unvaccinated being primarily responsible for the the NHS being under strain from Covid. This seems to suggest otherwise https://fullfact.org/health/economist-vaccination-status/ . Admittedly that is dated the end of October so may be slightly out of date but does refer to UKHSA datasets so should have some truth to it.
What I have not seen is; X% of the population are unvaccinated and are directly responsible for Y% of the spread and therefore Z% of the deaths. I doubt this could ever be quantified except theoretically.
It could be that the vaccinated, believing they are better protected and less likely to spread it, are acting in a way that is of greater risk and therefore responsible for the larger proportion of the spread, hospitalisations and deaths.
What I do know is that some seem to be lumping all the blame for the state the country is in at the feet of the unvaccinated when the reality is their impact *may* be relatively minor
Given the rates the latest strain is spreading added to the Delta variant the argument about unvaccinated adults may be moot anyway as they will all have antibodies or be dead from infection long before they can be coerced in to having a vaccine.
At some point we'll reach equilibrium between spread and antibodies from vaccination or infection.
If we really are on 200k cases a day (and I'm not doubting that number) with a doubling every 1.5-2 days we'll know soon enough as the booster programme is not going to outrun that.
88,000 cases today...the economy is getting tanked whichever approach you take..
This is something that I have been mulling. 88k confirmed cases and an estimated 896k current cases in England if you take the ONS data. With Omicron numbers looking frankly bonkers (in terms of their size and not accuracy; I'll take them as read for now) we could be on for 5-10m confirmed cases and basically 50%+ of the population estimated infected.
At that stage is it desirable, even possible to have people isolating. It's gone, it's out there and we're all going to get it to a lesser or greater extent. Can the country function with 10m people or more isolating or should we just get on with it at this stage with no restrictions?
Yes, I know the pressures on the NHS, I live with someone on the frontline here, but this is what I mean about ignoring other risks with this obsession of keeping a virus under control which now clearly is not and can't be.
And actually at the moment - yes the NHS is close to collapse but right now, today that is not due to Covid cases as such rather the effects of having had to deal with the first 3 waves and now it just being on its knees due to decades of underinvestment. Of course admissions could rocket under Omicron but they are likely to do that anyway. Is it not better to have nurses and doctors in work even if they are +ve but wearing full and proper PPE?
Not saying any of these suggestions are necessarily right but I do think we are going to have to look at how we deal with this long term as I cannot see isolation being sustainable in the long term
@dannybgoode - I agree.
If the gov thought it could have instigated larger controls that would have a possitive effect it would have done. Public confidence is too low for any further lockdowns to be effective. It is a case of ride the Omicron wave. The next 3 or 4 weeks will be crucial.
The Omicron figures are extremely worrying, no matter what the death rate and hospital admissions - the sheer numbers of infections could cripple NHS services.
I guess the question is, knowing the levels of infection right now, will people actually go out and socialise etc or will they reduce contracts anyway, in much the same way as they did ahead of earlier lockdowns.
It would be hard not to be cynical and think that the government hasn't considered this and taken the view that they can't be blamed if people isolate under their own decisions
Thing is, if the numbers are correct isolating will barely make a difference as such a high % of people will have it anyway and you basically properly close the country by default by having everyone stay in.
To take my question regarding say medical staff not isolating a bit further as an example. You have three nurses, one is asymptomatic and has done an LFT that morning which is -ve. One has done an LFT and a subsequent PCR and is +ve. The third lives with someone who has tested +ve but has done their daily LFT's and is showing -ve.
Which is at greater risk of spreading the virus and which the least?
This seems to suggest otherwise
I'm not even reading it... I'll just assume that it says more vaccinated people were admitted than unvaccinated people, which is to be expected, when the majority of the population as a whole are vaccinated, and the proportion of vaccinated becomes much higher still when looking at older people and the at risk.
Things must be desperate. I just got an email asking if I can help out with local vaccinations even though they told me they didn't need me last year.
Which is at greater risk of spreading the virus and which the least?
Fair question, but that is an issue with the lft tests.
Nurses and doctors being positive and potentially passing on the virus to vulnerable patients (being in a hospital makes it a bit more likely they will be vulnerable) could be catastrophic to those patients. But yes i get your point is that risk of infection worse than a hospital being under staffed and resulting in deaths that way.....
Good question and i don't have any data to go on, but i would think that the risk of further infection from carriers would be worse due to the numbers they could infect rather than their day job being limited to a fixed number of patients.
Apologies if i have misunderstood the comment
Of course admissions could rocket under Omicron but they are likely to do that anyway.
What does this mean?
Omicron is much more transmittable, and is going to result in a wave of infections far higher than what we've been dealing with over the last few months. This could result in much higher admissions, which the government is trying to limit with boosters and some mild social interventions. Others, including their own advisors, suggest we also should all reduce our contacts with the same aim. All to try and prevent admissions become too large for the health service to deal with. What is the alternative you are proposing? You seem to swing from "why isn't the government doing more" to "why are they doing anything" and back again.
Is it not better to have nurses and doctors in work even if they are +ve but wearing full and proper PPE?
Generally? I'll let the qualified decide that. But, when it comes to treating cancer patients with suppressed immune systems, for example, that intuitively seems highly unlikely.
Nurses and doctors being positive and potentially passing on the virus to vulnerable patients (being in a hospital makes it a bit more likely they will be vulnerable) could be catastrophic to those patients. But yes i get your point is that risk of infection worse than a hospital being under staffed and resulting in deaths that way…..
However, a medic who knows they are +ve could take proper precautions as they know they need to be ultra-careful so are perhaps at less risk of spreading than a medic who is asymptomatic and taking a little less care.
They could at least be in the hospital and carrying out other vital support functions - paperwork, admissions etc in an isolated environment within the hospital.
as I cannot see isolation being sustainable in the long term
long term I wholeheartedly agree and encourage this - there will come a point where isolating will not be required.
Only the really ill will voluntarily stay at home.
Whether this arrives by government policy, or public apathy not bothering to test themselves remains to be seen.
Should it happen now? I'm reluctantly inclined to say no. There must still be a number of people who are yet to be infected for the first time.
I beleive I am one of them.
I've complied with the rules, I've worn a mask in supermarkets etc. But I cant say I've been overly cautious, I was never washing my shopping. I've been working full time since June '20 once we actually got clients to give us their custom. I managed a foreign holiday.
I've not had symptoms and I've not tested positive since LFTs were widely available for assymptomatic public use. I'm either lucky, or have a decent immune system, boosted by vaccination.
Omicron is much more transmittable
Sky are reporting R 3 to 5
Delta at R 1.1 to 1.2
However, a medic who knows they are +ve could take proper precautions as they know they need to be ultra-careful so are perhaps at less risk of spreading than a medic who is asymptomatic and taking a little less care.
I don't think you're getting just how transmittable this virus is, especially this new variant.
@monkeyboyjcRegards @dannybegoode ‘s auto immune argument I have to agree with him – to some extent…..My wife has an autoimmune disorder. Her GP calls her an expert patent as after almost 20yrs of living with the condition she knows more about it than her gp….
Both my wife and I knew that the az vaccine would have higher risks associated to it (just by reading up on how it works) with a possibility of triggering her condition and pfzier, although a new vaccine would be a better fit for her condition with less chances of flare ups. We as laymen could work this out.
hang on, isn't that the complete [I]opposite[/I] of DBG's position? He'd rather have AZ not an mRNA vaccine like Pfizer as he thinks that'd be better for someone with an autoimmune condition, not worse?!
Yes true, difficult to balance really and not a decision i would like to make a there could be a risk of malpractice suits should it be possible to price a medic who was knowingly positive passed it on to say a cancer patient.
i would personally argue that medics should be first in line to get the pfizer drug to hopefully get them up and running fast
You seem to swing from “why isn’t the government doing more” to “why are they doing anything” and back again.
I am just chucking ideas out there, exploring options, chewing the cud etc. Given that the projections for Omicron are so high and given we have missed the boat for a full lockdown to prevent it spreading, is it better to just get on with it?
No rules, no isolation - just live life? Is there any point in isolation if 50%+ of the population have it (as the numbers suggest they will)?
My earlier point was that the messaging from the government did not seem to match the measures they had put in place under the pretence that they were going to make a jot of difference. Why not change the messaging to - Omicron is here, you are all likely to be exposed to it over the coming weeks, get on with life?
Don't know but it seems a feasible alternative to having 5-10m people isolating when 50%+ of people have it anyway...
hang on, isn’t that the complete opposite of DBG’s position? He’d rather have AZ not an mRNA vaccine like Pfizer as he thinks that’d be better for someone with an autoimmune condition, not worse?!
Yes and no. Covid vaccines seem to be triggering autoimmune responses in some people and the articles I have read and linked to seem to suggest the mRNA ones are the biggest factor. Given these are the ones now in use and OxAZ has basically been dropped that is where my concern is focussed.
It is interesting however that the OxAZ has, anecdotally at least, triggered a response in people also.
Is there any point in isolation if 50%+ of the population have it (as the numbers suggest they will)?
There aren’t any extra precautions medics can take because they know they are positive. Ppe is ppe. Unless you mean not coming to work. And that’s assuming the doctor or nurse in question is well enough to work
@piemonster Locally (doctors anecdote on Twitter) there's an R of 7 or greater in some places. Hopefully it is a milder variant as at that rate we're going to be digging mass graves in some parts of the country.
Sky are reporting R 3 to 5
Delta at R 1.1 to 1.2
Note that the R is equal to infectiousness times contact rate time likelihood that the contact is susceptible. We know that Delta is outcompeted by Omicron and some of that must be the lower protection and hence more likely to be susceptible. It isn't contact rate (this time around) because omicron and delta are co-competing. It may also be more infectious, but I think the evidence for this is still weak.
Vaccines prevented 3/4 of delta hospitalizations and about 9/10 deaths compared with alpha. If boosting halves protection afforded by vaccines, then we'll see 1/2 the hospitalisations relative to alpha. If we boost, then we might get back to delta-level protection.
No rules, no isolation – just live life? Is there any point in isolation if 50%+ of the population have it (as the numbers suggest they will)?
A very valid question. I’m not convinced I’m going to want my 90 year old nan being treated by an infected medic. However on the flip side I’ve got to go for some tests next week. I need to isolate before hand, as soon as I leave the house afterwards there’s a good chance I’m going to become infected, so does it really matter if the doc who is examining me is positive? Probably not given in a few weeks time pretty much every other person you walk past in the street will be riddled with it
There aren’t any extra precautions medics can take because they know they are positive. Ppe is ppe. Unless you mean not coming to work. And that’s assuming the doctor or nurse in question is well enough to work
I disagree - there are many levels of PPE. A surgeon wears far more fully sterile items than a staff nurse on a ward round for example. Further, a medic who does not think they are +ve may well cut a few corners here and there whereas one who knows they are +ve would not.
And yes, of course they need to be well enough to work, but many people with Covid find themselves feeling quite well enough to work.
I am just chucking ideas out there
That much is clear.
A very valid question. I’m not convinced I’m going to want my 90 year old nan being treated by an infected medic
Hence my suggestion they could carry out admin tasks and free up the 'well' nurses. That would lessen some of the workload on those providing the care. but of course my point as well, your 90yo nan may well be being treated by a Covid +ve nurse anyway who is asymptomatic and tested -ve on an LFT.
As for other jobs - just get on with it?
That much is clear.
At least something is 😀
Given these are the ones now in use and OxAZ has basically been dropped that is where my concern is focussed.
It is interesting however that the OxAZ has, anecdotally at least, triggered a response in people also.
Do you not think that the reason that the OxAZ vaccine was dropped for autoimmune patients, is because it's more likely to trigger a response than mRNA based ones?
As more autoimmune patients take up the mRNA vaccines there is a higher likelyhood of an autoimmune response to them - about 3 or 4 weeks into the OxAZ rollout it was dropped for autoimmune patients as the response was pretty clear it wasn't great for them - unfortunately my wife's 1st dose was in that period.
I'm sure that some autoimmune patients will have their conditions triggered by some of the vaccines, but it's better than shutting your self away forever which seems to be the alternative.
We've just discussed my wife self isolating for a week (until Christmas) and she won't.... The figures seem to suggest that the next few weeks will cirtainly have a crux for the current variant, and she's decided to take her chances.
@monkeyboyjc - the letter I linked to earlier was concerning as the Pfizer and Moderna jabs are, seemingly, triggering autoimmune responses in people who do not have an underlying autoimmune condition.
There aren’t any extra precautions medics can take because they know they are positive. Ppe is ppe.
I get to wear a blue paper mask and told not to get within 2m of the probably infected diseased clients. It's OK, SERCO has my back...
No huge surprise about today's numbers, but how come there are "only" 1,600 more confirmed cases of Omicron when I read that roughly half the labs (or slightly less) can detect it?
A very valid question. I’m not convinced I’m going to want my 90 year old nan being treated by an infected medic.
2 years ago did you want your 88 year old Nan treated by someone with mild cold/flu symptoms?
That was the likely reality most winters. And it will be again in the future.
triggering autoimmune responses in people who do not have an underlying autoimmune condition.
Ok are we talking a response or a disease? As far as I'm aware you cannot develop an autoimmune disease unless you have specific genes. The trigger to develop an auto immune disease could be many things - my wife's condition is possibly down to a severe illness in her teens, but was triggered by pregnancy for example.
A response, suggests temporary or treatable short term issues?
I guess we won't know for a few years yet of the chances of a triggered autoimmune response after a mRNA vaccine Vs catching Covid and development of a genetic autoimmune response with life time health concerns.....
The letter I linked to was a case of autoimmune hepatitis (AIH) in a patient who had no underlying conditions and no previous history so it was perhaps triggered by the Moderna vaccine.
But isn't AIH a genetic autoimmune disorder, rather than an auto immune response - that would suggest that yes the vaccine could be a trigger, but..... It's not something that just anyone could develop, only those with the genes todo so.
Ok they could have been triggered by the vaccine, but that trigger could have been something else at any point in their life? Even if they hadn't had the vaccine, they could have still developed the AIH just with a different trigger.
Ok they could have been triggered by the vaccine, but that trigger could have been something else at any point in their life? Even if they hadn’t had the vaccine, they could have still developed the AIH just with a different trigger.
Perhaps but the patient in this was 71. If the vaccine has the potential to trigger a condition after 71 years of nothing then that is at least grounds for further study. And what % of people have a dormant condition that would normally not trigger? Don't know of course but again I feel it should be explored.
Having had UC I would not want even 1 person to have it triggered in them if it at all coul dbe avoided. Maybe they could re-engineer them to remove the risk for eg in the future?
