advertisement


Coronavirus - the new strain XXII

Status
Not open for further replies.
I haven't seen it mentioned, but you wouldn't expect the new variant to be as bad in terms of mortality, most of the weak were seen off last time around.
 
Paul R said:
Vaccination does something, other people masking does nothing. So not sure you're quite there yet.

The way the covid vaccination has worked out is that is has insignificant impact on infection or transmission and significant impact on the consequences of infection. So in a social setting it's neither here nor there.

If you want to protect yourself learn how to use high quality respirators and live with the oxygen reduction and the expense. Everything else is just pandering to the ignorant and fearful.
Click to expand...
Respirators are always going to provide the best personal protection. My understanding, and it makes sense to me, is that regular masks do more to prevent the transmission of particles than protect the wearer. Even surgical masks - my personal choice - work for this. They're cheap and washable, thus reusable until the fitting strip breaks.

In sum, viral transmission is reduced if everyone wears masks so that fewer people get sick. Educate on the wearing of masks in closed settings like shops, schools, and public transport and mandate it. Compliance is good in NZ.
 
Durmbo said:
Respirators are always going to provide the best personal protection. My understanding, and it makes sense to me, is that regular masks do more to prevent the transmission of particles than protect the wearer. Even surgical masks - my personal choice - work for this. They're cheap and washable, thus reusable until the fitting strip breaks.

In sum, viral transmission is reduced if everyone wears masks so that fewer people get sick. Educate on the wearing of masks in closed settings like shops, schools, and public transport and mandate it. Compliance is good in NZ.
Click to expand...

Absolutely right, there is plenty of peer reviewed scientific research that proves mask wearing is of significant benefit in the reduction of transmission of the virus, but we seem to still have this debate both on here and in the wider context over and over. I've taken to using FPP2 masks as they also offer 'some' benefit to me directly in that fitted properly they protect the wearer to some extent.
 
gavreid said:
I wonder how 25% staff absence will impact on schools. I think many will be lucky to get away with 25%, it'll run through schools like a dose of salts...

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...plan-for-covid-workplace-absences-of-up-to-25
Click to expand...

Yep, I fully expect it’ll be more than 25% and many schools will be left with not enough staff to provide proper face to face teaching. Still, this is what you get when you put virtually no interventions in place and those you do are too little too late (again).

I am now beginning to hear and read ministers and other commentators alluding to the crass and utterly desperate opinion that nothing would stop Omicron anyway so the government policy is fine, but it was never about stopping it. It was (or should have been) about slowing it down so as to spread the infections over a longer period and hence the NHS wouldn’t be overloaded and we wouldn’t need to be planning for 25% workforce absence through sickness. Absolutely reckless behaviour by the government yet again frankly!
 
tiggers said:
Yep, I fully expect it’ll be more than 25% and many schools will be left with not enough staff to provide proper face to face teaching. Still, this is what you get when you put virtually no interventions in place and those you do are too little too late (again).

I am now beginning to hear and read ministers and other commentators alluding to the crass and utterly desperate opinion that nothing would stop Omicron anyway so the government policy is fine, but it was never about stopping it. It was (or should have been) about slowing it down so as to spread the infections over a longer period and hence the NHS wouldn’t be overloaded and we wouldn’t need to be planning for 25% workforce absence through sickness. Absolutely reckless behaviour by the government yet again frankly!
Click to expand...
SAGE must have done some math modelling of the consequences of these actions. Whatever the outcome of the modelling (surely it will be published at some point), it does look like the government does not want to introduce any more NPIs as many backbenchers object for some reason.

That leaves us to guess as to what might happen, which is not good as none of us are good at estimating a complicated and rapidly changing set of events like Omicron, where human behavioural change will change the outcomes considerably.

Far better to to be open and transparent with the overall aims of the government and the predicted effect of the changes that they are making, so that they can be judged fairly.
 
gavreid said:
Woolhouse's argument essentially boils down to locking away the vulnerable so that everyone else can get on with things
Click to expand...
It doesn’t.

‘“By contrast, we spent almost nothing on protecting the vulnerable in the community. We should and could have invested in both suppression and protection. We effectively chose just one.”

And Woolhouse is emphatic that further lockdowns are not the way to deal with future waves of Covid-19. “Lockdowns aren’t a public health policy. They signify a failure of public health policy,” he states.

Instead, the country needs, very quickly, not to be surprised by new variants and not to respond each one in an ad hoc fashion. “We should agree a sliding scale of interventions and trigger points for implementing them. With omicron it all feels a bit chaotic. We need better planning and preparation for when the next variant arrives, as it surely will.”’

Discussion has polarised to the point that because “protecting the vulnerable” was the fig leaf for actual denialists, it’s become a questionable sentiment in its own right. Clearly not enough was done to protect the vulnerable - or the poor. Lockdown chiefly served the well off and those who could manage their own vulnerabilities - and that’s why it was such a big hit politically: this is the only constituency that matters, politically.
 
Seanm said:
The headline is provocative but Woolhouse makes many good points:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...ckdown-did-more-harm-than-good-says-scientist
Click to expand...

Interesting article. I think he makes some good points too. He's right, many vulnerable people and carers have had insufficient support from the government.

I kind of wish he hadn't used Sweden as an example though. Swedish fatalities weren't far short of the UK - and that in a country with a population density of less than 1/10th of the UK.

0XBVb7i.png
 
farfromthesun said:
It’s just a different take on the same thing - Government and leadership have been catastrophic.
Click to expand...
The “why” matters, since this is going to run and run. If the government’s response has been catastrophic because it failed to provide adequate support, that’s different to saying it should have locked up more young people for having parties. The latter actually shifts responsibility onto the public - and often those who’ve suffered most.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.


advertisement


Back
Top