Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
A good question - that being said being ill you generally shouldn't come into work (Covid or not). Coming into work with a highly infectious, even if mild virus is probably not a good idea! What might be asympotmatic for you, may not be for your colleague.
I'm afraid I don't know the technicalities so you may well be correct. Regardless the sentiment remains - for weeks after your intital infection you can test positive with a LFT apparently.
No. I am not "carrying on as normal". Like I said, I've applied various mitigations as part of my decision. For example I have minimised social contact for the past week or so, which means I have not gone and had drinks with friends or other things I'd normally do. I've avoided public transport. I've taken tests for the past few days and have been prepared to cancel if one comes up positive.
And if some kind of national restrictions had come in, ones I felt reasonable from a public health point of view, that applied to everyone, I would have respected them, and not considered myself a special case.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Sorry, but this is absolute nonsense, unless by the "pro-restriction brigade" you mean a very small number of people with extreme views.
This kind of caricaturisation of a position is very unhelpful, and the fact that it seems to be accepted in the discussion on this thread is one of the things that makes me think many of the participants simply aren't reading widely enough.
The idea that most people who think that some level of restrictions are beneficial in certain scenarios, do not think about the bigger picture or the longer term - do you seriously believe this?
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
There can be no clarity until some time after the point at which acting would produce the benefits.
So, no, it's not just about weightings. It's about making a call based on incomplete information. It's a very difficult decision to make, and comes along with the well known paradox that if you get it right, it might never become apparent that you did, because the thing that would otherwise have happened, didn't.
Oh yes there is certainly a general shortage in staff due to chronic underfunding over the past 10 years. The NHS is a huge employer for the country of course, so anything that is likely to cause the country as a whole to be off sick (even if not seriously ill), will be a perfect storm.
I don't see how this is controversial or indeed debatable; it's what response is practical to a rise in absences and what impacts the country is happy to accept. And that will vary wildly dependent on your circumstnces.
Funny thing is though, how come things are just as bad in Scotland and Wales (if anything worse there) where their NHS gets far more per head than in England.
Could it be, perish the thought, that however much money is shovelled at it, much of it gets wasted in unnecesaary bureacuracy and inefficiency?
As far as I can see, the government will soon be left with little alternative but to allow asymptomatic people to continue to go to work - though perhaps only in sectors like the NHS, schools, supermarkets and public transport to begin with. I expect it will be much the same as when the 'close contact' exemption was brought in to fend off the 'pingdemic'.
Oh yes there is certainly a general shortage in staff due to chronic underfunding over the past 10 years. The NHS is a huge employer for the country of course, so anything that is likely to cause the country as a whole to be off sick (even if not seriously ill), will be a perfect storm.
I don't see how this is controversial or indeed debatable; it's what response is practical to a rise in absences and what impacts the country is happy to accept. And that will vary wildly dependent on your circumstnces.
I suppose one man’s underfunding is another’s chronic inefficiency.
For me it’s clearer than ever that centralised healthcare of the NHS flavour delivers poor results and poor value for money, hence why no comparable economy has adopted a similar system of centralised, socialised healthcare. Of course that’s a question no British politician will be brave enough to tackle because the NHS is a sacred cow, over which the population is too busy fawning and banging pots to listen to reason…
As far as I can see, the government will soon be left with little alternative but to allow asymptomatic people to continue to go to work - though perhaps only in sectors like the NHS, schools, supermarkets and public transport to begin with. I expect it will be much the same as when the 'close contact' exemption was brought in to fend off the 'pingdemic'.
Funny thing is though, how come things are just as bad in Scotland and Wales (if anything worse there) where their NHS gets far more per head than in England.
Could it be, perish the thought, that however much money is shovelled at it, much of it gets wasted in unnecesaary bureacuracy and inefficiency?
When you say "as bad" are you referring to Covid or the overall state of the health service in the devolved nations versus England?
I'm not here talking about the mechnisms of the NHS but something very simple - healthcare (somewhat like rail) is quite evidently a labour intensive industry that for the most part (accepting some GPs are) cannot work remotely. If a significant percentage of those people are sick/isolating, then something has to give.
When you say "as bad" are you referring to Covid or the overall state of the health service in the devolved nations versus England?
I'm not here talking about the mechnisms of the NHS but something very simple - healthcare (somewhat like rail) is quite evidently a labour intensive industry that for the most part (accepting some GPs are) cannot work remotely. If a significant percentage of those people are sick/isolating, then something has to give.
Sounds subjective to me - I'm sure there's some objective data available, but I'm not sure its relevant to the discussion at hand. I don't think any dramatic extra restrictions would be suitable, but we have to accept some consequences as a result.
As for "should people without symptoms come into work?" or "we should stop mass testing" as others have alluded to, I really don't know - the latter seems like removing useful information to me and sticking our heads in the sand, although it could normalise the virus a bit more.
What about workers who have been triple vaccinated - are they expected to "test test test" and isolate for 10 days as well if a positive case? If so, so much for "vaccines being the way out of this". Maybe its going to take the scenario where the country grinds to a halt for the government to see sense and get rid of all these unnecessary test and isolate rules.
A good question - that being said being ill you generally shouldn't come into work (Covid or not). Coming into work with a highly infectious, even if mild virus is probably not a good idea! What might be asympotmatic for you, may not be for your colleague.
The choice is simple, unless you believe that the benefits outweigh the costs, don't do anything. Anything else is gambling with peoples lives and livelihoods.
We can cope with uncertainties, but not even trying to perform that calculation is inexcusable.
Previously you said no action until it is "clear the benefits outweigh the harms".
Now it's "unless you believe that the benefits outweigh the costs". Slightly different.
But either way, I'm interested, what would be the thing that would make it clear to you, or make you believe, that some kind of restriction would be introduced? What's your threshold, and how have you decided upon it? You say it's a simple choice so it must be easy for you to be quite specific in your answer.
But either way, I'm interested, what would be the thing that would make it clear to you, or make you believe, that some kind of restriction would be introduced? What's your threshold, and how have you decided upon it? You say it's a simple choice so it must be easy for you to be quite specific in your answer.
How is the efficacy of most medical interventions determined? It isn’t just on the basis of “let’s go with it, just in case things get worse if we don’t”, which is what you seem to be advocating for.
At a minimum surely the efficacy of any measure should have some ability to be assessed on a Specific, Measurable, Realistic, Timed basis. For example, for masks to be mandated, there should be some evidence they a. make a difference at all, and b. That difference is proportionate to justify the imposition on individual freedom.
Masks are a good example of the madness of the last two years. There’s still no good evidence they make any difference whatsoever, yet they’re a legal requirement in many settings despite our enormous vaccine coverage.
But either way, I'm interested, what would be the thing that would make it clear to you, or make you believe, that some kind of restriction would be introduced? What's your threshold, and how have you decided upon it? You say it's a simple choice so it must be easy for you to be quite specific in your answer.
Provide me with the resources of the entire civil service and a team of scientific advisors, and I'd be happy to.
Regardless of your silly hypotheticals, it's obvious that no attempt to weigh up the harms and benefits has been consistently made by the Government and SAGE, I believe their leader has admitted to this.
So, you'd need all these resources in order to (a) define what threshold is the rational one and (b) assess rationally when that threshold has been reached.
I'm assuming you don't have these resources available to you. Therefore you can't have a defined threshold, nor can you have sufficient information to determine whether it's been reached.
And yet you seem of the quite clear opinion that action should not be taken at this point.
I don't see how that can be the case.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
My local Barclays only opened two days this week because of staff shortage, my local Post Office has had restricted opening hours because of staff shortages so it does affect the public sector.
No. I am not "carrying on as normal". Like I said, I've applied various mitigations as part of my decision. For example I have minimised social contact for the past week or so, which means I have not gone and had drinks with friends or other things I'd normally do. I've avoided public transport. I've taken tests for the past few days and have been prepared to cancel if one comes up positive.
And your argument is this is for the benefit of the NHS, not yourself?
Does the emergence of Omicron really make it more beneficial to society for people to shift their mode of transport from buses and trains towards cars? Is a society that avoids public transport really going to benefit the NHS? If you think you have a case, it's probably best you explain your position in a new thread, where I will go into more detail regarding why I reject this idea.
And if some kind of national restrictions had come in, ones I felt reasonable from a public health point of view, that applied to everyone, I would have respected them, and not considered myself a special case.
What I am interested in is arguing with those who call for more restrictions. You've denied being one of those people but I am not convinced. But still that shows what good progress we've made if you are not calling for restrictions.
I refer to people who call for more restrictions; if you are not one of those people then great. I think the proportion of people who call for more restrictions is reducing on a daily basis. They are a very vocal minority and yes I would agree they are extremists.
People who would simply go along with restrictions but do not call for them, have a position I don't fully agree with but I can of course understand why people would do that.
This kind of caricaturisation of a position is very unhelpful, and the fact that it seems to be accepted in the discussion on this thread is one of the things that makes me think many of the participants simply aren't reading widely enough.
I've read plenty on the subject. I have listened to extremists (Greenhalgh, Pagel, Feigl-Ding etc) and listened to experts who have earnt my respect. I don't just listen to the experts I agree with, without listening to the counter-argument.
The idea that most people who think that some level of restrictions are beneficial in certain scenarios, do not think about the bigger picture or the longer term - do you seriously believe this?
If you give an example of a restriction you think would benefit a particular scenario I will be happy to consider your example and I will give my view.
But in general restrictions kick the can down the road and delay infections. I can understand the view that certain restrictions may be beneficial before vaccinations had reached most or all vulnerable/elderly people but the idea that we should be kicking the can down the road at this stage is wearing thin.
So, no, it's not just about weightings. It's about making a call based on incomplete information. It's a very difficult decision to make, and comes along with the well known paradox that if you get it right, it might never become apparent that you did, because the thing that would otherwise have happened, didn't.
But this can be debunked by looking at various examples throughout the world. For example the argument was made that if the UK had not acted in a certain way, things would have been far worse. But the model used to demonstrate that was applied to Sweden, and it turned out Ferguson's predictions were wrong.
Anyone who calls for restrictions for Omicron on the basis that Ferguson might be right for a change is having a laugh.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Previously you said no action until it is "clear the benefits outweigh the harms".
Now it's "unless you believe that the benefits outweigh the costs". Slightly different.
But either way, I'm interested, what would be the thing that would make it clear to you, or make you believe, that some kind of restriction would be introduced? What's your threshold, and how have you decided upon it? You say it's a simple choice so it must be easy for you to be quite specific in your answer.
Did you make this argument before Covid? The way I see it is that we have sufficiently high levels of immunity and things have gone on for sufficiently long (due to kicking the can down the road) that we now should be considering this to be no different to when the NHS was under pressure in previous winters pre-2020.
What were your thresholds in previous winters for restrictions to be applied? Did you have any?
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
This has been done to death before; there is a huge difference between tight fitting FFP2/3 masks that are designed to filter aerosols versus loose fitting masks that are not, I refer you to my post in the following thread:
It's all contained in that thread for your perusal. If you think you have anything to add which has not already been mentioned in that thread, let us know (by reporting it and stating in your report what you'd like to add) and we will be happy to consider reopening it.
As I alluded to above, there should be some hard, demonstrable evidence that any particular intervention works (as we have with vaccines), can be objectively assessed as working, and is proportionate to its stated aim. Otherwise it simply shouldn’t be introduced. If not, what’s to stop the government requiring us all to carry crucifixes around to ward off the virus?! You never know, crucifixes might work .
How do you think medical interventions should be assessed and these questions weighed up?! Doesn’t it trouble you that there appears to be little in the way of objective evidential analysis currently?
Here’s a question for you: do you think vaccines work? If so, why? Presumably based on the same data that shows little if any effect of masks…
Have tested positive this afternoon. I’m presuming it’s omicron as that seems to be the one to have at the moment. Symptoms for me are congested nose and sinuses, and a lack of taste and smell.
Perfectly timed to mess up all of my Christmas plans!
As far as I can see, the government will soon be left with little alternative but to allow asymptomatic people to continue to go to work - though perhaps only in sectors like the NHS, schools, supermarkets and public transport to begin with. I expect it will be much the same as when the 'close contact' exemption was brought in to fend off the 'pingdemic'.
I’d like to think it would only be non-patient facing staff in the NHS. Imagine a chemotherapy or transplant nurse being allowed to work whilst positive…
How is the efficacy of most medical interventions determined? It isn’t just on the basis of “let’s go with it, just in case things get worse if we don’t”, which is what you seem to be advocating for.
Interestingly, South Africa just removed the need to isolate for being a close contact because it's long been a bonkers and very low-impact intervention. Almost everything we do to combat this scourge is low-impact except the vaccines.
Masks are a good example of the madness of the last two years. There’s still no good evidence they make any difference whatsoever, yet they’re a legal requirement in many settings despite our enormous vaccine coverage.
I’d like to think it would only be non-patient facing staff in the NHS. Imagine a chemotherapy or transplant nurse being allowed to work whilst positive…
A good question - that being said being ill you generally shouldn't come into work (Covid or not). Coming into work with a highly infectious, even if mild virus is probably not a good idea! What might be asympotmatic for you, may not be for your colleague.
I think that anyone working on the front line in the NHS would have suffered with Covid by now if they were going to. Has anyone attempted to quantify whether a staff shortage in hospitals or people testing positive, but feeling fine, going in to work would cause more deaths?
The i are reporting that if daily hospital admissions in London with covid remain below 400 a day by the end of this week, new restrictions in England could be avoided (the latest daily value is 245), citing London as being ahead in the Omicron wave:
There are signs that Omicron cases in the capital and across the UK could be plateauing - but remain at a high level
inews.co.uk
The last time London saw at least 400 admissions a day was everyday between the 20/12/20-01/02/21, all before the vaccine was widespread. The number is rising at the moment and has a bit of room before hitting 400, so one to keep watching:
If this is still the trip level its getting ominously close to that daily 400/day - Latest data for London from 22/12 is 386
This is all in measure including nosocomial acquired infections. Nett hospitalised in London is up +166 on yesterday to 2260 with all England NHS Regions up +256 so majority of hospitalised still falling in London. The curve gradient is still below last Januarys position but NHS staffing issues will be the real decider i suspect.
If this is still the trip level its getting ominously close to that daily 400/day - Latest data for London from 22/12 is 386
View attachment 107565
This is all in measure including nosocomial acquired infections. Nett hospitalised in London is up +166 on yesterday to 2260 with all England NHS Regions up +256 so majority of hospitalised still falling in London. The curve gradient is still below last Januarys position but NHS staffing issues will be the real decider i suspect.
My local Barclays only opened two days this week because of staff shortage, my local Post Office has had restricted opening hours because of staff shortages so it does affect the public sector.
My local barclays was doing that long before Covid appeared. Suspect they want to shut the branch. As to the post office: Category Quasi Public Sector and culturally still very much public sector as they were not sold off long ago.
I refer to people who call for more restrictions; if you are not one of those people then great. I think the proportion of people who call for more restrictions is reducing on a daily basis. They are a very vocal minority and yes I would agree they are extremists.
The tide of public opinion is turning. The link I posted in the Wales thread suggests that only 25% of people are in favour of pubs and restaurants closing. I went out for lunch today without booking and they barely fitted us in. A few colleagues in work are cheesed off because the theatres are shutting down so they'll miss out on the pantomime. People are clearly getting fed up of putting their lives on hold to save the NHS.
They publish several metrics for daily admissions by NHS region. The one on the gov.dashboard is the highest. Here is a summary for today(latest from 22/12) in London pays for money takes your choice but ultimately whether they arrive with covid, subsequently test for it or acquire it in hospital its the same burden on the NHS medical staff.
I’d like to think it would only be non-patient facing staff in the NHS. Imagine a chemotherapy or transplant nurse being allowed to work whilst positive…
The tide of public opinion is turning. The link I posted in the Wales thread suggests that only 25% of people are in favour of pubs and restaurants closing. I went out for lunch today without booking and they barely fitted us in. A few colleagues in work are cheesed off because the theatres are shutting down so they'll miss out on the pantomime. People are clearly getting fed up of putting their lives on hold to save the NHS.
When it first hit, after those videos of China going mad welding people in their flats, most people gave the government the benefit of the doubt. We knew little about it and few knew Fergusons previous form.
I think people accepted it at face value as a once in a century one off.
People have since learned the hard way that there is a slew of people among the great and good who are never happier than when they are restricting people, they have also realised that if the Black Plague is in the Premier League of killer virus, Covid is in the Vauxhall Conference south trying to avoid relegation into the Isthmian league.
The people behind the regulations being caught ignoring/bending them has also removed scales. Not so much from the hypocracy angle but from the angle that they know all the things about this that we don't and if they are not obeying the rules out of fear, then we have nothing to fear either.
If Johnson holds off from more regulations the devolved leaders will look silly and authoritarian. This is a particular problem for Labour, as whatever mealy mouthed things Starmer and Co say at Westminster, Drakeford has shown what Labour will do if given the slightest opportunity.
I suspect the Tories will be ahead in the opinion polls by spring again. At a time like this of mid term turbulence, labour need to be 12-15% ahead regularly to have a cats chance come an election.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
They publish several metrics for daily admissions by NHS region. The one on the gov.dashboard is the highest. Here is a summary for today(latest from 22/12) in London pays for money takes your choice but ultimately whether they arrive with covid, subsequently test for it or acquire it in hospital its the same burden on the NHS medical staff.
No its not. Those being treated for other things who have asymptomatic or sniffles covid continue to be treated for other things, just aa they wouid with a cold. The extra PPE etc is a pain but not the end of the world.
Completely different from people coming in with breathing difficulties having to be put in intensive care and on ventilators because their lungs are foobarred.
We are aware of an issue with emails from the Forum to Microsoft-based email accounts (hotmail/outlook/live.com email addresses). This is being looked into currently, thanks for your patience meanwhile.
.
inews.co.uk
