Boris Johnson told to self-isolate....

[DustyBin]

After meeting an MP who later tested positive for Covid-19. I’m watching Sky News this morning and I have two questions:

1. Why should we be so concerned with his ‘condition’ as they put it?

2. Why is it significant that he wasn’t wearing a mask in the meeting?

Can somebody help me out here?

 

[duncanp]

I think it is important that the Prime Minister sets a good example by self isolating as per the rules, especially after the likes of D*****c C*****gs, Professor Pantsdown, Margaret Ferrier. etc. etc, etc........

Whatever your opinion of Boris, the last thing the country needs right now is for the Prime Minister to be incapacitated, when important decisions have to be taken about a vaccine, what happens in England after December 2nd and Brexit.

I don't think that masks have to be worn in indoor meetings, provided that it is possible to maintain social distancing.

 

[JonathanP]

Interesting that he has to self-isolate although he already had it and recovered.

Does that mean that anyone has been vaccinated will also have to still self-isolate after contact with any infected person? If so, since Corona will probably never be eradicated, we will be following this track, trace and isolate system for the rest of our lives. What a fun thought.

 

[duncanp]

Interesting that he has to self-isolate although he already had it and recovered.

Does that mean that anyone has been vaccinated will also have to still self-isolate after contact with any infected person? If so, since Corona will probably never be eradicated, we will be following this track, trace and isolate system for the rest of our lives. What a fun thought.

I think there is no definitive proof that you are immune from further infection after having had COVID-19, or even if you are immune how long that immunity lasts.

Boris Johnson had COVID-19 in April. which was 7 months ago, and it is possible that any such immunity as he might have had is no longer there.

So it is best to be on the safe side.

 

[Yew]

I think there is no definitive proof that you are immune from further infection after having had COVID-19, or even if you are immune how long that immunity lasts.

Boris Johnson had COVID-19 in April. which was 7 months ago, and it is possible that any such immunity as he might have had is no longer there.

So it is best to be on the safe side.

To be more specific, there's not much certainty around sterilising immunity (i.e. you can't infect others) most research suggests that once infected, an individual will have disease-modifying immunity, which which will lessen the symptoms.

 

[Bantamzen]

I think there is no definitive proof that you are immune from further infection after having had COVID-19, or even if you are immune how long that immunity lasts.

Boris Johnson had COVID-19 in April. which was 7 months ago, and it is possible that any such immunity as he might have had is no longer there.

So it is best to be on the safe side.

So as asked above, what does that mean for the vaccine? Because some of the first ones coming through rely on exactly the same immune response as would be seen if someone had contracted the virus. Therefore if someone who has had it must still self-isolate, then so should those who get the vaccine, rendering it pointless. I'm afraid that at some point we are going to have to break this cycle.

 

[duncanp]

So as asked above, what does that mean for the vaccine? Because some of the first ones coming through rely on exactly the same immune response as would be seen if someone had contracted the virus. Therefore if someone who has had it must still self-isolate, then so should those who get the vaccine, rendering it pointless. I'm afraid that at some point we are going to have to break this cycle.

I don't have an answer to that I'm afraid - you would have to ask those in charge of developing the vaccine.

However I do agree that a vaccine is pointless if the immunity it confers only lasts for a few months.

The immunity from a vaccine would have to last at least a year, otherwise the logistical challenges and cost of keeping everyone immunised would be too great.

 

[Domh245]

So as asked above, what does that mean for the vaccine? Because some of the first ones coming through rely on exactly the same immune response as would be seen if someone had contracted the virus. Therefore if someone who has had it must still self-isolate, then so should those who get the vaccine, rendering it pointless. I'm afraid that at some point we are going to have to break this cycle.

Like I and others have said, once we can be sure that enough vulnerable people have been immunised that we won't overwhelm healthcare, we declare Covid endemic, stop the whole theatre around it (mass testing, tracing contacts, isolating when asymptomatic, etc), and continue to give pensioners a yearly covid jab along with their flu jab.

The only other exit strategy is chasing global eradication, which with our current medicines and techniques is clearly impractical and ought to be rightly removed from discussion until such a time that we could feasibly do so.

 

[kieron]

No vaccine has been approved for use in the UK, so someone who has been vaccinated has exactly the same rights and responsibilites as someone who has not been.

The authorities should know a lot more about any potential vaccine before they approve it, so would decide how it affects things at the time. Until then, I'd just be ready for a wide range of possibilities.

 

[pdeaves]

Had the disease or not, immune or not, vaccine or not, the prime minister has to be seen to do the very thing his government tells everyone else to do. There would be a furore if he started claiming exemptions.

 

[cactustwirly]

I think there is no definitive proof that you are immune from further infection after having had COVID-19, or even if you are immune how long that immunity lasts.

Boris Johnson had COVID-19 in April. which was 7 months ago, and it is possible that any such immunity as he might have had is no longer there.

So it is best to be on the safe side.

There's extensive research into Coronaviruses such as SARS and Mers, which suggests the immunity from infection is long lasting.

 

[Bantamzen]

I don't have an answer to that I'm afraid - you would have to ask those in charge of developing the vaccine.

However I do agree that a vaccine is pointless if the immunity it confers only lasts for a few months.

The immunity from a vaccine would have to last at least a year, otherwise the logistical challenges and cost of keeping everyone immunised would be too great.

And herein lies the problem. We won't know how effective a vaccine will be long term for a long time, way too long to base a strategy solely on any vaccine being successful and the virus not mutating in the meantime. We certainly can't afford another year of this, frankly we can't afford what we've had so the lockdown strategy that Johnson has relied on is on borrowed time.

Like I and others have said, once we can be sure that enough vulnerable people have been immunised that we won't overwhelm healthcare, we declare Covid endemic, stop the whole theatre around it (mass testing, tracing contacts, isolating when asymptomatic, etc), and continue to give pensioners a yearly covid jab along with their flu jab.

The only other exit strategy is chasing global eradication, which with our current medicines and techniques is clearly impractical and ought to be rightly removed from discussion until such a time that we could feasibly do so.

Quite, and honestly I wouldn't even be waiting as long as that as frankly given all the delays & cancellations the NHS is going to be in a torrid state one way or another. So the government needs a contingency plan to get as much finance and support diverted to it as soon as possible (this really should have been taking place anyway) and tackle the problems at source whilst getting the economy, and urgently needed taxes into the system to pay for all this.

 

[Daniel740]

Is he really ‘self isolating’ or is he just hiding because he doesn’t want to feel the heat over the sacking of Cummings etc?

 

[Mcr Warrior]

Is he really ‘self isolating’ or is he just hiding because he doesn’t want to feel the heat over the sacking of Cummings etc?

I was also wondering that. As if?

 

[DustyBin]

I get that he needs to follow the rules and self isolate that’s fair enough.

What I was getting at is that Sky News aren’t making it clear that firstly he isn’t ill, and secondly wearing a mask doesn’t mean you don’t need to self isolate if contacted. There isn’t actually any requirement to wear a mask at work either is there?

 

[MikeWM]

Don't forget B****t too - decisions are going to have to be made in the next few weeks that are going annoy a *lot* of people, whichever path is taken.

Getting two weeks - without people being able to see you in person and try to pressure you - at this point sounds like a rather good plan. No doubt just a coincidence though......

 

[big_rig]

I get that he needs to follow the rules and self isolate that’s fair enough.

What I was getting at is that Sky News aren’t making it clear that firstly he isn’t ill, and secondly wearing a mask doesn’t mean you don’t need to self isolate if contacted. There isn’t actually any requirement to wear a mask at work either is there?

It's virtue signalling. Much like how reporters make a big deal of wearing masks on TV when stood on their own far away from anyone, while outside - wearing the mask shows they 'care.' In this case it sows a seed of doubt - why wasn't he wearing the magic mask? It's like stories where a lorry plows down somebody riding a bike in broad daylight - ooh, but was the person wearing a (useless) hi-vis vest? They weren't? Ooooh...

The Guardian has also commented on this with the caption: The men appear to be less than 2 metres apart and neither is wearing a mask.

 

[MikeWM]

The Guardian has also commented on this with the caption: The men appear to be less than 2 metres apart and neither is wearing a mask.

This appears to have creeped in from their US 'reporting' [1]. For months now every single article about Donald Trump has commented - often 3 or 4 times, repetitively, throughout the same article - whether he, or the people around him, have been wearing a mask and/or anti-social distancing.

[1] I use the quote marks because when they keep asking for money by saying things like 'A win for Joe Biden has renewed hope for the US and the world. After four years of turmoil, misinformation, manipulation and division, the result of this historic presidential election offers fresh promise for democracy and progress' in supposed *news* articles, it is so far over on the wrong side of the line between news and opinion, that it is insulting to real journalists to call it proper reporting.

 

[PHILIPE]

I get that he needs to follow the rules and self isolate that’s fair enough.

What I was getting at is that Sky News aren’t making it clear that firstly he isn’t ill, and secondly wearing a mask doesn’t mean you don’t need to self isolate if contacted. There isn’t actually any requirement to wear a mask at work either is there?

I hope that he stays at No 10 and not move to Chequers as he did last time.

 

[Crossover]

An "interesting" couple of quotes on the BBC article

In the video, the PM added: "The good news is that NHS Test and Trace is working ever-more efficiently, but the bad news is that they've pinged me and I've got to self-isolate because someone I was in contact with a few days ago has developed Covid.
"It doesn't matter that we were all doing social distancing, it doesn't matter that I'm fit as a butcher's dog, feel great.

Well, one can't have it both ways. If one were distancing then he shouldn't have been "pinged" to self-isolate. Can't really have it both ways!

"And actually, it doesn't matter that I've had the disease and I'm bursting with antibodies. We've got to interrupt the spread of the disease and one of the ways we can do that now is by self-isolating for 14 days when contacted by Test and Trace."

My bold - sounds a bit like the sort of soundbite one may expect from Trump!

 

[brad465]

Is he really ‘self isolating’ or is he just hiding because he doesn’t want to feel the heat over the sacking of Cummings etc?

Yes I had the same thought, bearing in mind this week several meetings apparently are/were planned related to Government policy implementations, plus the (supposed) climax of Brexit trade talks, it does make one wonder if this is another hide away from the hard graft? This might be clearer when we see how he behaves on business this week: if he attends meetings and the like remotely it's likely to be genuine; if he tries to get out of them maybe he is hiding.

If it is genuine though I agree with all the points related to questioning our vaccine reliance and overall strategy.

 

[adc82140]

The headlines state that he has no symptoms. Well to be honest if he did have symptoms that would be newsworthy, given that those who are sick enough to go to hospital are generally the ones with the highest antibody response.

 

[island]

Well, one can't have it both ways. If one were distancing then he shouldn't have been "pinged" to self-isolate. Can't really have it both ways!

Of course you can. To give just one example, if you have checked into a pub on the NHS app a minute before someone who later tests positive, you’d be ”pinged” as you put it even if you were sat at opposite ends.

 

[Crossover]

Of course you can. To give just one example, if you have checked into a pub on the NHS app a minute before someone who later tests positive, you’d be ”pinged” as you put it even if you were sat at opposite ends.

Either way, it looks like more mixed messaging from Government - self-distancing and a "Covid Secure" workplace and still gets picked up by T&T (allegedly). Also "pinged" was quoted from the PM, not my phraseology

 

[Islineclear3_1]

I think it is important that the Prime Minister sets a good example by self isolating as per the rules, especially after the likes of D*****c C*****gs, Professor Pantsdown, Margaret Ferrier. etc. etc, etc........

Whatever your opinion of Boris, the last thing the country needs right now is for the Prime Minister to be incapacitated, when important decisions have to be taken about a vaccine, what happens in England after December 2nd and Brexit.

I don't think that masks have to be worn in indoor meetings, provided that it is possible to maintain social distancing.

One rule for the "Four legs good, two legs better" brigade - and another rule for us....

 

[kieron]

Is he really ‘self isolating’ or is he just hiding because he doesn’t want to feel the heat over the sacking of Cummings etc?

Those are two question, I think. Would Boris Johnson prefer not to infect anyone with Covid-19? Almost certainly. Would he prefer not to attend PMQs? ...

One rule for the "Four legs good, two legs better" brigade - and another rule for us....

For the who? Anyway, two legs are pretty great. We don't want to be ruled by babies.

 

[PG]

The Guardian has also commented on this with the caption: The men appear to be less than 2 metres apart and neither is wearing a mask.

Yes I thought that after viewing this photo from here:

the BBC article

(shows Boris and Lee standing apart facing forward)
It looks like there is just about room for one person to stand in between them so I fail to see how they can claim to have been social distancing when they posed for a photo less than 2 metres apart?

 

[Crossover]

Yes I thought that after viewing this photo from here:

(shows Boris and Lee standing apart facing forward)
It looks like there is just about room for one person to stand in between them so I fail to see how they can claim to have been social distancing when they posed for a photo less than 2 metres apart?

Yes - which makes the below quote from the BBC article look a tad redundant...

The PM's official spokesman insisted that Downing Street is "Covid-secure".

He said "social distancing did happen" but factors such as the length of the meeting were considered by Test and Trace.

 

[adc82140]

Across the world, politicians have been testing Covid positive. Is Covid a disease that picks off the political classes? Of course not. What's happened is that a situation has arisen where everyone is at equal risk, but the ingrained policital mantra of "one rule for them" they are finding difficult to overcome.

 

[brad465]

Yes - which makes the below quote from the BBC article look a tad redundant...

The whole term "Covid-secure" doesn't make sense in fairness, as like there is no such thing as bullet-proof glass, there is no such thing as Covid-secure in a workplace