When will restrictions finally end?

[DB]

This is what a lot of people have yet to wake up to. The government doesn’t give a toss if the average under-50 gets it. If one were really cynical then it could be said they only care about elderly people because they have a higher propensity to vote.

There's probably an element of self-interest too - most of the people making these decisions / advising on them are in the over-50 age bracket, as are many of their friends.

 

[Dent]

This is what a lot of people have yet to wake up to. The government doesn’t give a toss if the average under-50 gets it. If one were really cynical then it could be said they only care about elderly people because they have a higher propensity to vote.

Isn't it just the case that infections in under 50s don't matter as much because they're unlikely to have any serious symptoms? I don't think it really helps anyone to make accusations of political bias where there is a perfectly good reason for the current priorities and no evidence of any foul play.

 

[bramling]

Isn't it just the case that infections in under 50s don't matter as much because they're unlikely to have any serious symptoms? I don't think it really helps anyone to make accusations of political bias where there is a perfectly good reason for the current priorities and no evidence of any foul play.

The government can’t have it both ways. There’s been plenty of TV ads hinting that Covid is life-threatening for people of all ages, as well as the constant rumbling about long Covid.

I don’t think we should dismiss the idea of an element of political bias, it wouldn’t be the only area of political policy where such bias happens after all. And we can bet that pensioners will be insulated as far as possible from the taxation and government spending consequences which will surely follow all this, whilst the rest of us go straight under the wheels of the bus.

 

[Domh245]

Isn't it just the case that infections in under 50s don't matter as much because they're unlikely to have any serious symptoms? I don't think it really helps anyone to make accusations of political bias where there is a perfectly good reason for the current priorities and no evidence of any foul play.

You're right about the reason that under 50s won't be prioritised, but it still stinks. From a young persons point of view, we've had our education and livelihoods disrupted, lives put on hold, activities prevented, mental health battered, etc, all to save a bunch of pensioners with their triple lock pensions and other people over the age of 50 who seem determined to keep voting in parties that make our lives worse. It's difficult not to feel hard done by

 

[bramling]

You're right about the reason that under 50s won't be prioritised, but it still stinks. From a young persons point of view, we've had our education and livelihoods disrupted, lives put on hold, activities prevented, mental health battered, etc, all to save a bunch of pensioners with their triple lock pensions and other people over the age of 50 who seem determined to keep voting in parties that make our lives worse. It's difficult not to feel hard done by

One can also add that under-50s have also been covering the workload of those who have been shielding, many of whom are under-50, or in the age range between 50 and retirement.

I’d have thought vaccinating some of that cohort so they can return to full work would have been a priority, rather than pensioners in their 90s who have already been fortunate enough to get that far.

 

[Skimpot flyer]

By rolling-out the vaccine in the manner they are doing, this is a de-facto admission that those aged 60 or less who do not have pre-existing medical conditions are at very small risk of death from this virus.
Government, Starmer, SAGE and all the coronaphobes on social media really need to listen again to this briefing from May 2020. The only thing that has changed since then is that the virus has mutated and now transmits more rapidly. It has not mutated to become more deadly. We need to bloody well get a sense of perspective, and start asking pertinent questions
Where are all the flu cases this winter?
If masks have been successful blocking flu transmission, how come they don’t stop coronavirus and haven’t caused cases to fall?
Is it possible flu cases are actually being put down as coronavirus to maintain the cycle of fear?
Every year, we read headlines about the NHS ‘facing a winter crisis’ ‘risks being overwhelmed’ etc etc. With covid cases on top, surely it would already have been overwhelmed by now?

Key points made by Chris Whitty
• A significant proportion of people will not get this virus at all
• Of those that do, some will get it without even knowing it
• Probably 80% will experience a mild infection, not bad enough for them to go to the doctor
• An unfortunate minority will have to go to hospital, but most of those will need oxygen and will be home within days
• A minority of those will need to go into critical care, and sadly some of those will die

All of these things still hold true. Yet we are still effing about with restrictions, tantamount to locking the windows and doors and setting fire to the house, just to kill a fly that may be carrying a disease. We now have a newspaper (in the form of a vaccine) with which to squash the fly!

What’s changed?
The virus still has a 99.7% survival rate (greater still for lower-risk groups).
Even in areas with 650 cases per 100,000, you would need to encounter 154 people from outside your usual circle in order to - statistically speaking - encounter just one person with the virus!!

This lunacy must end

 

[Class 317]

Scottish full lockdown from tonight. Details to be announced. On The Guardian live feed.

 

[DB]

Scottish full lockdown from tonight. Details to be announced. On The Guardian live feed.

I've not been following it in any detail, but aren't the current restrictions pretty close to the lockdown earlier in the year anyway, apart from schools?

 

[brad465]

In my organisation's new year email sent out by the Chief Executive, they have stated we can look forward to the return of "something like normal life by the summer", right down to being able to hug others again, citing the Covid vaccine arriving faster than expected. I doubt despite their position (leading a public sector organisation) they have inside intelligence but I hope there is some credibility to what he said, although a bit earlier would be nicer.

 

[RuralRambler]

By rolling-out the vaccine in the manner they are doing, this is a de-facto admission that those aged 60 or less who do not have pre-existing medical conditions are at very small risk of death from this virus.

No it doesn't. It means that they have a statistically lower risk of death than those aged 60 or over or other vulnerabilities. Lower. Hence the order in which people are being vaccinated.

 

[Skimpot flyer]

Boris warns of tougher measures, without giving specifics... (whilst touching his face mask 5 times)

COVID-19: Boris Johnson says 'tougher measures' set to be announced 'in due course'

The prime minister says there are "tough, tough" weeks ahead in the UK's fight against coronavirus.

news.sky.com

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 4 Jan 2021 ==

No it doesn't. It means that they have a statistically lower risk of death than those aged 60 or over or other vulnerabilities. Lower. Hence the order in which people are being vaccinated.

Only 388 people without pre-existing medical conditions under the age of 60 have died with / from coronavirus

 

[DB]

Only 388 people without pre-existing medical conditions under the age of 60 have died with / from coronavirus

Probably lower than that - some of those will very likely have had undiagnosed medical conditions which made them susceptible.

 

[Dent]

The government can’t have it both ways. There’s been plenty of TV ads hinting that Covid is life-threatening for people of all ages, as well as the constant rumbling about long Covid.

I don’t think we should dismiss the idea of an element of political bias, it wouldn’t be the only area of political policy where such bias happens after all. And we can bet that pensioners will be insulated as far as possible from the taxation and government spending consequences which will surely follow all this, whilst the rest of us go straight under the wheels of the bus.

The notion that it is life-threatening for people of all ages is just scaremongering, the statistics show clearly that is is overwhelmingly affects older people.

The fact that older people are far more at risk is a perfectly good reason for prioritising those most at risk. Looking for "alternative" explanations involving political bias for something which is already explained by perfectly sound reasoning is not helpful.

 

[BackOnTheTrain]

Boris warns of tougher measures, without giving specifics... (whilst touching his face mask 5 times)

COVID-19: Boris Johnson says 'tougher measures' set to be announced 'in due course'

The prime minister says there are "tough, tough" weeks ahead in the UK's fight against coronavirus.

news.sky.com

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 4 Jan 2021 ==


Only 388 people without pre-existing medical conditions under the age of 60 have died with / from coronavirus

Has anybody discovered what actually counts as a pre-existing condition when reporting deaths?

Does having glaucoma count for example? Diabetes? Taking medication for high blood pressure? Taking statins for cholesterol? A lot of people imply it only means people who would die imminently anyway (within say a year), but I’m curious if there’s an official explanation (or list) I’ve missed.

 

[Crossover]

Only 388 people without pre-existing medical conditions under the age of 60 have died with / from coronavirus

Does anyone know what pre-existing medical conditions are in this context? Do things like obesity count as one?

EDIT: Seems like myself and @BackOnTheTrain had the same idea simultaneously!

 

[DB]

Does anyone know what pre-existing medical conditions are in this context? Do things like obesity count as one?

EDIT: Seems like myself and @BackOnTheTrain had the same idea simultaneously!

I've always assumed that it's those medical conditions which would put people in the vulnerable/ extremel vulnerable categories - not sure that I've seen it actually stated though.

 

[Mag_seven]

I've always assumed that it's those medical conditions which would put people in the vulnerable/ extremel vulnerable categories - not sure that I've seen it actually stated though.

This is the list of conditions that make someone "Extremely Clinically Vulnerable"

Guidance on shielding and protecting people who are clinically extremely vulnerable from COVID-19 - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)

Definition of clinically extremely vulnerable groups​

People who are defined as clinically extremely vulnerable are at very high risk of severe illness from coronavirus. There are 2 ways you may be identified as clinically extremely vulnerable:

1. You have one or more of conditions listed below, or
2. Your clinician or GP has added you to the Shielded Patient List because, based on their clinical judgement, they deem to you be at higher risk of serious illness if you catch the virus.

If you do not fall into any of these categories, and have not been contacted to inform you that you are on the Shielded Patient List, follow the general staying alert and safe guidance for the rest of the population.

If you think there are good clinical reasons why you should be added to the Shielded Patient List, discuss your concerns with your GP or hospital clinician.

People with the following conditions are automatically deemed clinically extremely vulnerable:

• solid organ transplant recipients
• people with specific cancers:
  • people with cancer who are undergoing active chemotherapy
  • people with lung cancer who are undergoing radical radiotherapy
  • people with cancers of the blood or bone marrow such as leukaemia, lymphoma or myeloma who are at any stage of treatment
  • people having immunotherapy or other continuing antibody treatments for cancer
  • people having other targeted cancer treatments that can affect the immune system, such as protein kinase inhibitors or PARP inhibitors
  • people who have had bone marrow or stem cell transplants in the last 6 months or who are still taking immunosuppression drugs
• people with severe respiratory conditions including all cystic fibrosis, severe asthma and severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD)
• people with rare diseases that significantly increase the risk of infections (such as severe combined immunodeficiency (SCID), homozygous sickle cell disease)
• people on immunosuppression therapies sufficient to significantly increase risk of infection
• problems with your spleen, for example splenectomy (having your spleen removed)
• adults with Down’s syndrome
• adults on dialysis or with chronic kidney disease (stage 5)
• women who are pregnant with significant heart disease, congenital or acquired
• other people who have also been classed as clinically extremely vulnerable, based on clinical judgement and an assessment of their needs. GPs and hospital clinicians have been provided with guidance to support these decisions

 

[The Ham]

By rolling-out the vaccine in the manner they are doing, this is a de-facto admission that those aged 60 or less who do not have pre-existing medical conditions are at very small risk of death from this virus.
Government, Starmer, SAGE and all the coronaphobes on social media really need to listen again to this briefing from May 2020. The only thing that has changed since then is that the virus has mutated and now transmits more rapidly. It has not mutated to become more deadly. We need to bloody well get a sense of perspective, and start asking pertinent questions
Where are all the flu cases this winter?
If masks have been successful blocking flu transmission, how come they don’t stop coronavirus and haven’t caused cases to fall?
Is it possible flu cases are actually being put down as coronavirus to maintain the cycle of fear?
Every year, we read headlines about the NHS ‘facing a winter crisis’ ‘risks being overwhelmed’ etc etc. With covid cases on top, surely it would already have been overwhelmed by now?

Key points made by Chris Whitty
• A significant proportion of people will not get this virus at all
• Of those that do, some will get it without even knowing it
• Probably 80% will experience a mild infection, not bad enough for them to go to the doctor
• An unfortunate minority will have to go to hospital, but most of those will need oxygen and will be home within days
• A minority of those will need to go into critical care, and sadly some of those will die

All of these things still hold true. Yet we are still effing about with restrictions, tantamount to locking the windows and doors and setting fire to the house, just to kill a fly that may be carrying a disease. We now have a newspaper (in the form of a vaccine) with which to squash the fly!

What’s changed?
The virus still has a 99.7% survival rate (greater still for lower-risk groups).
Even in areas with 650 cases per 100,000, you would need to encounter 154 people from outside your usual circle in order to - statistically speaking - encounter just one person with the virus!!

This lunacy must end

Trading the 0.3% chance of dying then due to the number of deaths recorded (75,000) then, assuming everyone gets infected, we've got something like 125,000 more deaths and the estimate for those who have had it would be circa 25 million.

That would mean that we've only tested and identified 10% of all cases.

Much as that would be fairly positive if it were true (as it's going to make getting to ~2/3rds having protection easier as we've already got to nearly 40% protected) there's got to be a lot of questions which it would raise (such as how are we missing so many with such a world beating testing) which is likely to be uncomfortable for some.

Of course it could be that the infection/death percentage is higher in Western Countries such as ours where we have a higher percentage of our population over 75 and generally more unhealthy people.

 

[WelshBluebird]

Is it possible flu cases are actually being put down as coronavirus to maintain the cycle of fear?

Look, we clearly disagree, but this quote - just come on.
The rest of the post is pretty sensible, but this line just goes right into conspiracy theory madness.

 

[DB]

Look, we clearly disagree, but this quote - just come on.
The rest of the post is pretty sensible, but this line just goes right into conspiracy theory madness.

So where are the flu cases then?

 

[Bantamzen]

So where are the flu cases then?

Dunno about flu, but I've had two stinking head colds over the last month despite hardly going out, social distancing and wearing masks when I have, sooooo......

 

[WelshBluebird]

So where are the flu cases then?

First of all, do you actually have any evidence that there were fewer flu cases this winter? Or is it just an assumption?
Genuine question - I haven't seen the numbers. What I have seen is quite a few friends getting flu like symptoms but testing negative for COVID - which implies to me the common flu is still around.

Secondly, let me assume you are correct and there have been less flu cases. There are a few possible explanations:

• The social distancing etc measures we have for COVID also helps with the flu (sure, it isn't going to prevent it all, but you can't possibly claim there is no impact at all).
• The very fact that people just aren't out and about as much as they usually are would have reduced the spread too.
• It is my understanding that we had a larger uptake of the flu jab this year (which is why it was difficult to get for some groups of people who aren't priority for it).

Considering that, it is a pretty large jump to go straight to the "COVID isn't real its just flu" conspiracy theory.
So I will ask - is there any evidence at all to suggest that flu cases are being reported as COVID cases to spread fear (as was originally being claimed in the post I replied to)?

 

[kristiang85]

Look, we clearly disagree, but this quote - just come on.
The rest of the post is pretty sensible, but this line just goes right into conspiracy theory madness.

Well there needs to be an explanation of why flu has gone down to practially zero in comparitive terms, not just in the UK but the whole world.

Whilst there is no scientific explanation being made public, then the theory of flu being mis-reported (intentionally or not) as COVID should be on the table.

If there is a scientific explanation, then this is good news - the usual flu death burden can be taken off the expected COVID death burden and the outcomes in general look a lot better...

Edit: In response to your question above, the flu data is here: https://www.who.int/influenza/surveillance_monitoring/updates/2020_12_21_surveillance_update_383.pdf (page 3 for the graph for the northern hemisphere).

For comparison, here is a report from Jan 2020: https://www.who.int/influenza/surve...s/2020_01_06_surveillance_update_358.pdf?ua=1

 

[bramling]

The notion that it is life-threatening for people of all ages is just scaremongering, the statistics show clearly that is is overwhelmingly affects older people.

The fact that older people are far more at risk is a perfectly good reason for prioritising those most at risk. Looking for "alternative" explanations involving political bias for something which is already explained by perfectly sound reasoning is not helpful.

But this doesn’t explain why the government would prioritise people in their 80s over someone in their 50s who is clinically extremely vulnerable, which AIUI is the current plan. Given that situation, I’d say it’s quite reasonable to float the possibility of political bias, when that’s something we know is already an entrenched part of our politics.

 

[WelshBluebird]

Well there needs to be an explanation of why flu has gone down to practially zero, not just in the UK but the whole world.

Whilst there is no scientific explanation, then the theory of flu being mis-reported (intentionally or not) as COVID should be on the table.

If there is a scientific explanation, then this is good news - the usual flu death burden can be taken off the expected COVID death burden and the outcomes in general look a lot better...

See my reply.
TLDR - probably more people having the flu jab, and things in place to prevent covid also preventing flu.
In terms of the conspiracy theory you are trying to push - you are asking me for an explanation, so I will ask you - where is there any evidence at all to support what you are suggesting?

 

[DB]

See my reply.
TLDR - probably more people having the flu jab, and things in place to prevent covid also preventing flu.
In terms of the conspiracy theory you are trying to push - you are asking me for an explanation, so I will ask you - where is there any evidence at all to support what you are suggesting?

Given the similarlity of the symptoms, surely you can agree that it's likely that a lot of cases are being recorded as Covid, even if they might be flu?

 

[Horizon22]

Assuming the local elections don't get pushed back (again).

That will be interesting - nominations have to be done in normally in April and it involves going around getting signatures from residents.

 

[WelshBluebird]

Given the similarlity of the symptoms, surely you can agree that it's likely that a lot of cases are being recorded as Covid, even if they might be flu?

Given that cases don't get recorded as COVID unless they get a positive COVID test, I'd agree there are some (given no test is 100% accurate) - but I'd disagree that there are "lots" and I would disagree that it is being done on purpose just to spread fear (which is what was being suggested).

 

[kristiang85]

See my reply.
TLDR - probably more people having the flu jab, and things in place to prevent covid also preventing flu.
In terms of the conspiracy theory you are trying to push - you are asking me for an explanation, so I will ask you - where is there any evidence at all to support what you are suggesting?

(I edited my post whilst you were probably replying to this, so some links are there now)

I am not personally trying to "push" any conspiracy theory - I'm just saying that it cannot be taken off the table.

There has certainly been guidance seen that doctors are being asked to put 'probable COVID' if the symptoms are there and tests inconclusive - I can't remember where, but it's been posted on the forums before. But I personally don't think there is a concerted effort to recategorise flu cases as COVID.

I don't think the increased uptake in flu vaccinations is proportional to the reduction in flu.

And if the measures to contain COVID are causing flu to drop, then that shows one of two things:
1. COVID cannot be contained by these measures like other respiratory diseases, so it is pointless to have them in place as it just causes much collatoral damage for no benefit
OR
2. Something is wrong with the COVID numbers - most likely PCR testing being not fit for purpose...

So I can only conclude that the drop in flu numbers is a signal that something is very very wrong with our management of COVID, and nothing indicates that the measures being imposed on us are legitimate.

Of course, if there is a sound scientific explanation that COVID has somehow displaced flu, then that could quash all the above. But I'm sure papers would have been released by now - and I've seen nothing.

 

[DB]

Given that cases don't get recorded as COVID unless they get a positive COVID test, I'd agree there are some (given no test is 100% accurate) - but I'd disagree that there are "lots" and I would disagree that it is being done on purpose just to spread fear (which is what was being suggested).

Maybe in this country, at the moment - but it isn't the case in all countries, and wasn't the case here back in the spring. Plus there are the deaths where the deceased might have flu and Covid - those will be recorded as a Covid death, even if they were severely ill with flu, likely to die, and only caught Covid in hospital.

Afraid i can't agree with you on the fear issue - it is clear that the government is making every effort to terrify the population in order to try to ensure compliance - and it's increasingly creating a polarised society where one group regards the government and their advisors with utter contempt, whereas another group is cowering at home and afraid to step out of the door.