fransknorge

No I am certainly not proposing that, since this is not defined. What are restrictions ? What is forever ?
This is not a new problem but certainly an amplified one, because before there was no circulating disease so deadly for this population. The influenza is much less deadly for that population or any other disease which are circulating in the UK. For people with organ transplant, 10% of people getting a COVID infection will die, regardless of vaccination status. This is an exponential higher order of magnitude compared to influenza. So before this subgroup would actually have normal lives. Precautions necessary was to avoid being around sick people. So in a sense this is actually a new problem. Your proposal is neither sensible nor possible. Currently that means for them to simply stay at home, constantly.
A society is defined by how much they care about their most vulnerable member.

NWIFlyer

Well, if we take your number as gospel, you're looking at 3.7% of the population. Since shielding ended, the world has developed a widespread vaccine programme, introduced anti-viral drugs that are extremely effective at treating Covid, and of course the current Omicron variant is considerably less deadly generally.

Of those 2.5m people, a very, very small percentage will be in a position where they have a poor chance of survival if all of those defences are deployed. We'll be talking well under 1%, and if you are that at risk then there's every chance that even without Covid around you might catch something else that could equally well cause all sorts of health issues. We don't shut everything down if there's a bad flu season, and nor will we ever do so, yet the same number of people die from it.

So what do you do? Continue to shut down 99.5% of the population just because the ultra vulnerable 0.5% might - and it's a slimmer chance as more and more people gain some sort of immunity and won't pass it on - catch Covid? It might sound heartless, but the world just doesn't work like that - and I accept that as someone who lost an Uncle pre-Covid because in the end he could no longer fight off the pneumonia that he'd regularly caught since childhood, but equally if it had happened a few months later it might have been Covid instead. Although he spent his whole adult years in care of some sort or another, he lived and enjoyed life as much as he could for as long as he could - right until his penultimate day on earth, when he celebrated his birthday visiting an art exhibition. He was also lucky enough to be able to have his family at the hospital with him in his final hours to talk to him and hold his hand, whereas if you maintain restrictions forever an awful lot more people are going to be denied the ability to do that.

This is far more nuanced than presenting bald facts.

fransknorge

Please point to the part where I explicitly write to put restrictions for all or to shut down the population.
I explain above that the problem is magnified with COVID, and we are not talking about a small number.
What do you do ? You learn. We can do a lot if we want to to protect people.

KARFA

I am reminded of The Simpsons, and the vicar's wife who when anything was proposed always used to call out "Won't somebody think of the children?"

Since you seem particularly concerned, and presumably are not wholly in agreement with the recent UK announcements, what would you suggest? Also if you are going to advocate for something other that what is happening, could you give us an idea of what the downsides are of any restrictions/actions you propose?

NWIFlyer

Without putting too fine a point on it, past performance may well be an indication of current and future performance. You have, it's fair to say, consistently argued for some forms of restriction to remain, often quoting selective parts of various studies to justify it.

So allow me to turn the challenge round on you. If you've changed your historical stance to now say that there's less need for restrictions, what do you propose?

fransknorge

Past performance point duly noted, however I have been consistent in saying that most of protection could be done without any form of freedom limitations. I also have been consistent in saying a lockdown is a sign of failure (does not mean they were not justified, they were because we did fail indeed).
I am proposing the following:
- we now know outdoor is safe, indoor is not, this is an airborne transmitted disease. We need to make indoor air as safe as possible compared to outdoor. We did something more or less similar to have clean water everywhere. That means; regulations and standard (define air quality indoor), measurement (via CO2 for example, to evaluate at all time against standard, ideally make them visible like in Japan), equipment in all indoor public spaces (HEPA filters, air circulation flow, etc ...). Pros: reduce incidence of all airborne disease. Helps with allergies too. This is not a restriction of any kind (I do not like this word anyway, makes little sense). Cons: needs money, time, plan and engineers.
- Permanent surveillance of COVID infection rates. This is already done for HIV, influenza, measles, at least in the UK. Cons: none
- Investments in anti-virals, both research, production and knowledge. Cons: none
- Plan for future surge: invest in supporting existing NHS staff. Cons: money. Politically useless I assume. If a surge occur: temporary re-introductions of large testing programme, high quality indoor mask mandates, trace and isolate in affected communities. IF the surge is strong, quick and strong hammer. Close nightclubs and bars, masking mandates in sensible environnment (crowded and closed space). Needs to be efficient to curb infection locally quickly. A lockdown should never be part of plan, since it is a sign of failure of health protection to get so far. Pro: keep it local. Cons: impossible without surveillance.
- Investment in reducing inequalities in healthcare access. Cons: money.
- I would say also to reduce inequalities in workplace.

That is from the top of my head.

KARFA

it is difficult to suggest mandates, and enforced closure of businesses and people's abilities to use them are not limitations on freedoms.

Surge of what btw? My concern is you are proposing this should happen almost every winter when we have flu outbreaks.

With regard to covid, there is no reason for any of these restrictions unless there is a very clear and real indication the existing vaccines do not offer any degree of effective protection against a new strain.

Could you elaborate, I am struggling to see a link to covid?

Kgmm77

Surely that’s what science is, adjusting and reviewing your position based on the available data?

Rather than say blunt unwavering ideological positions, which are not unknown to this thread.

fransknorge

Surge of COVID infection. It needs to be defined with clear data threshold and geographical threshold. You may not be aware of this but this is done for flu outbreaks. During a regular flu season, local strong outbreak happens and there are restrictions put in place locally (test and trace, isolate). They are so efficient at breaking the surge that, except if it has happened in a place where you reside or work, you would not know it. They happen in pre-defined situation, are put in place quickly and efficiently. And it helps a lot.
We were talking about protecting population non responsive to vaccine. So of course there is a reason for this even with an effective vaccine. And even without that point. As proven with influenza or measles.


Equality to possibility to isolate when sick,both physically and financially, basically, instead of soldiering on.

nk15

One solution would have been keeping some restrictions only for the unvaccinated. It has some logistical and other issues, and therefore will not be done by most countries, but has some good benefits, too.

KARFA

Constantly restricting different areas when a few cases crop up, helped along by lots of surveillance. Governments abilities to restrict your way of life or close your business can be switched on at a moments notice. Rather than understanding that these are extraordinary powers which should only be in the gift of government and used during extraordinary times, it seems they should be normalised and part of everyday life.

What a wonderful future we can look forward to, it seems returning to normal was never the plan for some

KARFA

Can I ask why do you want to keep domestic restrictions on them? They aren't any threat to you or the health system at this stage now.

I am in no way against vaccines, and I think everyone should have them. However, I believe people should have that choice, and not face domestic restrictions if they don't want to have them. By all means try and persuade them, but the unvaccinated are hardly going to overwhelm the NHS now, so the only real justification for restricting them is just punitive - keep making their life miserable until they conform!

nk15

The unvaccinated are a danger, they keep the pandemic going and are breeding ground for new variants. They are also increasing the risk and severity of transmission to the vaccinated. They drive health care costs up for everybody and will easily clog the hospitals in every spike of Covid, affecting everyone's health care.

DaveS

Daily data:

Cases 39,656 (54,218 last Wednesday)
Deaths 164 (199)
Patients admitted 970 (1,107 the 12th)
Patients in hospital 11,083 (12,168 on the 15th)
Patients in ventilation beds 312 (354 on the 15th)
Vaccinated up to and including 22 February 2022:
First dose: 52,589,291
Second dose: 48,919,805
Booster: 38,082,560

The rolling seven day daily average for cases is now down 18.4% on the previous week and the same measure for deaths is down 13.4%. The rolling 7 day daily average for deaths is 134.4 today. The rolling average for daily cases is now below 40,000 for the first time since 18th November. The number of daily admissions has fallen below 1,000 for the first time since 18 December.

KARFA

Gosh. Sounds like we should exterminate them!

I am sure we all make life choices which may drive up health costs. Eating too much, drinking too much, smoking, doing dangerous sports etc. etc.

No, they really are not clogging up hospitals, nor is there much danger of them doing so.

Stop believing they are a threat to your life, they really are not. They are fellow human beings, and they have chosen not to have a vaccine so far. I don't agree with their choice, but neither do I think persecution of them is helpful to me, them, or anyone else.