Silver Fox

The psychological damage to some is going to be difficult to repair.

fransknorge

You seem to be clearly unaware this is already the case for several diseases, and it has been for years. It is normal. As I said, hundreds of influenza outbreaks create temporary and localized measures every single year (test and trace, isolation, restricted access to the outbreak location). I have not seen you or anybody complained about those and scream about governmental surveillance and abuse. Those are so efficient and localized that most people never knew it exists.

JNelson113

My understanding is that the best breeding grounds for new variants are highly immunocompromised people, not unvaccinated healthy people. Isn't that where Beta, Delta, and Omicron came from? Also, a healthy unvaccinated 20 year-old is much less likely to "clog up" the health care system than a boosted 85 year old. This is silly.

KARFA

In the uk people are isolated and there is restricted access to areas due to flu?

nk15

Anybody who gets the disease is a breeding ground, and the unvaccinated are more likely to get it and have longer and more symptomatic courses, which plays a role, I believe. You are also conflating age and vaccination status there, the argument is for the negative main effect of unvaccinated status regardless of other variables.

fransknorge

Can we expect to see a constructive and non insulting post one day ?

Yes, influenza affects mostly care homes so those can be closed during an outbreak with limitations of freedom for their patients.

Guidelines for PHE health protection teams on the management of outbreaks of influenza-like illness (ILI) in care homes
https://assets.publishing.service.go...05_11_2020.pdf

Just randomly, here are the rules for Manchester for influenza and invasis Streptococcus. Notice several includes closure of the facility, contact tracing



https://democracy.manchester.gov.uk/...20document.pdf

https://assets.publishing.service.go..._2015_2016.pdf

236 outbreaks in care homes. Not all were closed to visitor but some where. And likely all had testing, restricting movement of people inside, visitor restrictions.

KARFA

This is so radically different to what you are suggesting that it’s not even remotely comparable.

Nor should the standard be restrictions are fine because few complain about them as you suggested, especially when you cite examples where historically plenty of issues have occurred because the people in homes are really unable to complain.

corporate-wage-slave

Yes, at least in my Critical Care units, albeit typically 20-50 years olds. We've only got 3 people in at the moment (all unvaccinated) but when we had - a few weeks ago - 20, none of them were over 60 years old, when normally that's often the minimum age for critical care. I've made the point before that as soon as you put someone in a bay which has over £1 million of equipment tied down to it, there is a direct hit to the taxpayer of between £20,000 and £50,000 per new admission, even if they are only there a few hours. Sir Chris Whitty showed this slide up at the last Downing Street Briefing to get the point across, and to my mind we have spent several weeks under restrictions due to the selfish actions of around 4 million people. Thankfully we are at the stage where this less important, since there is no immediate danger of the healthcare system being overwhelmed.

fransknorge

This is not very different from what I propose: local and temporary extension of testing, trace and isolate. Nothing more. And this is effectively what is described as management for several other pathogens. And I notice you are focusing on one bullet point. What about the others ?

Silver Fox

Quite honestly, you wouldn't accept it if it walked up, slapped you around the face, and said "here I am" unless it fits in with your totalitarian state approach to life, and of course your narrative. So, yes, that post was exceptionally constructive and is borne out by any one of a number of studies into the mental health aspects of this.

Kgmm77

The desire to return or go backwards is an odd one, no? Surely a better position is to reflect on what worked and what didn’t and make society better, particularly where they are relatively low impact changes that can achieve better societal outcomes and protect the vulnerable better?

Undoubtedly true. But the dead can’t be brought back to life and some of the long COVID impacts (scarring on the lungs for example) cannot be undone.

What about the cost of 9m people on NHS waiting lists? That will impact society for multiple generations.

KARFA

And when did you stop beating your wife?

Yes when you come up with such a loaded question, how could anyone disagree? I mean I would have to be a monster to do so right?

You can’t possibly know all the consequences of what you propose, and it would be very naive to think that the only outcomes are positive.

Kgmm77

Not a loaded question at all. And yes, there are pros and cons to every decision, but we take those kind of balanced decisions in public and private life every day. There is a clear opportunity in the public enquiry to take a open-minded look at what worked, what didn’t, both in the U.K. and elsewhere (recognising the U.K. outcomes on the face of it compare very poorly to peer countries).

But here’s the rub, you appear to have already decided from an ideological position that almost zero mandatory restrictions should ever be put in place again without even being open to looking for the evidence.

KARFA

it’s clearly loaded since you only describe the results as leading to a better society. There is very little appreciation that restrictions do have costs both financial and otherwise. Also allowing governments perpetual powers should be balanced against impositions on freedoms.

not at all. when we get another pandemic of course I would think something may be needed. However I do not think on balance any of the current restrictions should be continued due to the rapidly diminishing threat of covid. I also do not think imposing mandatory restrictions to things like flu is appropriate.

Kgmm77

I think the aim should absolutely be to get societal improvement. As for the cost of restrictions, I’ve continually said that there are costs, I’m not sure where you’re getting the view that I haven’t? But there needs to be an attempt to try to measure them.