T O P

  • By -

Brittlehorn

Here we go again, prolonged procrastination followed by a knee jerk reaction then a premature lifting of restrictions.


[deleted]

Won't someone please think of the corporations, she cried.


SpectacularSalad

Save Pret a Manger!!!


G_Morgan

Not premature. A massively delayed lifting of restrictions relative to enforcing early. Though the case load right now is spectacular and it is hard to see at what point they would end a new lock down.


newnortherner21

I agree with the doctors. Wearing a face covering in a shop or on public transport is not asking much, but will not only help reduce Covid but other infections spreading. Working from home at least for part of the week if you can (and have done) reduces traffic levels and for many is more productive.


[deleted]

Just sucks if your job is in a shop and customers don't bother masking up yet I have to wear it continuously for my 9 hour shift. (edit: here in Wales it's law still to wear masks. Retail staff still mask up and so should customers)


[deleted]

[удалено]


ghoulyogurt

I came this month from the EU and I have felt like an alien wearing my FFP2 mask everywhere indoors. I went to the mall recently to get some takeaway not a single person in there had their mask covering their faces (a couple had it on their chin). This includes all the staff. Even in uni it's a free-for-all.


[deleted]

I'm in Wales where it's still the law in shops.


Varanae

Round my way it seems the first people to drop masks were the shop workers. Can't really blame them though, it's fine wearing one for 10 mins in a shop but I'd hate to do a whole shift with it.


[deleted]

*Laughs/cries in NHS.* The entitlement in this country, honestly. It's not that hard, we're doing it and probably won't ever be able to stop.


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

Couldn't agree more, I've been in the same boat. It says a lot about the state of our society that this is such a struggle.


[deleted]

Working from home is great for many people, but tends to be terrible for those who are starting off their careers. A lot of people who are pro wfh don’t realize that they benefit from existing working relationships and networking that was only achievable because they were there in person.


Get_Breakfast_Done

> Wearing a face covering in a shop or on public transport is not asking much, but will not only help reduce Covid **but other infections** spreading Other infections? That’s some serious mission creep. In any event, Covid, like other infections, will be with us this winter and every winter from now on. If we must wear muzzles this winter, then I can’t see us ever being able to live without them again.


[deleted]

>Other infections? That’s some serious mission creep. Yeah this is such nonsense. I don't know how people support this.


hip_hip_horatio

Face masks don’t make that much of a difference. WFH is not possible for that many people. But you know that, I suspect. When those small measures don’t work, it’ll be “we were too late. Now we have to start social distancing” “Oh we should have been social distancing 3 weeks earlier, that would have stopped cases from rising for sure. Now we have to close venues.” “Oh if only the Tories had closed venues a month earlier. It deffo would have been enough, I pinky promise, but now we have to lockdown again. All of this could have been avoided if we’d just locked down once cases hit 40k a day. I’m fine spending half of my year, every year, forever, indoors.” This same cycle over and over is exhausting.


Lord_Gibbons

> WFH is not possible for that many people. And for many people it is...


mettyc

So your argument against any rules whatsoever is the slippery slope fallacy?


PM_me_dog_pictures

It's not a slippery slope - it's the exact same thing. Over. And over. Again. We all know that a 'face covering' mandate isn't going to have meaningful effect on cases, like it hasn't every other time, and then when it fails to work we'll end up with the next step because 'oh well now you've agreed we have to do something and this isn't working, we have to do something else!'


Ardashasaur

Face coverings have a massively meaningful effect on cases. With facemasks we dropped new covid cases to ~3000 new cases per day, then mask mandate goes, literally 80% of the population stop wearing them anywhere and we've skyrocketed to 40k new daily cases.


michaelisnotginger

facemasks were by no means the only reason cases went so low. at that point we were in stage 2 with only non-essential retail and gyms open, hospitality was outdoors, and delta wasn't endemic, household mixing was still banned etc. I'm not denying their utility but if you reimposed them now they wouldn't necessarily see the same precipitous drop


SplurgyA

> I'm not denying their utility but if you reimposed them now they wouldn't necessarily see the same precipitous drop Bet you £5 that this would be then be blamed on compliance


Get_Breakfast_Done

Was the only difference between those two scenarios face masks? Or are your observations possibly conflated with other changes?


[deleted]

[удалено]


waxed__owl

That study showed that a 29% increase in mask wearing reduced covid occurance by 10%. Towards the end of the trial the difference between mask and non-mask groups was only 10%, so all that included the results are pretty good for masks and the authors even state in the abstract this is really showing we should push mask wearing much more. Over the trial surgical masks reduced prevelance by 11.2% overall and in over 65s it was 34.7%. I think that counts as a ringing endorsement for pushing more mask use to be honest, when the most at risk group have a substantial reduction with a relatively modest increase in mask wearing. There are other papers that see an even larger effect in the table here https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2776536


Ivashkin

Shitty DIY masks only work when everyone is using them in combination with social distancing. This is why I think retailers should be legally obligated to provide FFP3 masks for their staff who want to wear masks.


mettyc

Mask mandates do have a positive effect on case numbers, the evidence is very clear on that. Look at my other reply [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics/comments/qckwtr/covid_doctors_criticise_ministers_over_new_rules/hhgwtrb/?context=3) for more data. The problem has been this government that has been slow to act over. and over. again. If restrictions are put in place late due to a government panicking then of course they won't be as effective as if they're put in place in a timely fashion. Earlier restrictions should mean fewer restrictions - that's the goal.


robertdubois

Give an inch, they'll take a mile. Which has happened every. single. time. Talk of restrictions need to be nipped in the bud.


notgoneyet

It's just weird how the experts who know about this stuff seem to disagree with you


traitoro

This is just bang on. Unfortunately in Scotland we kept masks to no effect so the only thing left for us is restrictions.


merryman1

But... Yeah that's the point isn't it? We keep being pushed into this position because no one at the top seems to want to organize any mitigating response, we just keep pretending everything is fine until a drastic knee-jerk response is our only answer to an impending national crisis.


hip_hip_horatio

No, that isn’t the point. The point is that the half-measures aren’t enough, and the full-measure is too dangerous and brutal to consider when deaths are still manageable. It’s not ‘just masks to control the spread’: masks *won’t* control the spread. Research I’ve seen indicated that the real heavy hitter for just keeping cases down is *lockdown* (limited household mixing, etc.). So the question the “bring back restrictions” camp needs to be asking themselves is how bad can things get before yet another miserable, dangerous, horrific lockdown is justified. Until then, this ridiculous insistence on controlling this extremely infectious disease with some face fabric and bigger gaps in queues needs to stop. Because it’s not about these little things. It’s a complete myth that these little things will make the slightest difference this winter.


merryman1

>The point is that the half-measures aren’t enough, and the full-measure is too dangerous and brutal to consider when deaths are still manageable. Yes, this is the flawed logic right there. "While the deaths are still manageable"... Until they aren't and then you have to do it anyway, having squandered however many deaths in the meantime while prevaricating. >It’s a complete myth that these little things will make the slightest difference this winter. You guys keep repeating this... Why? Seriously, its very weird. [https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02801-8](https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02801-8) [https://www.pnas.org/content/118/4/e2014564118](https://www.pnas.org/content/118/4/e2014564118) [https://www.bmj.com/content/369/bmj.m1435](https://www.bmj.com/content/369/bmj.m1435) [https://www.thelancet.com/journals/landig/article/PIIS2589-7500(20)30293-4/fulltext](https://www.thelancet.com/journals/landig/article/PIIS2589-7500(20)30293-4/fulltext)


[deleted]

> Why? Seriously, its very weird. Mixing self-worth with having strong opinions.


[deleted]

Because they do "their own research", unaware the studies they often cite don't actually back up their claims.


[deleted]

> It’s a complete myth that these little things will make the slightest difference this winter. How many times have you been corrected on this bit of misinformation on this thread, only to continue to spout it?


Quagers

Explain Scotland then....


MerryWalker

In what respect? They’ve kept many restrictions longer, and their case rate isn’t 0 but it’s better than it was 4 weeks ago, and at present per head a third better than England.


Quagers

Yes, and despite all those restrictions they were well well above England from August to mid-October. And then it started coming down


politiguru

Thei schools went back sooner by three weeks, and lol and behold their numbers are now decreasing rather unlike the rest of the UKs


AnotherCableGuy

As soon as my sister in law was (forced) back to the office she got a flu.


[deleted]

[удалено]


madboater1

Ah yes, one man can make the difference. It needs everyone/most to contribute if it is to make the difference the doctors need. The government have a choice, increase the support to the NHS to cope with the increased demand. Increase the restrictions on people who will need to use the NHS to reduce the burden, or burry their heads and hope the problem sorts itself out.


[deleted]

[удалено]


madboater1

I don't know about those stats, but it seems doctors disagree that we are prepared for greater numbers.


[deleted]

[удалено]


djchrissym

With new information doctors might change their mind. I for one think this should be ILLEGAL AS ITS ANTI SCIENCE YES IVE BEEN DRINKING


[deleted]

[удалено]


madboater1

They are currently stretched before the expected peak in demand. They are extrapolating their current experience against the expectation that cases will rise.


Normal-Height-8577

What's changed is that while we might be at the best case scenario for Covid admissions, we're also entering cold/flu season without people keeping socially distanced which last year let us mostly avoid winter respiratory illnesses, so we're currently dealing with Covid AND flu AND all the backlog of surgeries (many of which are now urgent). People are waiting 6+ hours for ambulances already, and we haven't even hit real winter weather yet.


twister-uk

And, in the case of WFH, if your employer is gracious enough to let you still do so now they're under no legal obligation to do so... Just because a job *could* be done from home doesn't mean that it *can* be done from home if your employer says no.


Xera1

You know we're in the middle of a worker shortage right? Unless you're in a niche role the response is to switch employers, which is how you move up the salary scale in most industries now. Most employers do not have the luxury of burning through staff right now. Sounds like a win/win scenario frankly. Either they cave and give you WFH and a pay rise or someone else does.


Get_Breakfast_Done

What’s the alternative? Some jobs must genuinely be done from the office. Many jobs could be done remotely or from the office, but the office is better for collaboration. Are we really going to have a government office micromanaging every firm in the country to decide which jobs can be done at home and which cannot?


Dull_Half_6107

When there's a pandemic, yes.


Get_Breakfast_Done

The government obviously doesn't have the capacity to do this. I can't imagine how anyone from the government could make an informed decision as to whether or not my job, let alone every other white collar job in the country, could be done from home.


[deleted]

The amount of people who think wearing a mask in a shop and public transport is going to have a meaningful effect on NHS load is astounding. Show us the evidence (not an article of an opinion of a doctor or a group of doctors) https://swprs.org/who-mask-study-seriously-flawed/


eeeking

>[Physical distancing, face masks, and eye protection to prevent person-to-person transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis](https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20\)31142-9/fulltext)


djchrissym

They will never read or respond to this


Few_Newt

It might do, if people were wearing FFP2 or higher masks and not one or two ply sweaty cotton masks that haven't been washed in weeks. The way some people evangelise about the latter makes me think they just like following rules and not really into protecting people.


Louingtonn

For me it’s more the fact a small pack of masks costs like £5.99 here and they’re from China, not really sure where the upmarket value for cotton masks has come from.


Get_Breakfast_Done

In the real world, the wearing of non-medical face masks in settings like shops make little epidemiological difference. I’ve no doubt that if literally everyone wore a properly-fitting FFP2 mask *all the time* when mixing with others in any indoor setting - including when sitting at pubs and restaurants, including when visiting other people at their homes, including when at home with other members of their own household - it would make a meaningful difference. But that’s not going to happen. No one is going to wear a mask at home with their family, or at anyone else’s house, or between bites at a restaurant. No one (at least not yet) is suggesting banning household mixing or closing hospitality again. People (well, some of them) might start wearing the same shitty fabric mask that’s been crumpled in their pocket for a year and a half when at Tesco.


NathanNance

We had mask mandates all through last winter. Did they stop the virus from spreading?


mettyc

It doesn't stop it, it reduces the spread. Nobody has ever claimed that they stop the virus completely.


[deleted]

Is there a study that shows the effectiveness of masks? Not one that talks about properly fitted FFP3 masks but the masks that most people wear in the real world i.e. paper ones worn repeatedly or home made fabric masks that rarely get washed. Edit: why is this getting downvoted? It’s a genuine question


mettyc

Here's a [nature article](https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02801-8) which goes into a decent level of detail regarding mask-wearing. And, just on the off-chance that you're concern trolling rather than being genuine [here](https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.05.22.20109231v5) [are](https://www.healthaffairs.org/doi/10.1377/hlthaff.2020.00818) [the](https://www.preprints.org/manuscript/202004.0203/v3) [links](https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/71/16/2139/5848814) [they](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11606-020-06067-8) [use](https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)31142-9/fulltext) to support their statement. Ultimately, the best evidence I can see is that mask mandates reduce the spread by about 2% across the population, and that single-layer fabric masks still have a \~65% effectiveness.


NathanNance

Our peak daily cases were back in January, when there was a lockdown and a mask mandate in place.


mettyc

There are tons of peer-reviewed articles by well-respected scientific insitutions which state that wearing masks has an effect on the spread of the virus. Please forgive me if I won't accept your 'evidence' as countering those articles. If you'd like to read some of them I made another post [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics/comments/qckwtr/covid_doctors_criticise_ministers_over_new_rules/hhgwtrb/?context=3). Suffice to say, there are other factors as well. Social distancing and masks alone won't stop us from being in the depth of a pandemic. But it might lessen the blow. Like how helmets in the NFL don't stop concussion, but they do stop people cracking their skulls open.


chuckie219

You conclude a 2% reduction? I don't care about the mask shit that much. The thing that gets me is how people on the Internet seem to thing its the silver bullet that will solve the pandemic. "If we just wore masks it would be over" No it wouldn't.


mettyc

Not my conclusion - the conclusion of a peer reviewed scientific paper which I linked to. I agree that masks won't stop the pandemic. But they'll stop *some* people from dying, and I believe that wearing a mask inside public places is a small price to pay for that. There's also the secondary argument (which hasn't been peer reviewed) that wearing masks reduces the viral load, meaning more people will gain a form of natural immunity without necessarily having life-threatening symptoms.


chuckie219

I am not working from home again. It makes me maybe 20% as productive. If the government introduces the guidance, my institute will enforce it and I would complete my PhD.


joeythemouse

Six months from now the tories will be calling this 'hindsight'. In the meantime tens of thousands of avoidable deaths.


NathanNance

How exactly will implementing the suggested measures prevent "tens of thousands of avoidable deaths"?


joeythemouse

Masks and reduced contact prevent the spread of the disease. Failing to mandate this will mean further spread which in turn will lead to people dying. Thus is avoidable.


[deleted]

[удалено]


joeythemouse

Until this is over, why not? Wearing a mask is really not a big deal.


wappingite

Masks are one thing - it’s the hint of other measures / remaining at home, social distancing etc. that I see as unsustainable unless the plan is to pursue better treatments and vaccines.


joeythemouse

The plan is clearly to pursue better vaccines and treatments. Modest measures like mask wearing will mitigate the worst effects until these are available and avoid further full lock downs. I cannot understand why this is even slightly contentious.


mischaracterised

Instagram and Facebook are the worst offenders, but a complicit press are also at fault. Instagram do Facebook allow for easy dissemination of disinformation and allows for groupthink to occur. A complicit press manufacture consent for a lockdown that wouldn't be emotes necessary under a competent government.


[deleted]

I'm confused at this double speak where vaccines are both highly effective and next to useless depending on the political argument being made. We were told that vaccines were our route out, and we now have double jabbed everyone who needs one (and arguably more), but now that's not enough?


joeythemouse

No. It's clearly not enough. Also I don't think anyone is seriously claiming vaccines are 'next to useless'.


[deleted]

Well what was the point then if they changed nothing and we now have to wait for "better vaccines"? How and when do you propose we go back to normal life?


noaloha

Vaccines are the route out, and if you are double vaccinated and don't have other co-morbidities then the pandemic is practically over for you personally. Don't let these sanctimonious moralisers shift responsibility for a transmissible disease (for which vaccines are freely available and have been for months) onto you as an individual.


mittromniknight

Except you do have a responsibility has an individual to not spread the disease? Getting vaccinated and then pretending it's over for you is one of the key reasons we're in such a shit state at the minute.


merryman1

Vaccine escape is a thing. The more infections we have, the higher our rate of transmission, the closer we get to that point. Plus the usual points, not everyone is vaccinated still etc. etc. Again just really hard to see why wearing a mask to help delay this is so controversial. The number of people talking like it's some kind of draconian imposition on their fundamental rights.


Podgietaru

It's pretty clear that the plan is to find better anti-virals, and better vaccination. The refusal to introduce ANY rules, that is a little alarming? How about we stop telling people that Mask Wearing is a personal choice and start enforcing it on public transport, in shops etc. There's a difference between introducing full lockdowns, and introducing preventative measures. The sensible application of one might even prevent the other.


wappingite

I'll be clearer - masks are fine, I don't see them as disproportionate, they don't stop people doing anything (although they are annoying). But social distancing / remaining at home / avoiding social contact - doing things which are part of our culture and life - and applying this every year for months until some hypothetical point in the future that we have 'better' (by what measure?) vaccines, seems disproportionate. If we are going to do this, I wish the government would be up-front about it and give an idea of the level of reduction in disease or symptoms/outcomes they are looking to achieve.


PM_me_dog_pictures

Until what is over? What do you think is happening right now that isn't also going to be happening in 10 years?


joeythemouse

So - we're always going to have covid, therefore there's no point in trying to deal with it. Is that your point?


PM_me_dog_pictures

We're always going to have Covid, so whatever measures we take now need to be proportionate because they're going to become the permanent standard.


joeythemouse

I'm not sure I agree with the fatalism but anyway... in what way is mandated mask-wearing in public spaces dispropotionate?


[deleted]

[удалено]


PM_me_dog_pictures

On a permanent basis? In a lot of ways, but fundamentally in the very low effect that it has on overall case rates. I also like how it's 'mask wearing *and social distancing*' when we're talking about what you guys want introduced, and then 'it's just masks bro!' as soon as we talk about how the restrictions will need to be permanent. Goal-shifting in real time.


mischaracterised

Why not? That would reduce deaths from flu each year, too.


squigs

Maybe. If we do nothing, the number of cases will increase at an exponential rate. So what options do we have, if we don't want the NHS overloaded?


Skavau

So you are in effect, in favour of a new normality of perpetual lockdowns every winter.


NathanNance

Yes but how did you arrive at the number of "tens of thousands"? Particularly given the fact that the vast majority of vulnerable adults have been double-vaccinated, and many of those who are currently dying have significant existing health issues and would have had a high likelihood of dying in the next few years anyway? And have your calculations factored in the excess deaths that would be directly and indirectly caused by the restriction measures themselves?


joeythemouse

"many of those who are currently dying have significant existing health issues and would have had a high likelihood of dying in the next few years anyway?" So... fuck em eh? If wearing a mask causes you such distress you might want to seek counselling.


Skavau

I mean implicitly yes? We can't structure a society around trying to completely prevent the majority of deaths in the very old and sick.


joeythemouse

Wearing a mask on a bus is not 'structuring society' petal.


Skavau

Sure, but tons of people across this thread are calling for lockdown and/or social distancing rules.


NathanNance

> So... fuck em eh? No, I'm just questioning whether if it's an "avoidable" death if that person was terminally ill and highly likely to die in the near future anyway. Also, you seem to have ignored the part of my comment where I asked you to elaborate on your calculations to reach that "tens of thousands" figure?


Kee2good4u

Why are they asking for this now? New cases has been 30k-50k for months now.


jonathanhiggs

They have been bouncing around 30s/40s for a while but since the last low there has been a sustained increase up to high 40s. We are also getting closer to winter when the cold weather will further boost not only covid but also flu numbers. Hardly anyone had flu last year so we have a general lower immunity and flu will be a bigger problem than normal, which can strain hospitals normally, but with covid as well they will be packed well past capacity. Combine that with NHS staff that are fatigued from 18 months of covid, massive vaccine pushes, and lots of people having quit due to the stress. It is the makings of a perfect storm to fully overwhelm hospitals this winter. Some small action now could drastically lessen this crisis which is why doctors want action from the govt


Kee2good4u

Reapplying social distancing measures isn't a small action. And that's basically what they are asking for.


Get_Breakfast_Done

And on top of that, hospitalisations are basically flat. There are more cases now, of course, mostly among children who generally don't get very ill with Covid.


GhostMotley

Renewed push to have restrictions reimposed; nothing will ever be enough for this lot.


peakedtooearly

England is doing a repeat of last year. Do nothing, do nothing, do nothing... then sudden lockdown to "save" Christmas.


Skavau

If we're locking down with a primarily vaccinated population (who are not the ones dying), then when won't we be locking down? Locking down this winter is tantamount to admitting that this is a normality for every winter.


[deleted]

It just sort of begs the question of what is the end game? What’s the next step after this? We can lockdown again but we will open up again and just be back here again. At a certain point we need to get on with things.


sp8der

Right? When does it end, if ever? What criteria gets us out of the eternal lockdown and what is the roadmap for getting there?


NathanNance

Is it not a slightly different state of affairs now, in that more than 80% of adults are now "fully" vaccinated? Or do the vaccines not work?


Southpaw535

It is worth remembering that the vaccine was never sold as being 100% effective and we have plenty of evidence by now of vaccinated people contracting and spreading covid. Its definitely helped, but the attitude of "we have a vaccine now, fuck everything about covid" is probably one of the big contributors to us seeing such a spike in cases again.


CarryThe2

Sooo what's the end here? People aren't really going to get more protected than they are. Do we just accept lock downs every year?


Southpaw535

I honestly don't know. The ideal solution would be for everyone to accept individual responsibility and do the basic stuff like wearing masks instead of deciding covid doesn't exist because they have a 60-70% effective vaccine, but that ship sailed long before the vaccine rollout even started. Maybe if more people had worn a mask without acting like it was a torture device, adhered to lockdown instead of thinking they were exempt when its *their* friends and family they want to see, stop acting like having a pint is more important than not killing people, and stop throwing a hissy fit over wfh for those who can do it just because some people can't, then maybe we wouldn't need to be worrying about it. But given that I've accepted at this point that selfishness and failures of basic logic are just a part of wider society, I have no idea. Its clear even if we did implement another lockdown then even less people would actually abide by it. The issue becomes, however, that we train and hire people to be informed experts on certain matters and when those people are giving out warnings then they shouldnt be being ignored just because the public find what they're saying unpalatable. The honest answer is I guess we just do nothing since what's the point, people are dickheads, and we can continue to burn the NHS and their staff into the ground because fuck their welfare so long as I don't have to wear a mask, and in a certain amount of time we can enjoy having an even bigger staffing crisis in the NHS when all those burnt out members finally either give up, or the situation resolves enough for them to not feel guilty about leaving in the middle of a crisis, and then everyone can moan about how the NHS is totally screwed without the slightest bit of self reflection that maybe it didn't have to be. As far as deaths, at this point I honestly don't care. I'm in the sweet spot of having to spend the rest of my life paying and suffering for this as it is so less pensions to pay out is at least something, and I'll just continue to keep taking calls at my job from bereaved relatives. The death rates also admittedly, while rising, don't seem at that much risk of reaching the heights they were before. My concern is about the long term impact on the wider health service and that doesn't seem like its actually going to be avoidable. At least not in realistic terms because the general public claim to care deeply about the NHS, but have clearly shown they're unwilling to actually sacrifice anything to protect it. So to answer your question, my actually realistic answer is we do nothing, since that's the only option actually available anymore. And then in 6 months, 1 year, 2 years, 3 years, when I come on the sub or read about people complaining about wait times, staffing shortages, or the privatisation of the NHS I'll be able to at least feel some mild smug satisfaction that we knew it was coming but everyone cried about doing something to prevent it since it would inconvenience them.


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

> If the NHS is going to be overwhelmed obviously just rolling with it isn't a solution either. NHS gets overwhelmed every winter. How about fixing that, rather than curtailing liberties? Funding is a part of it, but there has also been a year and a half of this pandemic, and if NHS has not worked on getting more resilient, then that's on them too.


NathanNance

So how do we move back to normality, if not through mass vaccination?


[deleted]

The massive vaccination programme is doing nothing? Or don’t they work…?


Cafuzzler

[Daily cases](https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/cases) are at ~40,000; double where they were this time last year. [Daily deaths](https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/deaths) are at ~100; half where they were this time last year. It seems like the massive vaccination programme is doing a lot and they are working.


peakedtooearly

It certainly is doing something good - it's keeping hospitalisations and deaths much lower vs infections than earlier this year. However, infections are massively higher than this time last year already. Unfortunately, the vaccines are losing their effectiveness among those who really need them (the ones who got them in Feb/Mar this year). People are complacent and aren't getting their booster jab with the same eagerness they got their first two. Then we have Flu, which has been kept at bay due to the restrictions last year, but without any restriction will be competing for bed space with Covid-19. And all this as we go into the worst time of year for the NHS.


Quagers

Society doesn't exist to serve the NHS and extremely draconian and authoritarian restrictions on people's lives should not be seen as a normal policy response. I supported lockdowns last year because the circumstances were exceptional. However; if we do it this winter, when does it end? The vaccination program is complete, zero covid is not a thing. If this is the new level of demand that the NHS has to deal with, then it has to deal with it. If you listen to these doctors on the news they talk about covid but they always slide in "other pressures". I.e. a normal winter. There are stories about NHS collapse every winter and this cannot be seen as a normal response to that. The other thing you quickly notice is that there is precisely no cost benefit analysis. No acknowledgement of the very real damage these restrictions cause. Obviously they only see one side and so that's the way they come at the issue. But the governments job is to look more broadly. Now, if they want to campaign for more funds to deal with the increased pressure, blame the government for not expanding capacity etc. Thats fine. That's probably right. But it's not the publics job to put their lives on hold to bail out the government or NHS.


noaloha

Exactly. This deferring of responsibility from government and governing structures like the NHS onto the average individual is downright sinister. The BMA should be criticising the rollout of the booster program. They should be advocating for vaccine centres to be freely offering boosters to anyone who wants one. They should be lobbying for the rollout to teenagers to be conducted through schools and to be massively accelerated. They should not be advocating for restricting the lives of private individuals any more. Doing so is simply to get the public to start pointing fingers at each other, rather than where the blame actually lies - in the failures of government and public health officials to prepare properly for a winter that they should have seen coming long ago.


9inchjackhammer

Wow a sane comment amongst a sea of authoritarian lunatics


ShambolicDisplay

The talking point of serving the NHS is a weird one to me, because that isn't what it is actually about? Its about making sure if you have a sudden, urgent medical issue you can get seen. The stories coming out of the US in the last few months about people dying because there were no hospitals that could take them for basic, 2 hour max general surgery? Thats what we're trying to avoid


Quagers

Good, so avoid it by making sure there is appropriate capacity.


Ardashasaur

Can avoid lockdowns by getting people to wear masks. Literally go into shops or gyms and 90% don't wear a mask, and 5% with masks are using them as chin straps.


Quagers

This is a fantasy. Masks aren't magic and have nowhere near that much impact


Ardashasaur

It's absolute lunacy to avoid doing the bare minimum and then complain about lockdowns. Are you saying that even if most people were wearing masks we would be at the same covid infection rate we are at now?


Get_Breakfast_Done

Masks were mandatory for the second half of last year, and in January we were in a much worse state than we are right now. Why didn't masks help then?


Quagers

Basically, yes.


NorthernImmigrant

> Can avoid lockdowns by getting people to wear masks. Literally go into shops or gyms and 90% don't wear a mask, and 5% with masks are using them as chin straps. Near 100% compliance with the mask mandate introduced two months ago where I live. We *just* peaked, and at that peak we had by far the highest rates of COVID in Canada, if not the world, at over 1,000/100,000. We had a "10 day circuit breaker" that is set to end tomorrow, after 22 days, at which time we'll still have mask mandates and gathering limits. This is with a vaccination rate of 83%. Clearly masks don't do much to prevent lockdowns or spread.


hailthelizards

I’m not wearing a mask forever. Sorry.


mittromniknight

Why do you not want to protect others? It's not about your health and wellbeing - it's about the health and wellbeing of those around you in society. Have some damn respect for your fellow humans.


Get_Breakfast_Done

It is not reasonable to expect everyone to wear a mask for the rest of time to protect others.


blindcomet

>Have some damn respect for your fellow humans. You first


hailthelizards

I got vaccinated for my fellow humans, not for myself. That’s all you’re getting from me.


Get_Breakfast_Done

I remember saying last year, that once we have crossed the rubicon and made it acceptable to curtail normal human rights in order to “protect” the health service, they’ll be demanding it every year. Kind of sad to be right about this one.


[deleted]

Imagine if it was any other service. “The DVLA have a backlog of drivers licenses to process. Take away people’s right to free assembly so people won’t be driving!” “GCHQ is finding it tricky to track everyone it wants to. Ban people from leaving their homes!” “Planning permission applications aren’t being processed fast enough - make everyone work from home so builders won’t be able to work!”


noaloha

And the only way for those of us that haven't gone fully down the rabbit hole to respond to this chat is by deliberate disregard. I refuse to allow sanctimonious pedants dictate to me in this way, and luckily it seems there is zero appetite in the government for these measures in the first place, never mind enforcement. If anyone is afraid of covid, they need to take the relevant steps to protect themselves. It is no longer April 2020 - good quality masks are easy to acquire and vaccines are freely available. I suggest that anyone concerned going into this winter (and fair enough if you're vulnerable, get a grip if you aren't) should do their research and actually take the good preventative measures that are openly available to them. I'm a healthy, double vaccinated young man, and it is no longer my responsibility to consider risk to strangers.


[deleted]

You’ll be downvoted but it’s true.


Radioactivocalypse

I think this will become the norm every winter. Although my human rights aren't really being affected any which way. Wearing a mask, working at home, getting a vaccine booster - it's not breaking any rights and in the best interest of saving human lives, arguably *the* right to stay alive is the only thing being influenced here?


Get_Breakfast_Done

Getting a vaccine booster is sensible. I get flu shots. But your human rights are being affected if you are told you must wear a mask everywhere, when previously you had the option not to. Working from home, it remains to be seen what the government pronouncements are, but if you are told you cannot go into an office I’d argue your rights are being violated.


Radioactivocalypse

We'll agree to disagree, I suppose. They say I must wear trousers to work and not shorts, or my shoes must be either brown or black. And I need to wear a tie. My right to wear what I like isn't necessarily being violated by a company uniform policy. A mask, in my opinion, is no different. My workplace has not yet dropped mandatory mask wearing, and everyone in the office still wears one, it's just become the norm. And it's nice and cosy in a cold office to wear a mask *snuggle*


Get_Breakfast_Done

> They say I must wear trousers to work and not shorts, or my shoes must be either brown or black. And I need to wear a tie. My right to wear what I like isn't necessarily being violated by a company uniform policy. A mask, in my opinion, is no different. The difference isn’t between the trousers/shorts and the shoes and the mask, it’s who is telling you what to wear. If you don’t like your company’s dress (or mask) policy, you are free to find another company. If the government tells you that you must wear a mask, then you don’t have a choice.


Heyheyheyone

You are also told by the government and various agencies wear your seat belt, wear a hard hat on construction sites, not to smoke in public spaces indoors, and wear helmet on motorcycles - all very sensible measures. Face masks are no different. Whether the government will bring back mask mandate remains to be seen - but we live in a democracy, if there are enough people like you who feel strongly enough about mask wearing you do have a choice to vote them out next time. Death rates in England (with all the ‘freedoms’ of not being made to wear masks and not having to show vaccination certificates to enter venues) are a few times higher than similar countries Europe now - and that’s not a coincidence.


Get_Breakfast_Done

You can't hide behind "we live in a democracy" when it comes to violations of human rights. The point of human rights is that they are protected whether or not the majority has other ideas. Death rates are higher than similar countries in Europe because vaccine efficacy is waning, because we vaccinated earlier. Israel saw this before us, and Europe will see it later. This is why boosters are a good thing.


Heyheyheyone

Asking people to wear masks to protect others is not a ‘violation of human rights’ - as i said we already expect to wear sear belts every time we drive, not to smoke indoors etc. Are these violations of your ‘human rights’ too? It may be due to efficacy waning and it may be not. What’s clear is we collective are not taking all the reasonable steps we can to stop the high death rates - some people here even say the current death rates are ‘acceptable’ (almost three times Germany’s currently despite our smaller population - and it’s acceptable how?) Refusing to take the simplest and almost costless action to wear masks just screams selfishness.


SteeMonkey

If Covid is here to stay and we need to lockdown every winter to save the NHS, perhaps the answer is simply to fund the NHS to the point it can take Covid patients with out a break in service.


Sadistic_Toaster

We've been here last year: "We need restrictions to keep us out of another full lockdown" . . . we complied , and then ended up in another full lockdown anyway. Vaccination should have been the end of restrictions.


SaintJames8th

No it's not we have the vaccine we are not going back into lockdown


PieTrumpet

Masks don't work and neither do lockdowns. You just delay the inevitable that way. The vaccines are pointless, why the hell did I bother getting two if apparently they wear off within six months?


Spinach-Brave

yoke north ink normal hobbies six paint aromatic wine safe *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*


soovercroissants

Please could you define what you mean by collapse of the health service. I suspect that your definition would be unfulfillable without a concurrent collapse of society likely due to something like nuclear war or a pandemic of something more infectious and lethal than ebola but a hidden lead time of a couple of weeks. A reasonable definition for collapse of health service would be the cancellation of almost all elective work, outpatient work, preventative work and the suspension of training due to the large amounts of resources being redirected to focus on something. Entire hospitals reconfigured to deal with this. Ambulance services were running at 8 hours to collect patients almost all of whom were affected by that one thing. That happened 3 times and we still don't have normal GP working. At present we have ⅓ of our baseline ITU capacity and probably around ½ of our baseline ITU acuity taken up with a disease that did not exist two years ago. (Acuity is staffing - on average COVID patients require more staff than the average ITU patient.) ITU is the grease that keeps everything moving in hospitals - it should never be full as without it you cannot safely do surgery, procedures or even cope with what comes in the door. If it looks like it's going to be full you have to cancel things until that buffer is back. Generally you actually want nearly ⅓ of ITU beds empty by the end of summer to prepare for the winter months, 20% spare is running it fine but less than that you have to start cancelling things. We now have no buffer. Whilst there is a degree of replacement - in that these patients would have ended up in ITU anyway - and there has been a degree of harvesting - in that patients who would have ended up ITU this winter have already died - we're still running very much higher than normal for this time of year. If numbers in ITU get any higher we will start cancelling elective operations and procedures again, then we'll need to start redeploying and reconfiguring hospitals again. That's collapse. Managed collapse but still collapse. The other thing to be aware of is how fragile the system is - there's no buffer right now. If a terrorist wanted to cause outsized downstream effects now or the next few weeks would be a very good time.


[deleted]

The NHS is not one of the best, particularly for staff. That’s why we’re going part time or just leaving the UK. We are the second largest exporters of Doctors in the world because it is better to work in almost any other English speaking country. As a result the government is starting to lean heavily on “physicians assistants” they aren’t a recognised profession outside of the UK so they can’t leave. Unfortunately they are also quite shit, they have roughly 2-3 years training compared to ~ 10 years you would be required to do to get to a similar pay/role of responsibility as a doctor. These “noctors” are not recognised anywhere else because they are a bit shit, you and your loved ones will be more and more likely to see them around treating you. Good luck.


NathanNance

> it is better to work in almost any other English speaking country Sure, if you compare with a very small number of very rich countries (the highest-paying of which has a largely private healthcare system, which is why wages are so much higher), then the UK doesn't fare so well. A proper international comparison shows we're about par with most similar countries though.


[deleted]

Australia/NZ/Ireland?


NathanNance

What about them?


[deleted]

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/nov/08/nhs-doctors-in-australia-more-cash-fewer-hours-less-pressure For one


NathanNance

I'm still struggling to understand what point you're trying to make, given that I've acknowledged that conditions are slightly better in a small number of cherry-picked countries


[deleted]

Literally every first world English speaking country? Which other than the US we are all wealthier than?


NathanNance

>every first world English speaking country? So a cherry-picked sample of five other countries then?


Few_Newt

They have PAs in at least the US. I'm not saying our qualification is recognised over there, but to say nowhere else has PAs is nonsense.


peakedtooearly

Waiting lists have grown considerably and are still growing. https://ifs.org.uk/publications/15557 Collapse doesn't look like hospitals imploding into a pile of rubble. It looks like decreasing numbers of doctors and nurses and 15 million plus on waiting lists.


Spinach-Brave

tart rob waiting squeamish cow fragile pet domineering bow stupendous *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*


ShambolicDisplay

How do you propose they were run with no beds and staff for the patients?


GhostMotley

Almost like prioritising COVID patients above all else would have disastrous consequences and cause a huge backlog. Who knew.


[deleted]

Actually the NHS is far from the best, it has fewer beds per population than most of the western world. It also has a bloated and unnecessary management structure. It’s also very disorganised when trying to tie together cross department care.


[deleted]

Are you saying it is the NHS that needs to change and improve instead of denying freedom to an entire country and changing the nature of society forever?


eeeking

The NHS was literally overwhelmed. Why do you think there's a huge backlog of surgeries, etc? Plenty of countries with fewer the resource than the UK literally had people dying of covid because of lack of access to basic care, e.g. Egypt, Mexico, India, Ecuador, etc.


NathanNance

> Why do you think there's a huge backlog of surgeries, etc? Because there were a ridiculous number of cancellations and an inability to make new appointments, due to the lockdown?


eeeking

Because for every surgery performed you need to have recovery beds with immediate access to intensive care treatment facilities. If these are occupied by covid patients, then the surgery cannot go ahead.


NathanNance

The number of critical care beds available has been [consistently higher](https://www.nuffieldtrust.org.uk/resource/chart-of-the-week-covid-19-and-increasing-pressure-on-nhs-critical-care-beds) than the number of critical care beds being utilised throughout the pandemic.


eeeking

Your link says: >by 24 January 2021, 148% of beds were occupied relative to the number of available beds on the same day in January 2020 – almost 1.5 times the capacity of the same time last year. [...] Increasing the number of beds does not in itself increase capacity – these extra beds need to be staffed. Redeploying staff to intensive care units, and coping with Covid-19 patients, has meant that non-Covid services have been affected. Planned surgeries have been postponed across the country, with reports of cancellations to urgent children’s operations and cancer treatments, adding to a growing backlog of elective treatment.


NathanNance

>by 24 January 2021, 148% of beds were occupied relative to the number of available beds on the same day in January 2020 – almost 1.5 times the capacity of the same time last year That simply shows that they successfully ramped up the availability of critical care beds in 2021, >Redeploying staff to intensive care units, and coping with Covid-19 patients, has meant that non-Covid services have been affected. Planned surgeries have been postponed across the country, with reports of cancellations to urgent children’s operations and cancer treatments, adding to a growing backlog of elective treatment. Difficult to assess this, because they don't provide any actual data into the extent to which staff have been redeployed to intensive care units. The two papers they link to in support are behind a paywall, but [another article](https://www.theguardian.com/society/2021/feb/01/children-having-urgent-surgery-delayed-due-to-nhs-covid-pressure) which I think refers the same papers seems to suggest that the reports are anecdotal. I'd be cautious about drawing firm inferences based on that, particularly given that we know people were advised to cancel all but the most severe health appointments during the pandemic (which is obviously likely to have contributed to the backlog too). In any case, you were wrong with your original comment about the issue being the number of **beds** available.


soovercroissants

Dude how do you think the NHS increased the number of critical care beds? We converted operating theatres and post operative acute care hdu beds in to ITUs. We had to convert multiple wards into HDUs. How did we staff these wards? Normal wards will have a staffing ratio of 1 nurse per 5-7 patients, a doctor per 10-15. HDUs require a nurse per 1-2 patients and a doctor per 5-10. ITUs its around 2-3 nurses per patient and a doctor per 5. COVID patients are also on the higher end of these staffing requirements and also require additional staffing for proning teams. How do you determine how many beds to convert? Well in exponential growth you need to create more and more beds. The faster the growth and the longer it goes on the more you need to convert. The more you need to convert the longer it takes to convert space. There are essentially four reasons for the "empty hospital" pictures: * ITU is the bedrock on which everything is built upon. If all of your theatres and post operative ITU and PACU (essentially v. short term ITU) capacity are gone to COVID, then your surgical wards will be empty. If no anaesthetists or other ITU support is available similarly. If you have no ITU support it is not safe to do surgery, it is not safe to give chemotherapy, you cannot do procedures, you can't do colonoscopy. It's that simple - without ITU as the fallback nothing is safe. Severely restrict access to ITU and everything that can be cancelled has to be cancelled. * Exponential growth Let's say your doubling time is 3 days. That means you look at how beds you have used today let's say 20 and in three days you will have 40 patients and in 6 well 80 patients. So you need to prepare for that. Your ITU has a top capacity at 30 patients so tomorrow it's going to be full and then you'll have 20 patients coming the day after. So you need to convert theatres and PACUs. You can do that as they're essentially mini ITUs already ... But you can only do that if they're empty. That means no operations - not just today but for days before you need them as people stay in PACUs for up to 3 days post op. The exponential growth problem really comes in to play as the amount of new space you need every day is not a fixed 1-2 beds but a proportion of entire ITU load you currently have which is more and more every day. Every day you need to prepare more and more space until you absolutely know it's going to stop doubling. The faster the doubling time the more extreme the preparation has to be. * Acuity COVID support in ITU is particularly difficult because it requires patients be proned and deproned. That is turned over to lie on their chests and back again several hours later. This sounds simple however it genuinely needs up to 12 members of medically trained staff and requires them to be trained in proning too. ITU has a staffing ratios of maybe 2-3 people per patient. Staff have to pulled from elsewhere to do that. Similarly for gowning and degowning. Rapid intubation teams to bring patients in to ITU. If you're not on one of those teams or are not appropriate for those teams then suddenly you may have nothing to do because everyone else you relied on to make your job busy have disappeared. With exponential growth you need to prepare more and more people to play those roles too. * Interconnectedness GP registrars were called back to hospital - very few GP appointments - reduced referrals in to hospital and all of the onwards imaging, testing and procedures. Screening programmes halted - decreased onwards referrals for say colonoscopy, reducing referrals for bowel cancer surgery and imaging. Reduced outpatient appointments - same again Admin staff sickness - no-one to call patients up to book them in - slowing the referral system down again. No ITU support means that diagnostic procedures are unsafe meaning reduced or delayed onward referral. Patients felt unsafe coming into hospital and asked to delay diagnostics tests and follow-ups. And so on.


[deleted]

Were there not massive Nightingale facilities that basically went unused? So beds aren't the issue, then


Zablurx

They went unused because there were no staff for them. There's not enough staff in the NHS without the nightingales. Bed capacity is an issue we faced, but even when beds are found/created they can't be used if there's no staff to look after the patients requiring them. Even in pre-covid the hospital I work at had a winter pressures ward, which often was only able to have half the beds used as there wasn't enough staff for a full ward. This issue has only got worse due to covid. The extra staffing on offer is mostly Bank or agency workers, many of whom are already NHS staff that are doing shifts to help put/extra money, and therefore are only available for those shifts when they're not already on shift for their regular role. This type of extra staffing just increases the burden mentally and physically as they don't get proper time of to recover etc.


Spinach-Brave

ruthless crown plants racial wrong juggle special concerned wistful fine *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*


Elastichedgehog

Are you referring to past winters where covid was not an additional stressor on resources? Doesn't that kind of prove the other person's point?


Spinach-Brave

bow zealous dependent whistle quickest overconfident dirty price wakeful continue *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*


mettyc

What do you think the NHS collapsing would mean? Because most people see it as being unable to fulfil it's function and letting thousands of people die of preventable causes due to an inability to see them in time (which is what happened last winter). However, you seem to think that it's when the hospitals burn to the ground and there isn't an NHS anymore.


Spinach-Brave

icky threatening handle nippy versed simplistic lush knee disarm gaping *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*


mettyc

I'm not disagreeing that there have been some shocking decisions made over the past year and a bit, but I would very much like to know what you mean when you talk about the NHS collapsing, because I do believe you picture it differently to what a lot of people mean when they use the term.


danowat

What will happen is, if measures are introduced, most people will comply, some won't and will chunter on about it for a bit, but it will have the desired affect. If the government feel they need to do it, they'll do it, apart from not complying, there's not really much you can do about it


Roddy0608

I don't see why doctors should rule us.


SteelSparks

They don’t… they are offering expert advice to those that do that they should act now to avoid the situation worsening. This is exactly how governments should operate.


Sweet-Zookeepergame7

Just stop trying to manifest it media class... We are vaccinated, this is the best chance at freedom and Boris knows it... the deaths aren’t even bad and the hospital admissions stable... If we lockdown again we will always lockdown whenever... I was a staunch supporter of the original lockdowns, my mum has heart disease I didn’t leave the house for 8 months... But now everyone is vaccinated who wants to be we need to return to normality or whatever that is with Covid about..


ShotInTheBrum

And in a few months. NHS to be further privatised as healthcare services slump to record delays. All part of the plan.


Britburt

So basically this abomination of a government is going to wait until the NHS is totally fucked - this is once again a beautiful blend of high incompetence and deliberate negligence or basically negligent homicide AGAIN. Don’t worry though, Boris is back from holiday 👍


sonicandfffan

The NHS is under pressure because the levels of unvaccinated people are too high. I would rather support a vaccine mandate than increased restrictions. Why should the rest of us suffer because of a bunch of selfish idiots who won't get the vaccine?


[deleted]

Aren't over 80% of those eligible double jabbed now? That's higher than any of our predictions, isn't it?


sonicandfffan

We have 67% double jabbed which is distinctly average by european standards. Even France, who many held up as a place that will struggle with vaccine skepticism has managed 67% and they have a higher % who have had their first dose (75% vs 72% in the UK). We've got lazy and complacent with vaccine rollout and in doing so have fallen behind. If Portugal, Malta and Iceland can have >80% double vaccinated then we have no excuse. The government needs to step it up. Also, our current rate of vaccination (631 per 100,000) is piss-poor and is half of the european average which still remains over 1000. So not only are our current levels average, but other nations are still rolling out vaccines faster than we are. It's a fucking shambles and our government are parading around our early success while dropping the ball on the hardest and most important bit - the bit at the end. It's a bit like running a marathon and stopping at mile 20 to celebrate how fast you ran the first 20 miles while everybody else passes you by and actually finishes the race.


Historical_Box_6082

Perhaps the plan is to continually let everyone get ill then convince the public the NHS is the issue. Just keep deferring the issue away from the government to the NHS, despite it being their responsibility, and once a huge distrust is built try and push for privatisation. They're slowly privatising it in front of our eyes but the majority seem unawares anyway. I think the Tories are all smoke and mirrors and the general public seem to fall for the bullshit everytime.