Omicron variant

[Hallucigenia]

mild symptoms, can be treated at home.

Hospitalisations in Gauteng are up nearly 5-fold in 2 weeks :

[zico]

Knife in seems to be infecting younger age ranges in South Africa compared to previous viruses, so you'd expect better hospitalization and death outcomes, even if Omicron wasn't a milder variant.
Simply too early to tell yet (will be 2-3 weeks before more is known), but obviously over-reacting is far better than under-reacting, because it it turns out we didn't need to over-react, we'll just have reduced infections, saved lots of lives from Delta infections, and reduced the chance of creating a home-grown variant.

People in the media making evidence-free claims that Omicron is milder are the same people who made (again, evidence-free) predictions that:-
- Herd immunity would be achieved at less than 20% infection
- Immunity wouldn't drop over time
- Immunity from being infected would be far better than through vaccination
- New variants would inevitably become milder and milder.
None of these were based on evidence, none were true, but all sought to minimise the effects of Covid, and the need to take early and decisive action.

[servodude]

People in the media making evidence-free claims that Omicron is milder are the same people who made (again, evidence-free) predictions

You noticed that too?

It is a bit different at the moment though as they do seem to be pushing the report directly from Dr. Angelique Coetzee who identified the variant in her clinic albeit with a "nothing to see here... as you were" certainty added like a recycled cherry on top.

We know it:
- appears to present a bit differently and milder in younger folk
- appears to outcompete delta
- and have lots of mutations from wild covid

All of which just suggests we should ca'canny for a bit till we know what's going on; but instead we've got panic and shyte merchants

see these humans! sometimes I think they'll never learn

-sd

[Adamski]

Botswana's health director says majority of Omicron variant cases were asymptomatic.

16 of the total 19 cases of the Omicron coronavirus variant detected in the country were asymptomatic....the remaining three had "very, very mild" symptoms.

https://www.reuters.com/business/health ... 021-12-01/

Yet this new variant sent our media, politicians and markets into a tailspin

I understand being careful for the vulnerable, and getting jabbed, but putting the brakes on the economy for asymptomatic and mild cases seems bonkers.

[Midsmartin]

Botswana's health director says majority of Omicron variant cases were asymptomatic.

[... ]
I understand being careful for the vulnerable, and getting jabbed, but putting the brakes on the economy for asymptomatic and mild cases seems bonkers.

You may be right, but a few anecdotes don't make accurate data. We need actual data with some statistics and a bit of analysis to confirm we're right. Governments would make lots of decisions better if they used actual evidence and data.
What if the variant is mainly in a local population that's aged under 30, and not comparable? What if it has not been around long enough for the serious cases to show up yet, as this takes a few weeks?

Anecdotally my wife has been off work for 6 weeks after covid. She's not been to hospital. It would take some effort to detect this sort of effect in the population, by asking GPs what they know about their patients.

[onthemove]

Botswana's health director says majority of Omicron variant cases were asymptomatic.

[... ]
I understand being careful for the vulnerable, and getting jabbed, but putting the brakes on the economy for asymptomatic and mild cases seems bonkers.

You may be right, but a few anecdotes don't make accurate data. We need actual data with some statistics and a bit of analysis to confirm we're right. Governments would make lots of decisions better if they used actual evidence and data.
What if the variant is mainly in a local population that's aged under 30, and not comparable? What if it has not been around long enough for the serious cases to show up yet, as this takes a few weeks?

Prior to covid, it was generally assumed that the next pandemic would come from a new variant of the flu.

Funny thing is, we didn't put in place all these sorts of measures 'just in case', each time a new flu variant appeared.

Prior to covid, the retort..

.. "...a few anecdotes don't make accurate data. We need actual data with some statistics and a bit of analysis to confirm we're right. Governments would make lots of decisions better if they used actual evidence and data." ...

...would be a good rationale for why governments typically don't knee jerk put the brakes on the economy at the first sign of a new flu variant.

[XFool]

Prior to covid, it was generally assumed that the next pandemic would come from a new variant of the flu.

Funny thing is, we didn't put in place all these sorts of measures 'just in case', each time a new flu variant appeared.

We have for years now had a flu vaccination programme. Also, I have little doubt that every season the current flu situation is monitored by medical bodies for signs a new, virulent strain of flu might emerge threatening a global influenza pandemic.

Prior to covid, the retort..

.. "...a few anecdotes don't make accurate data. We need actual data with some statistics and a bit of analysis to confirm we're right. Governments would make lots of decisions better if they used actual evidence and data." ...

...would be a good rationale for why governments typically don't knee jerk put the brakes on the economy at the first sign of a new flu variant.

During this pandemic - of a highly infectious(!), novel coronovirus - we have, IMO, suffered from a parallel epidemic of: 'Knit your own reality - using too much dodgy analysis on too little real facts'.

But that's just my opinion. Other opinions are available.

[onthemove]

Prior to covid, it was generally assumed that the next pandemic would come from a new variant of the flu.

Funny thing is, we didn't put in place all these sorts of measures 'just in case', each time a new flu variant appeared.

We have for years now had a flu vaccination programme. Also, I have little doubt that every season the current flu situation is monitored by medical bodies for signs a new, virulent strain of flu might emerge threatening a global influenza pandemic.

Prior to covid, the retort..

.. "...a few anecdotes don't make accurate data. We need actual data with some statistics and a bit of analysis to confirm we're right. Governments would make lots of decisions better if they used actual evidence and data." ...

...would be a good rationale for why governments typically don't knee jerk put the brakes on the economy at the first sign of a new flu variant.

During this pandemic - of a highly infectious(!), novel coronovirus - we have, IMO, suffered from a parallel epidemic of: 'Knit your own reality - using too much dodgy analysis on too little real facts'.

But that's just my opinion. Other opinions are available.

A. Are you suggesting that the flu isn't infectious?
(You keep asserting that covid is infectious. That would only make sense in your argument if you are suggesting that the flu isn't.).

B. Are you suggesting that the flu virus doesn't mutate to give variants of concern fairly frequently?
(You say you don't doubt that scientists monitor the flu, but for this to back up your point, you would need for that to be implying ... 'but they haven't identified any variant of concern yet, that's why we don't trash the economy for them').

C. Are you suggesting that we don't have a covid vaccination program?
(You assert that we have a flu vaccination program, great, but that would only seem to backup your argument if you are suggesting that we don't have an equivalent covid vaccination program now in place).

I would suggest you are wrong on all these counts, but your response doesn't really make rational sense unless we presume that you do believe at least one or more of them to be true.

So just for completeness I'll address each point...

Option A

The NHS seems to agree with me the flu is infectious.

Flu
Flu is usually most infectious from the day your symptoms start and for a further 3 to 7 days.
https://www.nhs.uk/common-health-questi ... infection/

Option B

As far as I'm aware scientists DO monitor the flu situation for " for signs a new, virulent strain of flu might emerge threatening a global influenza pandemic", and similar to how there have been a number of 'variants of concern' for covid, I believe that they DO identify similar variants of flu quite frequently as well.

See for example from the US CDC...

"The text below summarizes the novel influenza A viruses that are currently most concerning to public health officials...
...
Many Asian H7N9 virus infected patients have had severe respiratory illness. During the past five annual epidemics of Asian H7N9 virus infections in people, the mortality rate in hospitalized patients has averaged about 40 percent."
https://www.cdc.gov/flu/pandemic-resour ... ncern.html

Option C

What! ... are you telling me that it was microchips they were injecting into us after all!

I'm pretty sure you are well aware of the covid vaccination program and the degree to which it has been rolled out in the UK. Not to mention, that the covid vaccine is typically considered more effective than the seasonal flu vaccine!


Summary...

During this pandemic - of a highly infectious(!), novel coronovirus - we have, IMO, suffered from a parallel epidemic of: 'Knit your own reality - using too much dodgy analysis on too little real facts'.

I'd agree we seem to be in different realities.

You raise 3 points in your argument - you mention a flu vaccine program, covid being infectious, and you mention emerging strains. I've provided evidence that all of these are also applicable to both flu and covid.

I've provided evidence from the real world to back up my reality.

Over to you...

[XFool]

But that's just my opinion. Other opinions are available.

A. Are you suggesting that the flu isn't infectious?
(You keep asserting that covid is infectious. That would only make sense in your argument if you are suggesting that the flu isn't.).

B. Are you suggesting that the flu virus doesn't mutate to give variants of concern fairly frequently?
(You say you don't doubt that scientists monitor the flu, but for this to back up your point, you would need for that to be implying ... 'but they haven't identified any variant of concern yet, that's why we don't trash the economy for them').

C. Are you suggesting that we don't have a covid vaccination program?
(You assert that we have a flu vaccination program, great, but that would only seem to backup your argument if you are suggesting that we don't have an equivalent covid vaccination program now in place).

You forgot to ask me if I think water is wet or if the sparks fly upwards.

I would suggest you are wrong on all these counts, but your response doesn't really make rational sense unless we presume that you do believe at least one or more of them to be true.

I suggest I am not wrong on any of those points - indeed I know I'm not!

So just for completeness I'll address each point...

Option A
The NHS seems to agree with me the flu is infectious.

That's a relief...

Option B

As far as I'm aware scientists DO monitor the flu situation for " for signs a new, virulent strain of flu might emerge threatening a global influenza pandemic", and similar to how there have been a number of 'variants of concern' for covid, I believe that they DO identify similar variants of flu quite frequently as well.

See for example from the US CDC...

"The text below summarizes the novel influenza A viruses that are currently most concerning to public health officials...
...
Many Asian H7N9 virus infected patients have had severe respiratory illness. During the past five annual epidemics of Asian H7N9 virus infections in people, the mortality rate in hospitalized patients has averaged about 40 percent."
https://www.cdc.gov/flu/pandemic-resour ... ncern.html

Option C

What! ... are you telling me that it was microchips they were injecting into us after all!

Now you really have lost me.

I'm pretty sure you are well aware of the covid vaccination program and the degree to which it has been rolled out in the UK. Not to mention, that the covid vaccine is typically considered more effective than the seasonal flu vaccine!

Summary...

During this pandemic - of a highly infectious(!), novel coronovirus - we have, IMO, suffered from a parallel epidemic of: 'Knit your own reality - using too much dodgy analysis on too little real facts'.

I'd agree we seem to be in different realities.

OK.

You raise 3 points in your argument - you mention a flu vaccine program, covid being infectious, and you mention emerging strains. I've provided evidence that all of these are also applicable to both flu and covid.

I've provided evidence from the real world to back up my reality.

Over to you...

Right... Well in your "reality" I take it then we ARE in the middle of a global influenza pandemic: YES/NO?
Over to you.

(At least he didn't use "formal logic"...)

[dealtn]

Right... Well in your "reality" I take it then we ARE in the middle of a global influenza pandemic: YES/NO?
Over to you.

(At least he didn't use "formal logic"...)

I think you have a struggle with logic (formal or otherwise) if that's your take .

Incidentally who is the "we" you refer to when making this claim?

During this pandemic - of a highly infectious(!), novel coronovirus - we have, IMO, suffered from a parallel epidemic of: 'Knit your own reality - using too much dodgy analysis on too little real facts'.

[9873210]

A. Are you suggesting that the flu isn't infectious?
(You keep asserting that covid is infectious. That would only make sense in your argument if you are suggesting that the flu isn't.).

B. Are you suggesting that the flu virus doesn't mutate to give variants of concern fairly frequently?
(You say you don't doubt that scientists monitor the flu, but for this to back up your point, you would need for that to be implying ... 'but they haven't identified any variant of concern yet, that's why we don't trash the economy for them').

C. Are you suggesting that we don't have a covid vaccination program?
(You assert that we have a flu vaccination program, great, but that would only seem to backup your argument if you are suggesting that we don't have an equivalent covid vaccination program now in place).

All of these questions have non-binary answers. Some people believe all questions have binary answers and are afraid the virus will use the wrong public toilet.

[onthemove]

Right... Well in your "reality" I take it then we ARE in the middle of a global influenza pandemic: YES/NO?
Over to you.

First off, in the UK we're not "in the middle of it".

Most people are vaccinated, and I've already provided you with a link which reports that scientists reckon even if everyone in the UK now caught covid, the number of hospitalisations wouldn't be all that high.

Also...

"AstraZeneca has started to move away from providing its Covid-19 vaccine to countries on a not-for-profit basis.

The drugs giant has signed a series of for-profit agreements for next year, and expects to make a modest income from the vaccine, it said.

The company had previously said it would only start to make money from the vaccine when Covid-19 was no longer a pandemic.

Its chief executive Pascal Soriot said the disease was becoming endemic." https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-59256223

"Professor Paul Hunter, an epidemiologist at the University of East Anglia, told Sky News the modelling suggests the UK is close to 'endemic equilibrium'.

"Once you reach endemic equilibrium, non-pharmaceutical interventions (social distancing and mask wearing) stop having much of an effect."

He said the main reason behind this is immunity levels." https://news.sky.com/story/covid-19-cas ... s-12444117

That aside, when it comes to variants of concern why would it make any difference whether the flu is 'endemic' or 'pandemic' now?

As already mentioned, the expectation was that the next pandemic would be a new flu variant.

Now, perhaps you might argue that we aren't being inundated by flu because the flu isn't a pandemic at this moment.

But, surely it wouldn't matter whether the next pressure on the health service was from a new covid variant or new flu variant?

Just because we aren't in a flu pandemic, doesn't mean a new troublesome variant of the flu couldn't have just as bad an impact from here-on-in as a new variant of covid.

I mean look at it this way...

Scientist >> "Boris, Boris... quick, look at this... we've got a new variant of concern... there's a risk that it might put HUGE pressure on the health service and cost lives...but we don't have data yet, it could go either way and may turn out to be nothing of concern"

Boris >> "Wait, hang on a moment, are we talking covid?"

Scientists >> "No, we're talking flu".

Boris >> "Few, thank goodness for that, we can just wait and see then and don't need to tank the economy!"

Look at it the other way around... right now most of the population has some degree of protection from covid from vaccination or recent prior infection.

Even with the new Omicron variant, scientists still expect the vaccine to provide some protection from severe outcomes.

Whereas a new potentially pandemic flu variant would be hitting a population with far lower levels of protection. We'd also then be looking at a double pandemic of two different viruses! Not just another variant of the current pandemic.

And to follow the argument even further, why do we even need to be in a pandemic of any kind?

I mean, the NHS is largely on its knees most winters, covid or no covid.

Why wouldn't you treat the possibility of a new flu variant just as seriously at those times?

Why does the fact that you're in a pandemic suddenly mean you have to treat any variant of the relevant disease as even more dangerous until proven otherwise, but not any other variants of other diseases?

We've also seen that mutations in Japan seemed to have made covid fizzle out there.

Anyway...

All in all, I cannot see what your argument is.

You keep making a lot of assertions, but you provide very little (usually no) explanation as to what you're saying by them.

You just seem to be playing it as though you think you know better than everyone else, and that by making your assertions without providing any rationale behind them, it's beginning to come across like you are basically just laughing at people and aren't actually interested in properly engaging in debate.

A kind of ... 'this is how it is, I know better than you, if you don't know what I'm talking about you're an idiot and I'm not going to bother explaining it, and I'm just going to keep repeating myself without explaining myself so that you all look really silly and I can keep repeatedly laughing at you.'

[onthemove]

A. Are you suggesting that the flu isn't infectious?
(You keep asserting that covid is infectious. That would only make sense in your argument if you are suggesting that the flu isn't.).

B. Are you suggesting that the flu virus doesn't mutate to give variants of concern fairly frequently?
(You say you don't doubt that scientists monitor the flu, but for this to back up your point, you would need for that to be implying ... 'but they haven't identified any variant of concern yet, that's why we don't trash the economy for them').

C. Are you suggesting that we don't have a covid vaccination program?
(You assert that we have a flu vaccination program, great, but that would only seem to backup your argument if you are suggesting that we don't have an equivalent covid vaccination program now in place).

All of these questions have non-binary answers. Some people believe all questions have binary answers and are afraid the virus will use the wrong public toilet.

Whopppee bloomin do. Give yourself a pat on the back and have a laugh at the idiots. Aren't you clever!

OK... and.... ?

Care to elaborate on any of those non-binary answers, and explain therefore how they work to support the argument being made?

I'm not the one making these points ... I'm the one responding to someone who made these points seemingly to back up their own argument.

If there is some nuance in those points that allows them to still back up their argument, it would be jolly helpful if they, or someone, could actually expand on them and explain how they backup their point.

I was just responding to the argument as presented.

[XFool]

A. Are you suggesting that the flu isn't infectious?
(You keep asserting that covid is infectious. That would only make sense in your argument if you are suggesting that the flu isn't.).

B. Are you suggesting that the flu virus doesn't mutate to give variants of concern fairly frequently?
(You say you don't doubt that scientists monitor the flu, but for this to back up your point, you would need for that to be implying ... 'but they haven't identified any variant of concern yet, that's why we don't trash the economy for them').

C. Are you suggesting that we don't have a covid vaccination program?
(You assert that we have a flu vaccination program, great, but that would only seem to backup your argument if you are suggesting that we don't have an equivalent covid vaccination program now in place).

All of these questions have non-binary answers. Some people believe all questions have binary answers and are afraid the virus will use the wrong public toilet.

Care to elaborate on any of those non-binary answers, and explain therefore how they work to support the argument being made?

I'm not the one making these points ... I'm the one responding to someone who made these points seemingly to back up their own argument.

No, onthemove, all of them are your "points", not mine not anybody else's that I can see. You made all of them in your own post.

If there is some nuance in those points that allows them to still back up their argument, it would be jolly helpful if they, or someone, could actually expand on them and explain how they backup their point.

I was just responding to the argument as presented.

I feel you are not quite understanding the argument being presented. I will try to give a simplified explanation:

Currently, we are in the middle of a global pandemic due to a novel coronavirus. Where "we" means all of us here in the UK and everyone else in the world, wherever they are. It is this coronavirus, that causes the illness COVID-19, which we are concerned with at this time. We are not currently concerned with any other virus (specialist medical people likely are). So it is the characteristics and 'behaviour' of the COVID-19 virus that are of interest and is being discussed here.

This virus is dangerous to many vulnerable people, infectious and, so far, mutations of it seem to have been increasing its infectiousness. It is transmitted via the air. There are vaccines, these are effective at reducing the risk of serious illnesses but their effect seems to dwindle with time, new mutations keep emerging - which may or may not require new vaccines - the vaccines do not necessarily stop you becoming infected with the virus and you can still be infectious without symptoms or illness, even if vaccinated. The pandemic is ongoing worldwide.

Given the above, especially given the recent emergence of a new and apparently more infectious version, we still need to take precautions - even if vaccinated - to protect ourselves and others in the population. To control the pandemic in our country.

One of those ongoing precautions - against an infectious virus that spreads via the respiratory system - is the wearing of face masks.

I don't see what the problem is.

[dealtn]

I don't see what the problem is.

Maybe that exactly the same logic could apply to other viruses and infectious diseases, both now, but especially in the past. So a lack of calling for those same measures, and not propagating the "I don't see what the problem" line previously, is somewhat inconsistent.

It's possible of course that it is sufficiently different this time, or that you (and others) now recognise you were wrong in the past (perhaps through lack of knowledge), and that in the future you will extend your belief that the current measures should be in place for all such infectious outbreaks, not just Covid.

Perhaps you might care to clarify what is so different this time. Is it the novelty? In which case weren't previous infectious episodes also novel once? When does Covid novelty wane in your opinion? Is it the number of deaths? In which case at what level of current deaths is it acceptable for any measures to be lifted?

I am sure you have an argument to make, but masking it (sorry) by constantly appearing to just be saying "It's infectious" doesn't allow others to understand what might be a very valid argument.

[XFool]

Help!

Can somebody blessed with more understanding that myself please help me to try and understand how it is that more than one person posting on these boards has continuing difficulty understanding the meaning of the following (and similar) statements:

Currently, we are in the middle of a global pandemic due to a novel coronavirus.

This virus is dangerous to many vulnerable people, infectious...

...especially given the recent emergence of a new and apparently more infectious version...

...against an infectious virus that spreads via the respiratory system

To me they appear to be written in simple English. Am I wrong? Perhaps they are really written in a particularly obscure version of Chinese and I am failing to recognise this?

Help! Anybody...

[dealtn]

Help!

Can somebody blessed with more understanding that myself please help me to try and understand how it is that more than one person posting on these boards has continuing difficulty understanding the meaning of the following (and similar) statements:

Currently, we are in the middle of a global pandemic due to a novel coronavirus.

This virus is dangerous to many vulnerable people, infectious...

...especially given the recent emergence of a new and apparently more infectious version...

...against an infectious virus that spreads via the respiratory system

To me they appear to be written in simple English. Am I wrong? Perhaps they are really written in a particularly obscure version of Chinese and I am failing to recognise this?

Help! Anybody...

if you are referring to me I am happy to confirm, if it helps, that I understand everything you have just said and quoted, both as individual words and collectively.

Has anybody been shown not to understand them?

Might that also not have been said by yourself on previous occasions the world was also exposed to an infectious global event that dangerously exposed vulnerable people? Did you say those things (and others) at the time? If not why not? What is different? What will be different in the future when similar events occur?

[XFool]

Might that also not have been said by yourself on previous occasions the world was also exposed to an infectious global event that dangerously exposed vulnerable people? Did you say those things (and others) at the time? If not why not?

Well, if only you had told me you hadn't been listening to the news for the past two years, I'd have gladly explained!

What is different?

To what?

What will be different in the future when similar events occur?

Not being a soothsayer, I cannot tell.

[onthemove]

Help!

Can somebody blessed with more understanding that myself please help me to try and understand how it is that more than one person posting on these boards has continuing difficulty understanding the meaning of the following (and similar) statements:

Currently, we are in the middle of a global pandemic due to a novel coronavirus.

This virus is dangerous to many vulnerable people, infectious...

...especially given the recent emergence of a new and apparently more infectious version...

...against an infectious virus that spreads via the respiratory system

To me they appear to be written in simple English. Am I wrong? Perhaps they are really written in a particularly obscure version of Chinese and I am failing to recognise this?

Help! Anybody...

The sarcasm with the "helps" isn't (ironically) helping your position. It comes across as though you're just ridiculing other posters and aren't actually interested in discussing.

But as dealtn has already said, and I've already pointed out, the same could be said for new flu variants.

So you still haven't explained why we are making this fuss for covid but not for the flu.

To 'help' you along, the essence of the problem you are having is that you are trying to claim there is reason why we treat covid differently. The problem is, everything you keep coming up with - and presenting - to try to explain it, can also be said of the flu.

If you want to convince people of your argument, you need to find something that is different.

Covid is infectious, yes, but so is the flu.
Covid kills people, yes, but so does the flu.
Covid spawns variants, yes, but so does the flu.
The NHS is close to capacity as it pretty much is every winter, so a new covid strain might put more pressure on it, yes, but then so could a new flu strain.

No, onthemove, all of them are your "points", not mine not anybody else's that I can see. You made all of them in your own post.

I beg to differ... you raised all of the points in response to my claim that we didn't put such measures in place for the flu. Anyone can see for themselves in your post here: https://lemonfool.co.uk/viewtopic.php?p=462652#p462652

You now seem to have shifted from bluntly saying 'it's infectious' to now focussing on being in a 'pandemic'...

Right... Well in your "reality" I take it then we ARE in the middle of a global influenza pandemic: YES/NO?
Over to you.

But again, you've not said what it is about a "pandemic" that backs up your position.

So here we go round the merry go round again...

Again, I'm going to go out on a limb because you haven't provided any rationale in your argument, but here goes...

"AN EPIDEMIC is a disease that affects a large number of people within a community, population, or region.
A PANDEMIC is an epidemic that’s spread over multiple countries or continents.
https://intermountainhealthcare.org/blo ... -outbreak/ "

You are now saying that your argument is valid, because we are in a 'pandemic'.

Why does that make any difference? Why does it matter what other countries are doing?

Imagine if early on, the rest of the world had managed to eradicate covid, but we hadn't, and the rest of the world had decided to isolate us.

And imagine that the Omicron variant had evolved here in the UK rather than elsewhere, but in every other respect the UK were in the same position.

Are you saying this would change your argument?

That we then wouldn't then need to trash the economy 'just in case' this omicron variant is more dangerous, etc?

Let's not forget, the WHO was criticised early on for dragging their feet over whether to declare it a 'pandemic'. In a way, declaring a pandemic is almost akin to labelling something 'big'.

In essence it doesn't really mean an awful lot - in essence the only real factor from differentiating 'endemic' from 'pandemic' is that the latter refers to occurring in multiple countries. (See definition in link above - it literally is the only differentiating factor that it mentions)

So it's still rather difficult to understand why you mean when you now say that we're justified to put the brakes on the economy because 'it's a pandemic'.

Why does it matter what is going on in other countries - particularly when the variant is already here - in terms of what we do here?

If we were in exactly the same situation as we are now in the UK, but without any other countries having covid, then it wouldn't be labelled a pandemic. So why do you now say that we are justified putting the brakes on the economy? Which after all is where this argument started : https://lemonfool.co.uk/viewtopic.php?p=462652#p462652

[XFool]

If you want to convince people of your argument, you need to find something that is different.

Covid is infectious, yes, but so is the flu.
Covid kills people, yes, but so does the flu.
Covid spawns variants, yes, but so does the flu.
The NHS is close to capacity as it pretty much is every winter, so a new covid strain might put more pressure on it, yes, but then so could a new flu strain.

Yes, it could. But, currently, it isn't - AFAIK.

You now seem to have shifted from bluntly saying 'it's infectious' to now focussing on being in a 'pandemic'...

I rather think the point is... it's BOTH. (If it weren't, how could it even be a pandemic?)

Right... Well in your "reality" I take it then we ARE in the middle of a global influenza pandemic: YES/NO?
Over to you.

But again, you've not said what it is about a "pandemic" that backs up your position.

Vis-à-vis a global influenza pandemic? I'm happy so say we are not suffering one. How about you? Thing is, medically, we need to deal with what IS happening now. Not with what has happened in the past, what could be happening now - but isn't - or what might happen in the future.

So here we go round the merry go round again...

You're not wrong there.

Again, I'm going to go out on a limb because you haven't provided any rationale in your argument, but here goes...

"AN EPIDEMIC is a disease that affects a large number of people within a community, population, or region.
A PANDEMIC is an epidemic that’s spread over multiple countries or continents.
https://intermountainhealthcare.org/blo ... -outbreak/ "

----
You are now saying that your argument is valid, because we are in a 'pandemic'.

Why does that make any difference? Why does it matter what other countries are doing?

In a "pandemic" (of an infectious disease?)

Imagine if early on, the rest of the world had managed to eradicate covid, but we hadn't, and the rest of the world had decided to isolate us.

And imagine that the Omicron variant had evolved here in the UK rather than elsewhere, but in every other respect the UK were in the same position.

Are you saying this would change your argument?

That we then wouldn't then need to trash the economy 'just in case' this omicron variant is more dangerous, etc?

Perhaps you would like to recall what happened during 2020?

Let's not forget, the WHO was criticised early on for dragging their feet over whether to declare it a 'pandemic'. In a way, declaring a pandemic is almost akin to labelling something 'big'.

In essence it doesn't really mean an awful lot - in essence the only real factor from differentiating 'endemic' from 'pandemic' is that the latter refers to occurring in multiple countries. (See definition in link above - it literally is the only differentiating factor that it mentions)

So it's still rather difficult to understand why you mean when you now say that we're justified to put the brakes on the economy because 'it's a pandemic'.

Why does it matter what is going on in other countries - particularly when the variant is already here - in terms of what we do here?

If we were in exactly the same situation as we are now in the UK, but without any other countries having covid, then it wouldn't be labelled a pandemic. So why do you now say that we are justified putting the brakes on the economy? Which after all is where this argument started : https://lemonfool.co.uk/viewtopic.php?p=462652#p462652

This isn't really helping, is it?