The Lemon Fool

MrFoolish wrote:A question for one and all.

Once we are on the downslope of infections, and we know the pressure is off the health service, will you continue to worry about covid or is it time to return to normal life?

I can't continue to worry as I am not currently worrying. My life is already as normal as it it can be, and the "difference" to normal is mainly due to the (small) restrictions in the guidelines from "normal".

I strongly suspect the change once "we are on the downslope of infections, and we know the pressure is off the health service" will therefore be minimal, to me, and reflect any changes in those guidelines, not driven by my lifestyle choices.

MrFoolish wrote:A question for one and all.

Once we are on the downslope of infections, and we know the pressure is off the health service, will you continue to worry about covid or is it time to return to normal life?

Normal life for me would include going to the theatre, going to sporting events, going to a local discussion group, playing bridge, travelling by air/train and singing in a choir. All involve mixing with large numbers of people who are shouting, singing and generally expelling air from their lungs in enclosed spaces.

I have had to forego most of these activities over the last couple of years, and I can't wait to get back to them. Some have restarted already (discussion group, choir)

For me, once the current peak is passed (which may not be too long), it should be clearer as to the risk level remaining from Covid is and this will determine my participation level.

I am hopeful based on current data.

FD (Triple vaxxed, but not had covid as far as I know)

If I had an income that was guaranteed if I caught covid then I would not be worried too much about it. However if Mrs RS or I catch Covid and have to isolate we would lose many thousands in revenue and have to cancel lots of customers at short notice who are reliant on our service. For this reason we are and will continue to take precautions that limit some things that we might otherwise be doing.

John

redsturgeon wrote:...we are and will continue to take precautions that limit some things that we might otherwise be doing.

With us it's not an income question, but it seems sensible to evaluate whether doing ... a thing... is worth the risk.
As in whether we go out for our anniversary (47th) this weekend or not.
OH has hedged her bets, buying a haggis in case we decide to stay in.

V8

88V8 wrote:

redsturgeon wrote:...we are and will continue to take precautions that limit some things that we might otherwise be doing.

With us it's not an income question, but it seems sensible to evaluate whether doing ... a thing... is worth the risk.
As in whether we go out for our anniversary (47th) this weekend or not.
OH has hedged her bets, buying a haggis in case we decide to stay in.

V8

That's offal!

servodude wrote:

88V8 wrote:

redsturgeon wrote:...we are and will continue to take precautions that limit some things that we might otherwise be doing.

With us it's not an income question, but it seems sensible to evaluate whether doing ... a thing... is worth the risk.
As in whether we go out for our anniversary (47th) this weekend or not.
OH has hedged her bets, buying a haggis in case we decide to stay in.

V8

That's offal!

Haggis! Looks like you're going out, then...

Watis

From an article in today’s FT

Sir Jeremy Farrar, director of Wellcome and former Sage member, said he believed there would be another coronavirus variant in 2022 after Omicron, adding that the country should not be complacent that future strains of the virus would be less severe.

The UK needed to prepare for Covid-19 moving from pandemic to endemic, he said, adding that the virus was “a present for life, not for Christmas”.

Farrar stressed the need for the UK to work on next generation vaccines, and argued that the rest of the world would require access to existing jabs by this spring to reduce the chances of new variants spreading.

He said that the chance of a variant totally escaping immunity offered both by vaccines and natural infection was small but added: “Our responsibility is to make sure that we develop those second, third generation vaccines. So that if that was to happen next year, or tomorrow, or in five years’ time, we’re not back to January of 2020.”

Mike4 wrote:

servodude wrote:

Mike4 wrote:

BullDog wrote:I suspect that quite a few of us triple jabbed (and vitamin D just in case) may be experiencing Omicron without any really notable symptoms. During the upturn in Omicron infections, I had a sore throat and sinus discomfort but tested negative on lateral flow tests. I am not 100% convinced I didn't have mild a covid infection.

Exactly the same here. I was more ill than I thought possible on Xmas day and boxing day

Happened to a few of us over the holiday break
- but we put it down to what's been named "a Prince Andrew"
- or enjoying a 16 year old too much (1)

-sd

1: (obviously in our case it was Lagavulan - I'd forgotten how much it can hurt)

Lol.

In retrospect, a better illustration of just how ill I was over Xmas is I consumed no single malt whatsoever, nor any alcohol at all for four days, so I must have been bad!

On reflection this is odd because with a bad cold I usually run to self-medication with passable Cognac in the evening and at night, but not this time. So another indication it perhaps wasn't a 'normal' cold I had.

I think I might have just had the same happen to me Mike

Though it was Tuesday not Xmas
I had my booster jab on Friday and felt a bit lacklustre the day after but fine on the Monday so rode in to the office for work
Caught up with the stuff that happened over xmas and rode home to find I had a bit of a tickly cough (fair enough I thought I'd been away for a while without cycling and there's some new stuff in the air - every bloody week there's new stuff in the bloody air!)

Woke up Tuesday and thought my eyes were being pushed out of my head by whatever broken glass and razors had been stuffed in to my throat
- and they were being kept in place by the bubble wrap that was all round my head
- lasted two hours on my feet before the shakes and sweats started and I lay down for most of the next 24 hours

Yesterday I got in the car to drive down to find some rapit tests and turned around after five minutes when I realised i wasn't capable of driving safely - realised when making chicken laksa for dinner that I'd forgotten to eat since Monday lunch

Today is just a bit of a rough throat - so I'm hoping it's passed (I'll pick up a rapid test at the weekend to clear me for return to the office)

As it stands I can't say for sure that it was the big C-word
- but I tell you what, if it wasn't - there's another bugger going around that you don't want to mess with

-sd

JVT is leaving
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-59979504
shame as he was one of the voices of reason and gave good analogies (helping to make it not boring)

Looks like the tighter restrictions in the Celtic nations have had some effect :

What is the uncertainty in the ons infectivity survey?

Regards,

Try Googling "ONS infectivity survey" - it will take you to

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulation ... usReleases

which in turn will give you the latest survey :

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulation ... anuary2022

we estimate that 3,735,000 people in England had COVID-19 (95% credible interval: 3,624,800 to 3,848,700)

So about 3%, or in terms of the graph below, give or take 0.2 percentage points.

Are graphs allowed here?

Prevalence data lag incidence data. The ONS prevalence data include reinfections but do not include prevalence in hospitals, care homes and other institutions.

I have just posted a couple of graphs showing new cases and hospital admissions for the four UK countries, https://www.lemonfool.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=98&t=27023&start=360#p472751. England appears to be doing well compared with the other coutries.


Julian F. G. W.

Hallucigenia wrote:Try Googling "ONS infectivity survey" - it will take you to

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulation ... usReleases

which in turn will give you the latest survey :

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulation ... anuary2022

we estimate that 3,735,000 people in England had COVID-19 (95% credible interval: 3,624,800 to 3,848,700)

So about 3%, or in terms of the graph below, give or take 0.2 percentage points.

Thank you for the links.

From a data perspective the graphs look very suspect to me. Anything that is based on estimates, as these are, is potentially at risk from systematic errors and this is especially true comparing an English population of something over 60 million to the other nations that have populations that are at the biggest (Scotland) less that 6 million.

Statistically I would not place much faith in conclusions that say there are clear differences due to more severe lockdowns in the celtic nations compared to England. These estimated data are not imho good enough to make such statements.

Regards,

Does anyone know why no respiratory diseases (hitherto considered clinically highly vulnerable and required to shield) were included in the list of categories eligible for antiviral at home treatment should they get Covid? See: https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/coronavir ... ronavirus/

Bouleversee wrote:Does anyone know why no respiratory diseases (hitherto considered clinically highly vulnerable and required to shield) were included in the list of categories eligible for antiviral at home treatment should they get Covid? See: https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/coronavir ... ronavirus/

It is not clear from the link at all.

Having a quick scan at the references for both treatements they do appear to have been tried and work for patients with COPD; which rules any contra-indication out. I've not looked hard enough to see if there's any noticeable change on effectiveness that could caused a priority imbalance.

My suspcicion is that the "at home" treatement has been prioritised for conditions that are indirectly related to the way COVID attacks the patient, for the purposes of keeping clinics quieter so that supervised treatement and resources are available to care for those patients with chronic resipiratory conditions.

-sd

servodude wrote:

Bouleversee wrote:Does anyone know why no respiratory diseases (hitherto considered clinically highly vulnerable and required to shield) were included in the list of categories eligible for antiviral at home treatment should they get Covid? See: https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/coronavir ... ronavirus/

It is not clear from the link at all.

Having a quick scan at the references for both treatements they do appear to have been tried and work for patients with COPD; which rules any contra-indication out. I've not looked hard enough to see if there's any noticeable change on effectiveness that could caused a priority imbalance.

My suspcicion is that the "at home" treatement has been prioritised for conditions that are indirectly related to the way COVID attacks the patient, for the purposes of keeping clinics quieter so that supervised treatement and resources are available to care for those patients with chronic resipiratory conditions.

-sd

My suspicion is that the drugs are rather expensive and possibly in short supply so they don't think it's worth wasting them on those with a short life expectancy because they haven't had any treatment to slow disease progression either. You would think they would at least advise us to resume shielding, wouldn't you? Does the new variant attack patients with MS differently from those with IPF, or has the effectiveness of the drugs on the latter not even been trialled?

Bouleversee wrote:

servodude wrote:

Bouleversee wrote:Does anyone know why no respiratory diseases (hitherto considered clinically highly vulnerable and required to shield) were included in the list of categories eligible for antiviral at home treatment should they get Covid? See: https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/coronavir ... ronavirus/

It is not clear from the link at all.

Having a quick scan at the references for both treatements they do appear to have been tried and work for patients with COPD; which rules any contra-indication out. I've not looked hard enough to see if there's any noticeable change on effectiveness that could caused a priority imbalance.

My suspcicion is that the "at home" treatement has been prioritised for conditions that are indirectly related to the way COVID attacks the patient, for the purposes of keeping clinics quieter so that supervised treatement and resources are available to care for those patients with chronic resipiratory conditions.

-sd

My suspicion is that the drugs are rather expensive and possibly in short supply so they don't think it's worth wasting them on those with a short life expectancy because they haven't had any treatment to slow disease progression either. You would think they would at least advise us to resume shielding, wouldn't you? Does the new variant attack patients with MS differently from those with IPF, or has the effectiveness of the drugs on the latter not even been trialled?

Resources being finite is a definite concern - so there is a triage scenario

Given the evasion demonstrated by Omicron I'm surprised they're event bothering with the Sotrovimab (as a monoclonal antibody I would have thought O would just breeze past it)

One thing that has been proven about the O variant is that it (for the most part) attacks the patient higher in the respiratory system (more throat less in the lungs)
- which would mean the interplay with IPF might be less of a direct concern (though I's be doing my best to keep it away from moving to the lungs)

Checking the list of conditions again there is this catch all:

list of condtions wrote:a condition or treatment that makes you more likely to get infections

- perhaps that is meant to include chronic pulmonary conditions?

- sd

servodude wrote:…
Given the evasion demonstrated by Omicron I'm surprised they're event bothering with the Sotrovimab (as a monoclonal antibody I would have thought O would just breeze past it)
…

No. While you’re right that, depressingly, Omicron has rendered a number of the previously approved and quite widely used monoclonal antibody treatments for Covid-19 ineffective GSK’s Sotrovimab is an exception - https://www.gsk.com/en-gb/media/press-r ... -activity/

There might be other exceptions too, I’m not sure.

- Julian

Julian wrote:

servodude wrote:…
Given the evasion demonstrated by Omicron I'm surprised they're event bothering with the Sotrovimab (as a monoclonal antibody I would have thought O would just breeze past it)
…

No. While you’re right that, depressingly, Omicron has rendered a number of the previously approved and quite widely used monoclonal antibody treatments for Covid-19 ineffective GSK’s Sotrovimab is an exception - https://www.gsk.com/en-gb/media/press-r ... -activity/

There might be other exceptions too, I’m not sure.

- Julian

Thanks Julian - that looks like a stroke of good fortune
Glad to have been mistaken in my assumption that given it evades antibodies "what's the point"

- sd