Coronavirus - General Chat - No statistics

[Hallucigenia]

Latest ONS figures - 1.7 million have had long Covid for more than 28 days, half have had it for more than a year (I'm one), and we're yet to see the full effects of the two omicron waves. You cannot be serious talking about "living with it" if you're not talking about the burden of long Covid and its effects on healthcare and the economy.

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

[pje16]

You cannot be serious talking about "living with it" if you're not talking about the burden of long Covid and its effects on healthcare and the economy.

At last someone else who thinks that "living with it" is not on
I am so fed up with reading and hearing that is it (sigh)

[Dod101]

Naturally, in a thread as long as this one (9,600 plus and counting!) there will be a lot of misinformation and some somewhat dodgy opinions but I do not think that there is any evidence that our deaths from Covid (not with Covid) are very different from at least some other European countries except for say Italy, based on the number of excess death figures I have seen. Furthermore I think the only thing to stop Covid in its tracks is a complete lockdown. Mask wearing, social distancing and so on may help at the margin but from what I can see, outcomes are not that different whatever we otherwise do.

Of course vaccines are the key and with these, we have got to live with Covid otherwise society will break down. I have just this morning received my second booster I am pleased to say. I am quite surprised how different vaccine centres operate. Some are very professional with a quick and efficient throughput; others like my one this morning are not, or maybe they are suffering from Covid stress, apparently like much of the NHS.

I am no expert, just a guy watching what is happening. So far, I have avoided Covid unless I have been asymptomatic which is of course entirely possible. I have also avoided adding to the opinions expressed here until now.

Dod

[dealtn]

Latest ONS figures - 1.7 million have had long Covid for more than 28 days, half have had it for more than a year (I'm one), and we're yet to see the full effects of the two omicron waves. You cannot be serious talking about "living with it" if you're not talking about the burden of long Covid and its effects on healthcare and the economy.

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

Agreed. You have to include "long Covid" within the "it" when talking about "living with it". Just like we have lived with post-viral syndrome long before this particular virus arrived.

I am afraid we do have to live with it, and it it is "on" despite some being fed up with reading and hearing it.

(Disc, post-viral syndrome sufferer since Oct 2019)

[XFool]

Thinking about it I guess the most important thing would be to contain the spread of the pandemic, so limiting the number of cases would be the primary aim. Of course, everything else follows from the spread of cases.

Not sure if that was the primary aim back then, but it certainly is not now. The UK has a record number of cases - 5 million - and yet nobody seems to be very concerned at all, because our mostly vaccinated population are not getting sick or dying.

And how splendidly ironic that whereas you berate those who you allege use only deaths as a measure of seriousness of the pandemic, you use absence of deaths as a measure of our success!

[Lootman]

Thinking about it I guess the most important thing would be to contain the spread of the pandemic, so limiting the number of cases would be the primary aim. Of course, everything else follows from the spread of cases.

Not sure if that was the primary aim back then, but it certainly is not now. The UK has a record number of cases - 5 million - and yet nobody seems to be very concerned at all, because our mostly vaccinated population are not getting sick or dying.

And how splendidly ironic that whereas you berate those who you allege use only deaths as a measure of seriousness of the pandemic, you use absence of deaths as a measure of our success!

It is not about what I find important, but rather what the media and professionals care about. And it is undeniable that 100 people a day dying of this does not get the same attention as back when over 1,000 were dying every day.

So yes, living with Covid is a lot to do with the number of deaths or hospitalisations that are happening. And the current level of casualties is deemed acceptable by the voters and our leaders, otherwise we would not be getting rid of all the restrictions.

Nobody was ever going to ring a bell to announce that Covid is history. Rather it just recedes with a whimper rather than a bang.

[XFool]

Latest ONS figures - 1.7 million have had long Covid for more than 28 days, half have had it for more than a year (I'm one), and we're yet to see the full effects of the two omicron waves. You cannot be serious talking about "living with it" if you're not talking about the burden of long Covid and its effects on healthcare and the economy.

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

Agreed. You have to include "long Covid" within the "it" when talking about "living with it". Just like we have lived with post-viral syndrome long before this particular virus arrived.

I am afraid we do have to live with it, and it it is "on" despite some being fed up with reading and hearing it.

The question remains: What, at this point, does "live with it" actually mean?

(Reminds me of the Brexit 'debate' : "Yes. But what in practice do you actually mean by "Brexit" ?"

[dealtn]

Latest ONS figures - 1.7 million have had long Covid for more than 28 days, half have had it for more than a year (I'm one), and we're yet to see the full effects of the two omicron waves. You cannot be serious talking about "living with it" if you're not talking about the burden of long Covid and its effects on healthcare and the economy.

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

Agreed. You have to include "long Covid" within the "it" when talking about "living with it". Just like we have lived with post-viral syndrome long before this particular virus arrived.

I am afraid we do have to live with it, and it it is "on" despite some being fed up with reading and hearing it.

The question remains: What, at this point, does "live with it" actually mean?

It is a good question, and will no doubt evolve over time, as it has over the last 2 years. Perhaps it is easiest to define what it isn't. It isn't insisting it is the only consideration in everyone's lives or the only societal problem. So it should be seen in context and proportion to all manner of other issues and the policies to deal with it will have to coincide with others too, and the trade offs and conflicts between them considered.

Do we ask or define what living with influenza mean? Or measles, or cancer, or mental health?

[XFool]

The UK has a record number of cases - 5 million - and yet nobody seems to be very concerned at all, because our mostly vaccinated population are not getting sick or dying.

And how splendidly ironic that whereas you berate those who you allege use only deaths as a measure of seriousness of the pandemic, you use absence of deaths as a measure of our success!

It is not about what I find important, but rather what the media and professionals care about.

So what are some of the professionals saying? :

End of free Covid testing could put vulnerable at risk, say UK experts

The Guardian

Community testing ends in England on 1 April and will be scaled back across UK as infections rise


‘Pandemic is not over’: ministers criticised for scrapping UK Covid surveillance

he Guardian

Schemes coming to an end is ‘yet another example of short-term thinking’

And that is before we come to the professionals in the health service and NHS hospitals.

And it is undeniable that 100 people a day dying of this does not get the same attention as back when over 1,000 were dying every day.

So is it then all about "attention" - "if we don't notice, it isn't there" ? Sounds a mite Trumpian to me...

[Lootman]

It isn't insisting it is the only consideration in everyone's lives or the only societal problem. So it should be seen in context and proportion to all manner of other issues and the policies to deal with it will have to coincide with others too, and the trade offs and conflicts between them considered.

Do we ask or define what living with influenza mean? Or measles, or cancer, or mental health?

The newspapers were full of Brexit stories until Covid came along. Then Brexit got demoted to one of the inside pages.

Now it is Covid that is demoted to the inside pages and all the news is about Ukraine.

What this shows is that Covid is now a much lower concern for the average voter and politician. We have huge numbers of infections but people do not care because the vast majority of those cases are not causing harm. In other words the risk assessment is now that this is more of an annoyance than a disaster. Some still get sick or die but it is a manageable and acceptable number. We have quite literally adapted to the existence and prevalence of the virus.

"Living with it" doesn't mean we ignore it. We still get a booster jab for it just like we get one for flu, which we are also happy to live with. However we are comfortable with rolling back the restrictions, ending the special testing requirements for flying etc, and we see far less need to wear face coverings or to avoid other people.

Covid has stopped scaring us and so we benignly tolerate it. That is living with it.

[Mike4]

And it is undeniable that 100 people a day dying of this does not get the same attention as back when over 1,000 were dying every day.

But its 200 people dying per day now. The deaths per day seem to have doubled since you last looked. Is that still ok?

https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details ... %20Kingdom

[Lootman]

And it is undeniable that 100 people a day dying of this does not get the same attention as back when over 1,000 were dying every day.

But its 200 people dying per day now. The deaths per day seem to have doubled since you last looked. Is that still ok?

https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details ... %20Kingdom

What I think is OK isn't the point, so much as the fact that the voters and politicians are not up in arms about that number. They appear to find it acceptable.

And we are continuing to roll back the remains of the restrictions. So I think you have your answer for the majority, whatever you and I may personally think. It appears that people can "live with it".

[Julian]

Latest ONS figures - 1.7 million have had long Covid for more than 28 days, half have had it for more than a year (I'm one), and we're yet to see the full effects of the two omicron waves. You cannot be serious talking about "living with it" if you're not talking about the burden of long Covid and its effects on healthcare and the economy.

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

Agreed. You have to include "long Covid" within the "it" when talking about "living with it". Just like we have lived with post-viral syndrome long before this particular virus arrived.

I am afraid we do have to live with it, and it it is "on" despite some being fed up with reading and hearing it.

The question remains: What, at this point, does "live with it" actually mean?

It is a good question, and will no doubt evolve over time, as it has over the last 2 years. Perhaps it is easiest to define what it isn't. It isn't insisting it is the only consideration in everyone's lives or the only societal problem. So it should be seen in context and proportion to all manner of other issues and the policies to deal with it will have to coincide with others too, and the trade offs and conflicts between them considered.

Do we ask or define what living with influenza mean? Or measles, or cancer, or mental health?

I agree that it’s a good question, one that occurred to me too. In response to your final paragraph I would say that yes, we absolutely do implicitly define very precisely what living with all of measles, various types of cancer, and mental health issues means. We have those implicit definitions because we can derive them from what we are actually doing. For measles we have a stable and well defined vaccination program that defines what vaccine to give at what age and I suspect also protocols for containing and dealing with cases when they arise. For many types of cancer we have well defined screening programs with well defined ages and screening frequencies. We also have targets for treatment milestones although admittedly those targets are currently often not met but at least we have them. For mental health the situation is not quite the same because I think it’s quite widely acknowledged that out current implicit definition of “living with it” isn’t good enough but there you could interpret the fairly frequent debates about what needs to be improved in mental health services as being an explicit debate about what “living with” mental health illnesses means.

The thing that separates all the examples you mentioned from SARS-CoV2 is the novelty. There is still an awful lot we don’t understand about this virus. There is still an awful lot we don’t understand about the vaccines we have created to combat this virus. The rate of antigenic drift seen to date far exceeds that seen in flu for instance. There is still an awful lot that we don’t understand about long Covid. It is this novelty and hence uncertainty that I believe is crucial right now and is why it isn’t safe to assume that SARS-Cov2 is close to becoming “just like flu” quite yet.

Having said all of the above I actually don’t like the phrasing of that basic question - what does “live with it” mean? - because I think it is the wrong question. I don’t think we should accept that we will need to live with it. I think that we, as a society, need to accept that we will need to adapt to it (where “it” is SARS-CoV2 being endemic in our society and very possibly also having left deep scarring in terms of long Covid consequences). “Adapt” implies more strongly to me the fact that we will need to adjust things rather than “live with” which can be taken as “it’s time to ignore it and just get on with our lives”.

Just what measures will need to be put in place at an societal level still needs to be determined but could include things like regular preemptive testing for the extremely vulnerable backed up by almost immediate access to appropriate early-stage therapeutics, vaccination regimens as well defined as those for flu in terms of age groups, frequency and handling of new variants, improved ventilation in key indoor spaces, and I’m sure lots of other stuff too.

I suspect that almost all of our adaptation to living with SARS-Cov2 will need to be at the societal/institutional level because at the individual level I have this nagging feeling that when we do stop seeing major new waves, very soon I hope, a very large percentage of the UK population will start forgetting about the virus almost completely and will revert to almost 100% pre-pandemic behaviour so behind-the-scenes procedural changes (vaccination, monitoring etc) will need to do most of the heavy lifting in terms of keeping things within acceptable limits.

- Julian

[Itsallaguess]

Having said all of the above I actually don’t like the phrasing of that basic question - what does “live with it” mean? - because I think it is the wrong question.

I don’t think we should accept that we will need to live with it. I think that we, as a society, need to accept that we will need to adapt to it (where “it” is SARS-CoV2 being endemic in our society and very possibly also having left deep scarring in terms of long Covid consequences).

“Adapt” implies more strongly to me the fact that we will need to adjust things rather than “live with” which can be taken as “it’s time to ignore it and just get on with our lives”.

I agree that the phrase 'I think we just need to live with it' does seem to imply a sense of 'let's get back to 100% planet-normal' that I really don't think anyone who might be suggesting we 'need to live with it' really thinks, and as well as your improved suggestion of using the word 'adapt', I think the word 'cope' is also probably much more aligned to the actual thinking of the 'live with it' crowd than the 'planet normal' view that I really don't think many people would suggest will be possible for many, many years.

One consideration that must be aired in all of this though, is that the vast majority of us now acutely know how difficult it's been to have to live through lengthy periods of heavy social restrictions, and whilst the phrase 'long Covid' seems to be quick off the tongue for many proponents of tighter restrictions at this current time, I think it's really unfortunate that we've not been able to come up with a catchy name for the heavy price that many people have paid, and continue to pay, in terms of ongoing mental and physical health issues, specifically due to having to live through those lengthy periods of heavy social restrictions and near house-arrest over recent years...

I raised a thread nearly a year ago now, that suggested that we're likely to be paying a price for 'long lockdown' for a quite lengthy period, even after restrictions are lifted, simply because we've been conditioned for so long to be scared to live our lives in a way that we used to consider 'normal' -

I've thought for a long time now that we're likely to have internalised the COVID-related risks and restrictions so deeply in our personal and collective psyches, that it's not going to be the case that someone waving some sort of starting-flag again on 'Freedom Day' is going to instantly allow us to get back to anything like widespread 'pre-COVID' social norms, and the above article goes some way to highlight why this is likely to be the case for many people...

Deep-divers often need to spend lots of time in decompression-chambers before they are allowed back outside again into the normal world, and I suspect that each of us are likely to have to go through our own 'personal decompression' of sorts, with some perhaps having to decompress for much longer than others.

https://www.lemonfool.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=29&t=30061

So whilst I'm absolutely fine to have people raising the 'long Covid' risk when we discuss the lifting of restrictions, and moving into a phase of having to adapt to and cope with Covid in a way that also allows things to baby-step back to at least some sense of 'normality', I'd also like those 'long Covid' risk-raisers to remember 'long lockdown' as well, because whilst it's absolutely right that we need to carefully consider those most at risk from any broad lifting of restrictions, we also need to consider that 'long lockdown' is very real as well, and is something that we've nearly all had to cope with in one way or another for a number of years now, almost to the point where we might have forgotten what 'normal' feels like any more, and that in itself needs addressing for the sake of our ongoing mental and physical health....

Cheers,

Itsallaguess

[dealtn]

“Adapt” implies more strongly to me the fact that we will need to adjust things rather than “live with” which can be taken as “it’s time to ignore it and just get on with our lives”.

I agree with so much of what you say. But "live with it" to me though is nothing like "ignore it ..."

My concern would be those adopting such a definition and labelling anyone believing we should, or have to, "live with it" in such a manner. Much like anyone questioning any aspect of the science, or restrictions, was previously labelled a "Covid denier" when in fact they really weren't. Such labels really only apply to a small minority, whilst most of the populations are pragmatists, and looking at how they adapt and live their lives in as full a sense as they can, and co-existing with the virus (and all the other medical conditions life throws at us).

[9873210]

We could "live with it" by doing nothing and accepting deaths and sickness.
We could "live with it" by locking down totally and accepting the social costs, suicides and deaths from poverty.
We could "live with it" by dosing everybody with ivermectin and accepting deaths and sickness.
We could "live with it" with some combination of vaccination, surveillance and other steps. We'd have to accept the cost and some sickness and deaths.

Whatever we do we will "live with it" because that's how reality works.

"Live with it" is meaningless. People should stop using it and say something about how we should live with it. They won't of course, because the meaninglessness is the intent. If you say nothing you can deny saying anything, and accuse others of "misunderstanding".

[servodude]

"Live with it" is meaningless. People should stop using it and say something about how we should live with it. They won't of course, because the meaninglessness is the intent. If you say nothing you can deny saying anything, and accuse others of "misunderstanding".

Indeed.
It's use is straight from the "Get COVID Done" school of disingenuous marketing tosh
- see also "lockdown"

-sd

[XFool]

We could "live with it" by doing nothing and accepting deaths and sickness.

I've thought of a handy nomenclature for that approach. But let's not go there...

We could "live with it" by locking down totally and accepting the social costs, suicides and deaths from poverty.

Not necessary in the UK - unless something very unfortunate should happen. But the term "lockdown" still seems to be used by some to describe anything from washing your hands, to opening a window, to LF testing, to wearing a mask in certain circumstances...

We could "live with it" by dosing everybody with ivermectin and accepting deaths and sickness.

Doesn't work, never worked. Next!

We could "live with it" with some combination of vaccination, surveillance and other steps. We'd have to accept the cost and some sickness and deaths.

The way it is. Though again, some still want to describe almost any sensible precautions as "lockdown" etc.

Whatever we do we will "live with it" because that's how reality works.

"Live with it" is meaningless. People should stop using it and say something about how we should live with it. They won't of course, because the meaninglessness is the intent. If you say nothing you can deny saying anything, and accuse others of "misunderstanding".

OK.

[Itsallaguess]

We could "live with it" by doing nothing and accepting deaths and sickness.
We could "live with it" by locking down totally and accepting the social costs, suicides and deaths from poverty.
We could "live with it" by dosing everybody with ivermectin and accepting deaths and sickness.
We could "live with it" with some combination of vaccination, surveillance and other steps. We'd have to accept the cost and some sickness and deaths.

Whatever we do we will "live with it" because that's how reality works.

"Live with it" is meaningless. People should stop using it and say something about how we should live with it. They won't of course, because the meaninglessness is the intent. If you say nothing you can deny saying anything, and accuse others of "misunderstanding".

I'd like to think that most people who are currently promoting a sense of 'adapting and coping with Covid' would be using your fourth definition of the phrase -

• We could "live with it" with some combination of vaccination, surveillance and other steps. We'd have to accept the cost and some sickness and deaths.

But then, it's perhaps very easy to criticise people promoting that type of coping if those that wish to criticise assume that they mean something else...

So I actually think that any proposed 'meaninglessness' of the phrase 'live with it' suits those wishing to criticise it more than those wishing to promote it...

Cheers,

Itsallaguess

[Lootman]

Having said all of the above I actually don’t like the phrasing of that basic question - what does “live with it” mean? - because I think it is the wrong question. I don’t think we should accept that we will need to live with it. I think that we, as a society, need to accept that we will need to adapt to it (where “it” is SARS-CoV2 being endemic in our society and very possibly also having left deep scarring in terms of long Covid consequences). “Adapt” implies more strongly to me the fact that we will need to adjust things rather than “live with” which can be taken as “it’s time to ignore it and just get on with our lives”.

I think that "adapt" might be an appropriate description. But you still have to define that. Presumably it means the adoption of behaviours that we would not have engaged in prior to Covid that we now deem to be prudent. But for me the key distinction is between mandates from above versus individuals using their own judgement based on their own situation, and on generally accepted advice.

So adapting might mean having an annual booster jab, but it is not required.

Adapting might mean getting tested before getting on a plane, but you don't have to.

Adapting might mean wearing a face covering on a train but it is optional.

Adapting might be avoiding crowded indoor places for those who are risk averse, but others are free to do so.

In other words living with it, AKA adaptation, means that 100% of our freedoms have been returned to us. The government has largely removed itself from the situation, other than in an advisory role.