The Lemon Fool

How often do you test yourself?

Every time before visiting my elderly parents, which is about twice a week.

Scott.

4 times ever

Whenever someone at the office is found to have Covid
so twice this week

Before I meet groups of people indoors socially. And before medical and dentist appointments. I'm retired - so no workplace visits.

scotia wrote:Before I meet groups of people indoors socially. And before medical and dentist appointments. I'm retired - so no workplace visits.

It would never cross my mind to do that. The only tests I have had were when I needed to fly, or else because my doctor or dentist required it, the latter no longer being required in favour of proof of vaccination.

Up until mum died at the end of Oct, it was LFT before each visit and PCR every week.

Then beween then and Xmas we were like Scotia, LFT before meeting a group (in or outdoors) or family gatherings, or the dentist.

Since Xmas we've done one LFT when we had guests staying over, but other than that we haven't bothered as social contacts have been pretty distanced or fleeting.

Still wearing a mask in the shops though, although most people in Shrewsbury still are doing.

Paul

We've used them before meeting up with friends who have vulnerable family members, but otherwise, only if required by e.g. airline etc.

For those that have answered "yes", what will you do once free tests are withdrawn?

VRD

vrdiver wrote:For those that have answered "yes", what will you do once free tests are withdrawn?

VRD

Not test and then Covid will disappear.
Looks like Trump was right.

vrdiver wrote:We've used them before meeting up with friends who have vulnerable family members, but otherwise, only if required by e.g. airline etc.

For those that have answered "yes", what will you do once free tests are withdrawn?

VRD

stock up with test kits while they are freely available.

I already have a few boxes

scotia wrote:

vrdiver wrote:We've used them before meeting up with friends who have vulnerable family members, but otherwise, only if required by e.g. airline etc.

For those that have answered "yes", what will you do once free tests are withdrawn?

VRD

stock up with test kits while they are freely available.

We have "a few" (!) but a) Covid isn't going to go away before your stock runs out, and b) most (almost everybody AFAICS) will stop testing shortly, which means asymptomatic cases will be circulating unchecked and unknown amongst the general population, in schools, workplaces and social gatherings such as theatres, restaurants, bars and clubs, public transport etc. etc.

Without mandatory self-isolation, people will also be returning to general circulation before they've stopped shedding Covid after suffering a symptomatic infection. Basically, Covid is going to be all around us big time.

As far as I can figure out, the government policy is to "hope" that hospitalisation due to Covid remains low, and that a summer of mass-circulation means that the winter season will be subdued, due to everybody having antibodies.

vrdiver wrote:As far as I can figure out, the government policy is to "hope" that hospitalisation due to Covid remains low, and that a summer of mass-circulation means that the winter season will be subdued, due to everybody having antibodies.

Yes - I think that's the optimistic hope. But will the medical infrastructure cope with the latest significant outbreaks? About a month ago our local GP service (Central Scotland) started increasing traditional in-person consultations, hoping to get back to pre-Covid normality. But today they announced that they were under considerable stress and that they were operating an emergency-only service. This latest BA.2 Omicron variant seems to be sweeping through Scotland - and now we have friends and family (fully vaccinated - and previously not infected by Covid) who have succumbed to the new variant. My grandchildren (who imported the infection from school) seem to have been relatively unaffected, but their parents reported that it was like a significant Flu infection. So I'm not convinced that the recent lessening of restrictions will turn out to be a a wise choice. I look forward to receiving the next booster for us 75+ oldies.

vrdiver wrote:

scotia wrote:

vrdiver wrote:We've used them before meeting up with friends who have vulnerable family members, but otherwise, only if required by e.g. airline etc.

For those that have answered "yes", what will you do once free tests are withdrawn?

VRD

stock up with test kits while they are freely available.

We have "a few" (!) but a) Covid isn't going to go away before your stock runs out, and b) most (almost everybody AFAICS) will stop testing shortly, which means asymptomatic cases will be circulating unchecked and unknown amongst the general population, in schools, workplaces and social gatherings such as theatres, restaurants, bars and clubs, public transport etc. etc.

Without mandatory self-isolation, people will also be returning to general circulation before they've stopped shedding Covid after suffering a symptomatic infection. Basically, Covid is going to be all around us big time.

As far as I can figure out, the government policy is to "hope" that hospitalisation due to Covid remains low, and that a summer of mass-circulation means that the winter season will be subdued, due to everybody having antibodies.

Much like every other infectious disease then?

I would "hope" the policy is a little more thought out than based purely on "hope". Isn't that why there are scientific advisors, providing guidance? My "hope" is they will continue to be pragmatic, and not dogmatic, and would adjust policy if events turned out to be worse (or better) than expected or desired.

dealtn wrote:

vrdiver wrote:As far as I can figure out, the government policy is to "hope" that hospitalisation due to Covid remains low, and that a summer of mass-circulation means that the winter season will be subdued, due to everybody having antibodies.

Much like every other infectious disease then?

I would "hope" the policy is a little more thought out than based purely on "hope". Isn't that why there are scientific advisors, providing guidance? My "hope" is they will continue to be pragmatic, and not dogmatic, and would adjust policy if events turned out to be worse (or better) than expected or desired.

No argument there. The "hope" bit is really based around the fact that the virus is still "new" in human terms, still mutating (AIUI nobody is saying omicron is the final form) and the calculations re hospitalisation and re-infection impacts are still heavily based on theory (I'm not aware of any country that has data to show us what to expect re covid as we enter this wide-circulation phase).

I'm actually happy for restrictions to end. Based on the virus having become endemic, there being no plan to eradicate it, its current low impact (death rates below those expected from flu at similar levels) and no other exit plan I don't really see any other option that makes sense. As you say, the real test will be if what happens next veers off course, then how the government reacts will be of some interest.

VRD

dealtn wrote:Much like every other infectious disease then?

Do we have numbers for deaths from the common cold, measles, chichen pox, mumps etc

pje16 wrote:

dealtn wrote:Much like every other infectious disease then?

Do we have numbers for deaths from the common cold, measles, chichen pox, mumps etc

Pretty sure we do for the last 3, certainly for measles. Thankfully all low. No doubt we would have much better data for infections for them too if we had free tests and mandatory isolation periods also.

We also measure fatalities for many other causes of death, some infectious, some not, some preventable, some not. Society has decided these levels are "acceptable" it would appear. Were they not to be there would be pressure on governments to change. Presumably a pragmatic government might decide to change its approach or policy in such circumstances.

pje16 wrote:

dealtn wrote:Much like every other infectious disease then?

Do we have numbers for deaths from the common cold, measles, chichen pox, mumps etc

We don't have numbers of deaths from covid.
We have an inflated measure* that contains "with" and "of" and so is pretty much useless unless we know the "of" figure - which we never will.

*The old 'positive test then gets killed by being knocked over by a bus within 28 days' figure.

absolutezero wrote:

pje16 wrote:

dealtn wrote:Much like every other infectious disease then?

Do we have numbers for deaths from the common cold, measles, chichen pox, mumps etc

We don't have numbers of deaths from covid.
We have an inflated measure* that contains "with" and "of" and so is pretty much useless unless we know the "of" figure - which we never will.

*The old 'positive test then gets killed by being knocked over by a bus within 28 days' figure.

There are also other methods we "know" such as is Covid mentioned on the death certificate (unlikely in your bus scenario). That might also be imperfect, but is likely to be similar in comparing between Covid and other infectious diseases (which was the comparison being made I believe).

dealtn wrote:

absolutezero wrote:

pje16 wrote:

dealtn wrote:Much like every other infectious disease then?

Do we have numbers for deaths from the common cold, measles, chichen pox, mumps etc

We don't have numbers of deaths from covid.
We have an inflated measure* that contains "with" and "of" and so is pretty much useless unless we know the "of" figure - which we never will.

*The old 'positive test then gets killed by being knocked over by a bus within 28 days' figure.

There are also other methods we "know" such as is Covid mentioned on the death certificate (unlikely in your bus scenario). That might also be imperfect, but is likely to be similar in comparing between Covid and other infectious diseases (which was the comparison being made I believe).

Is true.
But there may also have been an overabundance of covidding the death certificates.
The simple truth is we will never know the actual stat but it's likely to be lower than the ones thrown about.