Current Affairs

[oldbluefox]

I think the point I was making has been missed.

‘Mild’ Covid is clinically anything that doesn’t require hospitalisation.

I don't know where you have that information from. Even The Guardian has a headline "Think a 'mild' case of Covid-19 doesn’t sound so bad? Think again" since mild cases of Covid can turn to something which requires hospitalisation.
I can find no reference to support that claim of yours, in fact quite the opposite, merely that some people are worse affected than others.

[barney]

The entire thing is a mystery Foxy.
Why some get seriously ill while others are fine.
Why some get it while some don’t.
Friends of ours went to London to see Strictly last week.
Two people out of forty on the coach have since tested positive.
One poorly, the other fine.
No one seems to have any answers.
We’ve both not had covid but most of our friends and family have.
Why?
We don’t know.

[david63]

The entire thing is a mystery Foxy.
Why some get seriously ill while others are fine.

Not much different to any other respiratory disease then!

[Gill W]

I don't like the way they are classifying the severity of COVID at the minute. My borther and his entire family came down with it just after Christmas and he said he had had worse colds. A neighbour came down with it and she was in bed, very ill, for several weeks and had to beg her children not to take her to hospital because she was terrified she would not come out. I don't know which variety of COVID they had but I know both would have probably been referred to as 'mild'.

I think there may some evidence that genetics may play as much of a role as age. Assuming that is the case then hopefully they can identify the markers that make it more severe in others.

Exactly this. A lot of people have it in their heads that Covid is now mild, but don't realise that mild covid can still make people feel very unwell.

I have a friend who sees members of the public as part of her job and has had to be out in the front line for the last two years. She is very careful with things like masks and tests herself regularly, but has (so far) not been infected. I do wonder sometimes if there is something in her genetic makeup that makes her super resistant. No doubt proper research will be done, but it's an interesting concept.

Even The Guardian has a headline "Think a 'mild' case of Covid-19 doesn’t sound so bad? Think again" since mild cases of Covid can turn to something which requires hospitalisation.

That's what I'm saying. People have got it into their heads that 'Covid is mild', but something that starts off as mild can get worse and end up in hospital with 'moderate' or even 'severe' Covid

[Kendhni]

Efforts by Hong Kong to get down to zero covid have taken a hit. The authorities have one of the tightest covid rules in their main quest to please Beijing, before they can open the border with China. The spike, the highest since the start of the pandemic, is said to be caused by families celebrating the Luna new year.
So control does not mean that you can crush covid as Hong Kong expected.. As we enter this new unknown of new freedom, March may be an interesting month.
I hope that will not mean Ken and I will be returning to GB to a situation we found ourselves all in when we returned from the Caribbean two years ago

Maybe this time we met get a free transatlantic thrown in
I agree with you about control, but would go further and say without control things are likely to get worse. As I said earlier, I hope the proposed changes are being done for the right reasons, because our scientists seem to have been sidelined when it comes to providing information.

On the plus side looking forward to Amber Cove.

[Mervyn and Trish]

Mild Covid is defined a dozen ways on the internet. It is not as simple as anything that doesn't require hospitalisation.

There are other criteria to define it as mild. And there are more serious cases that also do not require hospitalisation. There are five or six levels of Covid. Mild is the one above asymptomatic.

[towny44]

I think the point I was making has been missed.

‘Mild’ Covid is clinically anything that doesn’t require hospitalisation.

Zahawi didn’t require hospitalisation. Therefore his case is deemed to be ‘mild’. His horrific experience was from clinically mild Covid.

The point I was making that people have bought into the idea of Covid now being mild, without fully understanding what mild means. Mild Covid can still make people very ill

So can pneumonia, bronchitis and influenza but we have learned to live with them, without resorting to massive restrictions on our daily lives. Because covid was new to us our natural immune system was no good during the initial stages of the pandemic, but vaccination and the the fact that omicron is not causing the same volume of serious complications is now enabling us to relax the restrictions to allow normal life to re-start.
However covid is still relatively new, and the impact of long covid and the possibility of complications from repeated infections, will need to be studied and measures to counter these side effects developed, and hopefully these can be addressed alongside a return to normality.

[Gill W]

It was announced at lunch time that Prince Charles tested positive (for the second time)

Reports are now saying that he met the Queen this week, but she is not ' displaying any symptoms'.

[Kendhni]

I don't like the way they are classifying the severity of COVID at the minute. My borther and his entire family came down with it just after Christmas and he said he had had worse colds. A neighbour came down with it and she was in bed, very ill, for several weeks and had to beg her children not to take her to hospital because she was terrified she would not come out. I don't know which variety of COVID they had but I know both would have probably been referred to as 'mild'.

I think there may some evidence that genetics may play as much of a role as age. Assuming that is the case then hopefully they can identify the markers that make it more severe in others.

Exactly this. A lot of people have it in their heads that Covid is now mild, but don't realise that mild covid can still make people feel very unwell.

I have a friend who sees members of the public as part of her job and has had to be out in the front line for the last two years. She is very careful with things like masks and tests herself regularly, but has (so far) not been infected. I do wonder sometimes if there is something in her genetic makeup that makes her super resistant. No doubt proper research will be done, but it's an interesting concept.

Even The Guardian has a headline "Think a 'mild' case of Covid-19 doesn’t sound so bad? Think again" since mild cases of Covid can turn to something which requires hospitalisation.

That's what I'm saying. People have got it into their heads that 'Covid is mild', but something that starts off as mild can get worse and end up in hospital with 'moderate' or even 'severe' Covid

The medical profession have come up with 5 degrees of classification of COVID and I am assuming this is the definition you are talking about
"When doctors talk about mild COVID-19, they refer to an illness that is symptomatic but does not require hospitalization."
https://www.healthline.com/health-news/ ... id-19-case

I think that is probably not the best way to classify it since some people can be very ill but not require hospitalisation. To me the phrase 'mild COVID' is a bit like saying someone is only a 'little bit pregnant'.

[Gill W]

Thanks Ken for searching that out, as I had given up and couldn’t be bothered any more!

I was trying to get the message across that what doctors describe as mild might not be the same as what the average person in the street thinks of as mild.

I don’t think I succeeded in my quest!

[towny44]

Thanks Ken for searching that out, as I had given up and couldn’t be bothered any more!

I was trying to get the message across that what doctors describe as mild might not be the same as what the average person in the street thinks of as mild.

I don’t think I succeeded in my quest!

I understood exactly what you meant, however now that serious covid hospitalizations and deaths are no worse than other respiratory infections as a percentage, then surely it is time to treat them the same way.

[Onelife]

I think both John and Gills points are valid but surely the issue here is the amount of Covid that is still in circulation? If pneumonia, bronchitis and influenza infections were consistently running at the levels that Covid is at present then the government would be asking everyone, especially the vulnerable to take precautions not relaxing them?

[towny44]

I think both John and Gills points are valid but surely the issue here is the amount of Covid that is still in circulation? If pneumonia, bronchitis and influenza infections were consistently running at the levels that Covid is then the government would be asking everyone, especially the vulnerable to take precautions not relaxing them?

We really have no idea how many people are infected with influenza on a weekly basis, but if the ONS were to add a test for flu to their regular covid testing we may well be surprised at the result. However regardless of the current high infection rate, the level of hospitalizations and deaths from covid no longer require the present level of precautions, for the vast majorit of people.

[Gill W]

I think both John and Gills points are valid but surely the issue here is the amount of Covid that is still in circulation? If pneumonia, bronchitis and influenza infections were consistently running at the levels that Covid is at present then the government would be asking everyone, especially the vulnerable to take precautions not relaxing them?

Agreed, Keith.

If the three diseases you mention , which are generally seasonal, were running at the level of Covid prevalence of 1 in 19 people in England, I think we would have noticed, and the population would have expected something to be done about it.

As we’ve had Covid waves in the spring and summer, it looks as if Covid isn’t seasonal, so infections are less likely to just drop away. We’ll end up being stuck with mega high endemicity, which can’t be good.

[oldbluefox]

We’ll end up being stuck with mega high endemicity, which can’t be good.

Who's feeding you all of these scare stories Gill. I don't believe that for one minute.

[Onelife]

I thought this a very interesting read...

https://www.theatlantic.com/health/arch ... ng/621423/

[Kendhni]

At least Cressida d**k is showing a bit of integrity. She had her problems but there has to be a certain irony that her downfall came due to misogynistic and homophobic messages between her officers. The timing of this discovery among her officers seems somewhat convenient for others that should have resigned but do not have the necessary integrity

[Kendhni]

I thought this a very interesting read...

https://www.theatlantic.com/health/arch ... ng/621423/

Indeed. A few weeks ago our CMO made a comment that I did not really understand, but I think that article helps to explain it. He said something along the lines of "moving from pandemic to endemic is a political decision, but COVID has no political allegiance".

We have been presented with a huge opportunity to create a better and more equal society. The question I would be asking is, the government has had 2 years to consider it's 'build back better' soundbite, so what plans have the government made to change society to one more suitable for the 21st century? What are the elements of 'better' that have been considered? At the minute all I seem to be hearing are attempts to return to the 2019 status quo ... that would a disgraceful missed opportunity.

[Onelife]

I thought this a very interesting read...

https://www.theatlantic.com/health/arch ... ng/621423/

Indeed. A few weeks ago our CMO made a comment that I did not really understand, but I think that article helps to explain it. He said something along the lines of "moving from pandemic to endemic is a political decision, but COVID has no political allegiance".

We have been presented with a huge opportunity to create a better and more equal society. The question I would be asking is, the government has had 2 years to consider it's 'build back better' soundbite, so what plans have the government made to change society to one more suitable for the 21st century? What are the elements of 'better' that have been considered? At the minute all I seem to be hearing are attempts to return to the 2019 status quo ... that would a disgraceful missed opportunity.

Your CMO has the best quote I have read in ages

The one thing we do know is that soundbites come back and bite you in the a*se when you fail to deliver, however, as yet I’m not prepared to take a nip until the barking dog and his pack have had a chance to rid themselves of the leash that has stopped them exercising their plans which are mostly due to the impact of Covid.
The problem I feel is that they have never been able to move away from the idea of looking after the top dogs first while leaving the packs to pick up the scraps. We live in a very unequal society and agree with you that covid has given our leaders the opportunity to take a good hard look at the mess we have left behind and make changes for a better fairer future. This can only be achieved if we all feel part of the same pack and not as it is now with our totally unacceptable levels of social divides.

Opportunities come to those who seek them but it is the Government that must create the platform from which opportunities grow.

It’s been a dog’s life for far too long for far too many.

[towny44]

I thought this a very interesting read...

https://www.theatlantic.com/health/arch ... ng/621423/

Indeed. A few weeks ago our CMO made a comment that I did not really understand, but I think that article helps to explain it. He said something along the lines of "moving from pandemic to endemic is a political decision, but COVID has no political allegiance".

We have been presented with a huge opportunity to create a better and more equal society. The question I would be asking is, the government has had 2 years to consider it's 'build back better' soundbite, so what plans have the government made to change society to one more suitable for the 21st century? What are the elements of 'better' that have been considered? At the minute all I seem to be hearing are attempts to return to the 2019 status quo ... that would a disgraceful missed opportunity.

Your CMO has the best quote I have read in ages

The one thing we do know is that soundbites come back and bite you in the a*se when you fail to deliver, however, as yet I’m not prepared to take a nip until the barking dog and his pack have had a chance to rid themselves of the leash that has stopped them exercising their plans which are mostly due to the impact of Covid.
The problem I feel is that they have never been able to move away from the idea of looking after the top dogs first while leaving the packs to pick up the scraps. We live in a very unequal society and agree with you that covid has given our leaders the opportunity to take a good hard look at the mess we have left behind and make changes for a better fairer future. This can only be achieved if we all feel part of the same pack and not as it is now with our totally unacceptable levels of social divides.

Opportunities come to those who seek them but it is the Government that must create the platform from which opportunities grow.

It’s been a dog’s life for far too long for far too many.

Whilst the idea of fairer society seems very appealing I question whether it will ever be possible. We have had universally equal state education for nearly a century, and yet we still have major disparities in outcomes, this of course results in massive disparities in lifetime earning potential. How we address this without significantly taxing the higher earners is difficult to achieve, and of course unless this were a worldwide operation there would be an ever increasing drain on top achievers emigrating to improve their lifestyle, resulting in an ever increasing decline in the lifestyle of the those who are left behind.
If either of you have a solution that would work I would be interested to hear your views.

[Manoverboard]

Job losses in the future will be massive due to robotics, this will result in those on very high pay grades and the rest scratching out a living by doing several menial jobs. The solution proposed was apparently to give the poorer ones £500 per month so they can exist with some pride. Problem is that the high earners can work remotely so will simply move away to avoid paying UK Tax.

[barney]

We could start by making sure that corporations pay the correct amount of tax.
Close the loopholes.
If you earn revenue in the U.K. then you pay the appropriate tax in the U.K..
If international corporations don’t wish to do that, then tell them they cannot trade here.
If for example Amazon withdraws, someone else will take up the slack.
It’s totally obscene that they and others get away with it.

[david63]

Close the loopholes.

It is impossible to create a tax system that does not have any loopholes. The first loophole is define "income"

[Kendhni]

We live in a very unequal society and agree with you that covid has given our leaders the opportunity to take a good hard look at the mess we have left behind and make changes for a better fairer future. This can only be achieved if we all feel part of the same pack and not as it is now with our totally unacceptable levels of social divides.

Opportunities come to those who seek them but it is the Government that must create the platform from which opportunities grow.

It’s been a dog’s life for far too long for far too many.

We have to move towards a much more inclusive society where everybody contributes what they can.
I know it is science fiction, but I would love to see money/currency being done away with. People contribute what they can and take what they need ... emphasis being on the word 'need' ... but I don't think, as a society, we are anywhere near evolved enough for that. Mind you a replicator on every street corner would help.

[Kendhni]

Job losses in the future will be massive due to robotics, this will result in those on very high pay grades and the rest scratching out a living by doing several menial jobs.

I have heard that since I was a kid, but history has shown that is not the case. If anything technology has created more and more jobs. Advancements have improved productivity providing todays workers with a far better work/life balance than ever before ... and I only expect to see that increasing with shorter working weeks and better employee benefit packages.

Many jobs are likely to go but that is part of the ongoing evolution of society. For instance in a few decades petrol forecourts will be a thing of the past (possibly provided by supermarkets only). I suspect many will be converted into minimarts, charging points with coffee shops etc. The high street is disappearing but local shopping areas seem to be holding their own.

Taxi drivers and possibly other forms of public transport are another at-risk species. When autonomous car technology is sorted out car ownership is likely to be a thing of the past. People will simply order a driverless car to pick them up and drop them off (this is already being trialled).

Robotics has generally only provided benefits, as will AI which is the next big thing ... but that is a whole different ball game.