2 minutes ago, mommysboy said:

'is the impact of Omicron to health any more severe than illnesses many of us take for granted and have lived with for generations without great concern'

 

No, it isn't imo. In fact, Omicron is behaving more like any ordinary coronavirus, and much like a traditional winter bug.  It could produce one of those 'wicked colds' in an otherwise healthy person.

 

Unfortunately, with very old and also vulnerable people, who often live with chronic underlying illness, just about anything can kill.

Having those opinions I think you should also add that this is because of vaccines and particularly the boosters that is rendering Omicron far less deadly. While the actual variant is less virulent it still has teeth and according to a SA study is only about 25% less virulent than than Delta.

 

https://www.i24news.tv/en/news/coronavirus/1642185622-south-african-study-suggests-omicron-less-severe-even-for-unvaccinated

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.01.12.22269148v1

The coronavirus — the current variant or future ones that are sure to pop up — remains a dangerous germ. It is still infecting more than 130,000 Americans and killing more than 2,000 every day. Tens of millions of people remain vulnerable.

And there will be future outbreaks. The notion of a “herd immunity” that could stop the virus has slipped away under the harsh reality of new variants, waning immunity, and the rejection of vaccines by some Americans.

 

https://apnews.com/article/coronavirus-pandemic-science-health-united-states-3e7ab3f74080bac8480aa6de3e65ecce

2 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

Society has an ethical and moral obligation to protect all citizens, not just the healthy. Where have we seen similar sentiments before?

 

But there are reasonable limits as to how far we can go.  And they are being protected- it's just that when a person is extremely fragile it's very difficult to help them.

 

Otherwise you can make the same argument for just about everything that is small risk- from mosquito bites, to car crashes, to boiling an egg, to mobile phones, to even the common cold.

 

'Where have we seen similar sentiments before?' -  Why on earth did you post that! 

 

 

 

 

 

2 minutes ago, mommysboy said:

 

But there are reasonable limits as to how far we can go.  And they are being protected- it's just that when a person is extremely fragile it's very difficult to help them.

 

Otherwise you can make the same argument for just about everything that is small risk- from mosquito bites, to car crashes, to boiling an egg, to mobile phones, to even the common cold.

 

'Where have we seen similar sentiments before?' -  Why on earth did you post that!

 

Because such sentiments are repugnant and an insult to human dignity.

1 minute ago, ozimoron said:

Because such sentiments are repugnant and an insult to human dignity.

That's ridiculous!  I'm not advocating anything other than the normal attitude and position we take to any small risk that we take every day in our lives, ie, we seek to protect by vaccination, shielding, and antivirals. What an earth are you imagining?  

14 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

The coronavirus — the current variant or future ones that are sure to pop up — remains a dangerous germ. It is still infecting more than 130,000 Americans and killing more than 2,000 every day. Tens of millions of people remain vulnerable.

And there will be future outbreaks. The notion of a “herd immunity” that could stop the virus has slipped away under the harsh reality of new variants, waning immunity, and the rejection of vaccines by some Americans.

 

https://apnews.com/article/coronavirus-pandemic-science-health-united-states-3e7ab3f74080bac8480aa6de3e65ecce

So, what do you believe should be done? Permanent lockdown-for instance?

2 minutes ago, mommysboy said:

So, what do you believe should be done? Permanent lockdown-for instance?

I don't believe in permanent lock downs and nor does anybody else. I have said repeatedly what I believe should be done.

 

Here is some excellent advice

 

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/fauci-says-time-start-inching-back-toward-normality-2022-02-16/

 

14 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

Society has an ethical and moral obligation to protect all citizens, not just the healthy. Where have we seen similar sentiments before?

I agree, the same ethical and moral obligations existed before Covid-19 but we (as a society) didn’t really take them seriously. i.e. with the common cold and influenza we didn’t isolate, may just ‘got on with things’...  Perhaps the heightened awareness of the transmission of respiratory viruses means people will be more considerate of others when they have a cold or flu etc. 

 

Or, perhaps governments should be sending out the message - if you have any cold like symptoms stay at home, or wear a mask if you have to go out (just as Japanese society has for decades). 

 

Previously, did those in high risk groups take additional precautions against influenza and colds ? is this not now the same?

 

Of course, as discussed below, there is another facet:

 

14 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

Society has an ethical and moral obligation to protect all citizens, not just the healthy. Where have we seen similar sentiments before?

Agreed, the potential for antigenic drift increases with a greater number of cases, so it is in all of our interest to prevent the spread of Covid-19 (whichever variant it is) as the virus has proven it can be extremely contagious and it has proven that it can evolve quickly.

 

 

 

That said, there is a practical concern:

 

- Do we continue with existing stringent measures of partial lockdown controls on travel etc ???  

- Given that we (most of us) have been vaccinated and are taking boosters, have we not done all we can do to limit the impact of Covid-19 while allowing life to continue as close to normal as possible ?

 

- IF we are to continue with stringent measures how long do we do so ?... at which point is it ‘long enough’ ? given the highly contagious nature its quite likely people will contract the Omicron variant numerous times in a year.

 

Is SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant unstoppable and our only measure of defence continued evolution of vaccines and improved treatment of respiratory viruses ?

 

So, if the objective is to ’slow it down’ for how long do we continue this ’slow down’ ? 

 

It seems the Western governments have evaluated this risk and decided that vaccinations and boosters have been effective and that further ‘boosters’ will continue to remain effective.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 minute ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

I agree, the same ethical and moral obligations existed before Covid-19 but we (as a society) didn’t really take them seriously. i.e. with the common cold and influenza we didn’t isolate, may just ‘got on with things’...  Perhaps the heightened awareness of the transmission of respiratory viruses means people will be more considerate of others when they have a cold or flu etc. 

 

Or, perhaps governments should be sending out the message - if you have any cold like symptoms stay at home, or wear a mask if you have to go out (just as Japanese society has for decades). 

 

Previously, did those in high risk groups take additional precautions against influenza and colds ? is this not now the same?

 

Of course, as discussed below, there is another facet:

 

Agreed, the potential for antigenic drift increases with a greater number of cases, so it is in all of our interest to prevent the spread of Covid-19 (whichever variant it is) as the virus has proven it can be extremely contagious and it has proven that it can evolve quickly.

 

 

 

That said, there is a practical concern:

 

- Do we continue with existing stringent measures of partial lockdown controls on travel etc ???  

- Given that we (most of us) have been vaccinated and are taking boosters, have we not done all we can do to limit the impact of Covid-19 while allowing life to continue as close to normal as possible ?

 

- IF we are to continue with stringent measures how long do we do so ?... at which point is it ‘long enough’ ? given the highly contagious nature its quite likely people will contract the Omicron variant numerous times in a year.

 

Is SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant unstoppable and our only measure of defence continued evolution of vaccines and improved treatment of respiratory viruses ?

 

So, if the objective is to ’slow it down’ for how long do we continue this ’slow down’ ? 

 

It seems the Western governments have evaluated this risk and decided that vaccinations and boosters have been effective and that further ‘boosters’ will continue to remain effective.

Surely "long enough" is going to be defined by a marked and sustained decrease in infections and it is for each country to decide when that time is appropriate?

7 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

I don't believe in permanent lock downs and nor does anybody else. I have said repeatedly what I believe should be done.

 

Here is some excellent advice

 

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/fauci-says-time-start-inching-back-toward-normality-2022-02-16/

UK and Denmark are already there!  Quite simply it was realized that Omicron was much less severe than Delta, and they got back to normal quite quickly. They were quick to provide a third vaccination to risk groups though.  And that seems to be a policy being adopted by most European countries now.

 

I don't know why the situation is so different in the USA to be honest.  Each country needs to make its own decision.  Most westernised countries seem to be following Europe.

 

 

17 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

Surely "long enough" is going to be defined by a marked and sustained decrease in infections and it is for each country to decide when that time is appropriate?

Again, agreed....   but how are we now measuring infections ??...    is there any proportionate testing from a cross section of society to be able establish accurate estimations ?

 

Currently in the UK people are simply testing ATK positive and being asked to stay at home when they do so, there is no call for them to report the cases officially although PCR testing is free if someone suspects they are positive or wishes to confirm an ATK result - the reality is most people take an ATK and thats it (ATK’s are free in the UK).

 

In Thailand, ATK’s are not free, so there is a reluctance for someone (especially the poor) to go out and buy one if they may have been exposed but ‘feel ok’... additionally, PCR tests cost 4000 baht (drive through) if someone suspects they are positive, OR, a suspected positive case goes to a hospital for a PCR test (which isn’t free) and they have to pay for that.

 

Thus: any official numbers in Thailand and the UK are vastly inaccurate. 

 

Another potential issues exists with the numbers in Thailand - People who test ATK positive are encouraged to ‘call in’ to the Covid-19 hotline and report their case - they will be sent a ‘care package’ within a few days, they will also be given the option to be sent good, or sent (I’m not sure how) 300 baht for Grab Food orders each day (I’m not sure how long for, 10 days)... So, as soon as this becomes widely available we’ll have families of 4 reporting ATK positive and claiming their 1200 baht per day ‘Grab Food tokens’ (or whatever it is they are provided with). 

 

-------

 

Another point: IF vaccines are not wholly effective in preventing transmission of Omicron are previous infections effective at preventing further transmission of Omicron ?...  i.e. will the virus ever subside, or just like the types of common cold  continue to circulate ad nauseam and we just get used to it, thus rending the risk of antigenic drift ever present and unavoidable ??

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 minute ago, mommysboy said:

UK and Denmark are already there!  Quite simply it was realized that Omicron was much less severe than Delta, and they got back to normal quite quickly. They were quick to provide a third vaccination to risk groups though.  And that seems to be a policy being adopted by most European countries now.

 

I don't know why the situation is so different in the USA to be honest.  Each country needs to make its own decision.  Most westernised countries seem to be following Europe.

 

 

Austria and Sweden too, I'm pretty sure it won't be too long before the US goes down the same route as hospitalizations are decreasing rapidly and most of them are the unvaccinated by choice.

3 minutes ago, mommysboy said:

UK and Denmark are already there!  Quite simply it was realized that Omicron was much less severe than Delta, and they got back to normal quite quickly. They were quick to provide a third vaccination to risk groups though.  And that seems to be a policy being adopted by most European countries now.

 

I don't know why the situation is so different in the USA to be honest.  Each country needs to make its own decision.  Most westernised countries seem to be following Europe.

You are correct. Each country has a different experience and the timing of a return to normal life should differ accordingly. I'm sure that is the goal for every country.

1 minute ago, richard_smith237 said:

-------

 

Another point: IF vaccines are not wholly effective in preventing transmission of Omicron are previous infections effective at preventing further transmission of Omicron ?...  i.e. will the virus ever subside, or just like the types of common cold  continue to circulate ad nauseam and we just get used to it, thus rending the risk of antigenic drift ever present and unavoidable ??

excuse the clip.

 

Yes, previous infections are partially effective at preventing further infections in the same way as vaccines are. I think there is evidence now that infections are declining so the end is in sight, or at least a point where the rate of infections will be low enough not to unduly affect either the economy or public health.

 

I think there will be a lesson learned about the flu arising out of this as well.

2 hours ago, ozimoron said:

People were originally hospitalised because there was no other practical way of preventing the pandemic from spreading and because of an observed history of non compliance with isolation orders

 

Also other people for a variety of reasons.

You mean like heavy drinkers, heavy smokers and obesity.

3 minutes ago, possum1931 said:

You mean like heavy drinkers, heavy smokers and obesity.

and just being dealt a bad hand at birth as well as any number of other reasons.

I've always thought that we have traditionally not paid enough attention to upper respiratory tract infections.  I hope attitudes will change in the future. Perhaps that is the one good thing that will come out of this pandemic.  But there has to be an attitude of reasonableness too.  I hope it becomes the norm that people with a cold stay away from workplaces, school, and are advised not to go out to bars, etc.

 

I'm sure that had youngsters been the main sufferers, we would have been much more concerned, and this does say a lot about our attitude towards the elderly. I still can't work out why it is not possible to shield them better, but I remember the UK government advised it was simply not possible.  I'm not satisfied with that in all honesty.  It seems to me we spent an awful lot of money protecting people at very low risk, whereas it could have been better spent on the elderly, who really need the help.

9 minutes ago, possum1931 said:

You mean like heavy drinkers, heavy smokers and obesity.

Well them yes, but mainly those with congenital disease, various cancers, a range of degenerative diseases of a genetic nature, severe asthma, immuno suppression or imbalance, severe allergies, and the list is endless.

3 minutes ago, mommysboy said:

Well them yes, but mainly those with congenital disease, various cancers, a range of degenerative diseases of a genetic nature, severe asthma, immuno suppression or imbalance, severe allergies, and the list is endless.

I was really referring to those with self inflicted illnesses, I should have said so.

3 hours ago, ozimoron said:

Because such sentiments are repugnant and an insult to human dignity.

I'll tell you what's repugnant: people who make multiple posts on every Covid thread propagating ceaseless paranoia with opinions based on emotion rather than reason. 

23 hours ago, snoop1130 said:

COVID-19 is not a medical emergency anymore due to changing situations

"But foreigners should still be treated as though they are carrying a deadly disease which they intend to deliberately and maliciously spread amongst innocent Thais."

20 hours ago, Moonlover said:

Well I certainly think it's high time they made the wearing of them optional when outside.

 

We should all be capable of making our own individual risk assessment by now.

 

Right. You probably don't know that the purpose of face masks is to prevent the infected from infecting others. So, if they take off their masks, no risk to themselves. 

A post with COVID death data, that didn't include any weblink to the original source, has been removed.

 

25 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

20 hours ago, Moonlover said:

Well I certainly think it's high time they made the wearing of them optional when outside.

 

We should all be capable of making our own individual risk assessment by now.

 

25 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

Right. You probably don't know that the purpose of face masks is to prevent the infected from infecting others. So, if they take off their masks, no risk to themselves. 

I'd have to have been living in a cave on South Georgia Island not to be aware of what a mask is for!

 

But sorry, your argument is a moot one, because that is what an individual risk assessment is all about. 'Am I at risk of spreading the disease?' or 'Am I at risk of catching the disease?'

 

If the answer to both questions is no, then away with the mask. It's not very difficult and, in fact this is what I've been doing right from the start of this pandemic. I very rarely wear a mask, but when it's deemed necessary, I will do so.

the reality is that it never was.

3 minutes ago, Metapod said:

the reality is that it never was.

So the hospitals were never full in the Delta wave, those photos of patients lined up in beds outside were fake, those dying at home because of lack of medical facilities was just an illusion?

There is a big difference in what Omicron can do to a person in reasonable good health, and someone who is immunocompromised.  With the former it represents little more than a common cold, while in the the latter it is a potential death sentence because without an immune response the virus can behave much as does Delta.  If we are to open up again, we are surely obliged to protect vulnerable people as much as possible, and certainly more than now.  

1 hour ago, mommysboy said:

There is a big difference in what Omicron can do to a person in reasonable good health, and someone who is immunocompromised.  With the former it represents little more than a common cold, while in the the latter it is a potential death sentence because without an immune response the virus can behave much as does Delta.  If we are to open up again, we are surely obliged to protect vulnerable people as much as possible, and certainly more than now.  

OK.. so how do you protect the immunocompromised from regular household colds or seasonal influenza ?

How did you do that before Covid-19 ?

 

I agree with protecting the vulnerable by taking intelligent measures, vaccination, wear masks on public transport etc and if presenting with cold type symptoms... 

 

 

From the beginning, it was a false emergency and the deep conventional narrative that followed. 

13 hours ago, Thaiophil said:

It’s as much about some people making money as it is about control. Imagine how much money clinics and SHA hotels will lose if foreigners are not forced to use them…

 

" it's as much about some people making money as it is about most people losing money" FIFY