271–280 of 319 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Did someone need any pills? As a person that takes medication daily, this would be extremely painful for me.
It is a whole different ruleset. In earlier China lockdowns there were stories of infants starving to death after their parents were forcibly locked down.
I find this fascinating in comparison with the situation here in the UK where about 70% of the population are triple vaccinated. Omicron is everywhere, literally. Anecdotally I would say 80-90% of households with school aged kids have had Omicron since the beginning of January and it’s still doing the rounds. We now have no restrictions and even during the peak in Jan/Feb it was very very minimal. There will be no mo…
Looking at the UK figures, although there was a Jan/Feb peak, it's not clear that wave is mostly in the past. All the headline figures are currently rising - infections, hospitalisations and deaths - and the infection rate has risen again to nearly where it was at the start of Feb. It may continue past the peak figure in Jan.
The start of the new rises coincides with the end of basic restrictions - like wearing masks on public transport and in shops, social distancing, and working at home when possible. Up to that point the figures were dropping. So it looks like strong evidence that something about the restrictions was really working.
Politically, new restrictions may be unlikely, but the quite strong circumstantial evidence that they worked, the now rising figures, and the government's plan to stop almost all testing at the end of this month, seem in stark contrast to the government's prior "follow the science" line.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
...yes, that's how quarantines work? Everyone within the quarantine may get infected, but the virus won't spread to anyone outside.
Preventing spread inside a quarantine is a strictly lower priority than preventing spread to the outside, but to claim ignoring that concern is "how quarantines work" is not true at all. Why would you say that?
And in the specific context we're discussing, I agree with the GP that quarantining an office building leaves everyone who's forced to live in that building more likely to get sick than if they all went home for two weeks. However, the purpose isn't to protect the people in the building, but the broader population.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Preventing spread inside a quarantine is a strictly lower priority than preventing spread to the outside, but to claim ignoring that concern is "how quarantines work" is not true at all. Why would you say that?
I guess I don't agree? You can certainly implement additional measures within the quarantine to prevent spread, but the essence of the world is to cut off the outside, not the inside. Any other restrictions are extra. (And, sure, you might be advised to quarantine in your room within a quarantined building—that's two quarantines.) And in the specific context we're discussing, I agree with the GP that quarantining an…
I certainly agree with that. But by my reading, your earlier post is saying that unchecked internal spread is also part of the essence, rather than just saying that worries about internal spread are secondary.
> And in the specific context we're discussing, I agree with the GP that quarantining an office building leaves everyone who's forced to live in that building more likely to get sick than if they all went home for two weeks. However, the purpose isn't to protect the people in the building, but the broader population.
Well nobody suggested sending them home. There are lots of ways to handle it. And they didn't mention any additional safety measures, but that might have been for brevity's sake. In part "Sounds like a good way to get everyone there infected." is also a prompt to elaborate on internal safety measures, if there were any.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I guess I don't agree? You can certainly implement additional measures within the quarantine to prevent spread, but the essence of the world is to cut off the outside, not the inside. Any other restrictions are extra. (And, sure, you might be advised to quarantine in your room within a quarantined building—that's two quarantines.) And in the specific context we're discussing, I agree with the GP that quarantining an…
> the essence of the world is to cut off the outside, not the inside I certainly agree with that. But by my reading, your earlier post is saying that unchecked internal spread is also part of the essence, rather than just saying that worries about internal spread are secondary. > And in the specific context we're discussing, I agree with the GP that quarantining an office building leaves everyone who's forced to live…
What is the alternative? Either they stay where they are, or they go to another location. The latter would involve breaking the quarantine during transit if nothing else.
I suppose I'm also personally convinced that there's no way to keep a virus like Omicron from spreading within an office building where everyone is forced to live. Someone has to distribute food, everyone has to use shared bathrooms, and there are almost certainly fewer offices than people.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Did someone need any pills? As a person that takes medication daily, this would be extremely painful for me.
It is a whole different ruleset. In earlier China lockdowns there were stories of infants starving to death after their parents were forcibly locked down.
Only a thousand daily cases in a country with a population of 1G? That's either very impressive, or very impressively underreported. For comparison, Belgium currently has 10 times as many daily new cases, with a population that's 100 times smaller (and no lockdown).
China is engaging in some combination of not measuring/not reporting/lying on the subject of COVID infections. Ourworldindata claims [0] that their case counts are comparable to New Zealand. There needs to be a much, much more powerful argument than "they've got CCTV and powerful bureaucrats!" before anyone can take those figures seriously. [0] https://ourworldindata.org/covid-cases
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think it's the opposite. Chinas economy was quickly back to normal in 2020 while other countries suffered. But it's going to be costly this time, for little return.
It's such an absurd tradeoff for the Omicron variant, which is less deadly than the flu[1]. COVID isn't ever going away. China seems to be willing to pay a giant recurring cost, eternally, for an infection less harmful than the flu. Insane. 1. https://twitter.com/EricTopol/status/1501773203261165570
Only a thousand daily cases in a country with a population of 1G? That's either very impressive, or very impressively underreported. For comparison, Belgium currently has 10 times as many daily new cases, with a population that's 100 times smaller (and no lockdown).
And 8K deaths since 2020: https://covid19.who.int/region/wpro/country/cn How the WHO can report these numbers with a straight face is beyond me.