cdd wrote: ↑Mon 10 Jan, 2022 11.30
What has struck me about Covid since Delta (and I know this is purely anecdotal!) is how little correlation there seems to be between people I know who have/haven’t had it, and how ‘careful’ they are.
Since so much is not yet known, it wouldn't entirely surprise me if it is eventually found that some people are more susceptible to catching it than others, and if it does evolve towards something closer to the common cold - a highly transmissable yet for most people mild illness, then it will follow that some people are prone to catching symptomatic Covid in a way that others are not. And as such the 'anyone can get it' line spouted by the government last year might actually turn out not be true (or at least not as inevitable as the propaganda implied), there might actually be people who are and always were highly unlikely to get it, and equally there might be people who unless they practice the strictest of shielding were always going to catch it and become ill from it regardless of how restricted society is.
I think my views on the subject are pretty clear, and as such I do live as normally as possible up to the limits of the restrictions. I don't claim to take daily tests (tbh unless you're likely to come into regular contact with people who are extremely vulnerable, or are vulnerable yourself this seems a bit of an OTT practice to my mind) but I generally end up testing at least monthly, sometimes more frequently depending on what I'm doing. Yes as such it is possible that I've had it asymptomatically and not known given that on occasions 3 or 4 weeks between tests have gone by, but surely by the laws of probability I should at some point have tested positive by now if my 'reckless' attempts to live normally are spreading the virus around. I honestly don't think I've ever had it whilst others have had it multiple times, which does correlate to my not generally suffering from respiratory illnesses.
cdd wrote:Of course the most 'careful' people are those conducting daily LFTs, and as such they are going to be aware of asymptomatic Covid in a way that others are not.
That will be one of the vicious circles we need to break - if we are going to break the obsession with case numbers we also have to break the obsession with finding all the cases and it being a done deal that positive cases will isolate. And that has to start by knocking on the head obsessive levels of testing by people who really don't need to be testing so frequently if it is causing more harm than good. Constant testing with a view to tracing and isolating as many cases as possible to stop the spread is a strategy based on the Wuhan version of Covid which was A) far less infectious than Omicron and B) far more serious if caught. We do need to question how effective or viable this strategy is when we are testing so much that there have been supply problems with tests (thus potentially denying access to testing to people who really do need to know if they're positive or not), we've got the healthcare system and businesses being brought to their knees by people who are off sick having tested positive but are not ill, and yet despite this number of people being taken out of society to 'stop the spread' Omicron continues to spread anyway. It would already appear to be virtually a done deal that self-isolation will be reduced to 5 days, the next step will have to be self-isolation not necessarily being a requirement if people can participate in a society in such a way that they can avoid prolonged or frequent contact with vulnerable people.
cdd wrote:I suspect the risks of everyday interactions are underestimated, and the risks of unusual interactions are overestimated. Going to a concert might be 5x as risky as meeting one friend (plucking a number out of the air). Someone who goes to a concert once a week would be perceived as “taking a big risk”, but it’s a no bigger increment than five long interactions with separate people.
Agreed. Terms like 'super-spreader' events are not helpful and probably are over-egging the risk. How often do people go to concerts or football matches? Would the average 'regular' attendee actually go to more than one a month on average? Would it even be that many? If it's not an every-day occurrence then I can't see how the overall risk of transmission based on how many other interactions that person might have doing more 'safe' activities is actually going to increase very much by doing a one off 'risky' activity.