Coronavirus
- Thread starter Jb85
- Start date
Tom
TS Member
Once the disease is sufficiently mild enough to enable the hospitals to cope, it would be appropriate to reduce/eliminate the isolation period, as well as other controls. The question is are we really at that point now?
Omicron may represent the point of acceptable mildness right now or in the New Year, but it is too early to say. It may be that we need to wait for another milder variant to come next year, or maybe not.
The isolation period will certainly go from 7 to 5 days eventually, before likely being eliminated altogether at some point. Relaxation steps in all policies need to be made in tandem with the reducing effect on hospital capacity, and I think that is loosely what's been done.
The trajectory at the moment looks like it will become a very mild virus and effectively just become part of the package of viruses that make up common colds. The question is how quickly can we allow it to get to that point without overwhelming - or exacerbating existing issues such as poor waiting times in - the health service.
Dave
TS Founding Member
For those worried about the fact we never get told the split between patients admitted because of covid and those who just came to hospital with something else and happened to have covid the data is out (I mean it has been released weekly for ages but that doesn’t align with the conspiracy theories).
Basically the general trend has continued in that two thirds of patients in hospital with covid where admitted to hospital because of their covid, one third admitted with something else and just happened to have covid.
Basically the general trend has continued in that two thirds of patients in hospital with covid where admitted to hospital because of their covid, one third admitted with something else and just happened to have covid.
BigT
TS Member
Your correct, the data is there so why isn’t it reported? I’d suggest it’s that that data doesn’t fit the agenda of the government, media etc. not any conspiracy theory.
This is my whole point, we are only told one side of the story to make us panic and think we are all doomed.
Dave
TS Founding Member
It does get reported, earlier on in the pandemic it didn’t really matter as everyone going into hospital went in for that reason, it’s only really become relevant recently.
The key measure really for severity is the number of patients on ventilators which does get reported daily, as far as hospitals are concerned whether the patient is in because of covid or just happens to have it makes no odds as they are equally impactful on clinical pressures.
pluk
TS Member
You miss the other post though; while the virus is now much less severe for most it still requires hospitalisation for a not insignifanct amount of people, which is fine when a steady stream of people are falling with it but if everyone gets it at once (as is the case with the much more transmissible variant), the health service would not be able to cope with such a sudden influx.
As with restrictions throughout, its only really a delaying tactic to manage that demand on resources. Once the risk of health services collapsing has passed, which appears to be where we are heading with the change in strain and as a result of immunisation, then there won't be any need for restrictions to suppress transmissions, but we're not there yet.
Matt.GC
TS Member
I have tonnes of people out with Covid at the moment and I found out today that this silly 10 days down to 7 thing is almost completely pointless. Clearly aimed at NHS staff and not the rest of the workforce. To the point where it's not actually true.
To come back after 7 days of isolation, the employee needs to test negative on a LFT on day 6 AND day 7. So, say you're Johnny the skiver, why would you bother whacking something down your throat and up your nose (if you can hold of the tests that is) just so you can come back to work 3 days early when you can just stay off for the full 10 getting paid? The isolation period is still 10 days, it's only 7 under special circumstances.
To come back after 7 days of isolation, the employee needs to test negative on a LFT on day 6 AND day 7. So, say you're Johnny the skiver, why would you bother whacking something down your throat and up your nose (if you can hold of the tests that is) just so you can come back to work 3 days early when you can just stay off for the full 10 getting paid? The isolation period is still 10 days, it's only 7 under special circumstances.
Matt.GC
TS Member
I'm not doubting that a great deal of teachers, emergency service worker's and alike would hate being off through a sense of duty. They clearly don't, after all, do the jobs they do for the pay!
I just don't think we should pretend that the isolation period is 7 days. It's clearly aimed at the above professions to ease pressures on public services and not the GP. I've been around too long and have become very cynical with these things. Seen so many snouts in the trough these last 2 years.
I just don't think we should pretend that the isolation period is 7 days. It's clearly aimed at the above professions to ease pressures on public services and not the GP. I've been around too long and have become very cynical with these things. Seen so many snouts in the trough these last 2 years.
Matt.GC
TS Member
The majority of the UK workforce only earn SSP? Do you have a source? I'd like to read more as this subject interests me.
If that is true, would those with symptoms who are otherwise well not isolate anyway in the first place or not even bother testing? Therefore still making the 7 Vs 10 day isolation period almost completely irrelevant to them anyway?
pluk
TS Member
That's just not true. Good employers and crap employers in all industries.
Rick
TS Member
- Favourite Ride
- Crux
82% of @BigT's 'facts' are made up.
"Department of Health & Social Care data from 2019 found that only 26% of UK employees rely on SSP, due to the fact many people rely on their more generous company sick pay schemes."
https://assets.publishing.service.g...817124/health-in-the-workplace-statistics.pdf
"Department of Health & Social Care data from 2019 found that only 26% of UK employees rely on SSP, due to the fact many people rely on their more generous company sick pay schemes."
https://assets.publishing.service.g...817124/health-in-the-workplace-statistics.pdf
Themeparksandy1981
TS Member
Thanks to the Government for letting workers carry there floating days over to the end of 2022 as when I got Covid In November I used 8 of them days as other wise I would have got £96.35 a week which doesn’t even cover my weekly shop.
BigT
TS Member
Really? Made up? to start with it wasn’t a fact it was a statement and a rather broad one at that.
There is a huge difference in getting paid for being off sick and actually having it written into your contract of employment that you get full pay when off sick, you are much less likely to have full sick pay written in your contract in the private sector, fact.
Below is a snippet from the ONS website they also make up facts I suppose:
https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentan...rticles/sicknessabsenceinthelabourmarket/2020
Figure 7: The sickness absence rate has been consistently higher for public sector employees over the decade
Sickness absence rates for workers within the public and private sectors stood at 2.7% and 1.6% respectively in 2020. The sickness absence rate for public sector employees has been consistently higher than that for private sector employees. Both sectors have seen an overall decrease since 2010, although the sickness absence rate is falling at a faster rate for the public sector (0.4 percentage points) than the private sector (0.3 percentage points).
When comparing the reasons given for sickness absence in the public and private sectors, mental health conditions are given as the reason more frequently in the public sector. They accounted for 15.0% of absences in the public sector and 9.9% in the private sector in 2020.
There are several factors to consider when examining the differences between the public and private sectors, including:
- there are differences in the types of jobs between the sectors, and some jobs have higher likelihoods of sickness than other
- workers in the private sector are much more likely not to be paid sickness absence than those in the public sector
- the analysis only counts someone as sick if they work fewer hours than they are contracted for and would exclude someone who makes up lost hours at a later point in the week; individuals in smaller workforces, which are more prominent in the private sector, may be under more pressure to make up any lost hours, but no data are collected on hours made up following sick absence
So as long as we know...
We weren't discussing who claims more...I think we are all aware that sickness levels are generally higher in the public sector.
Statements do not have to be factual, or based on facts, as long as the statement is "broad"?
You said that it is only the public sector that gets paid when sick these days.
That is plainly a false statement...however "broad".
The vast majority of employees get sick pay, simple, clear fact.
Are you Boris in disguise Big T?
We weren't discussing who claims more...I think we are all aware that sickness levels are generally higher in the public sector.
Statements do not have to be factual, or based on facts, as long as the statement is "broad"?
You said that it is only the public sector that gets paid when sick these days.
That is plainly a false statement...however "broad".
The vast majority of employees get sick pay, simple, clear fact.
Are you Boris in disguise Big T?
pluk
TS Member
That is not anything like the original statement you made though, is it?
Which is entirely made up, yes.