Actually the number of infections did not increase (I have to admit that I am not sure how much they have been testing) and there were much less hospitalizations as well as deaths despite much higher infections numbers with Omicron.
The NHS Confederation said the move would inevitably place renewed pressure on hospitals, while the British Medical Association said the changes planned were “not guided by the data”.
Politicians lifting public health mandates doesn’t mean their decision was guided by scientific data. Assuming you read that article, what is your opinion of the above excerpt?
Looking at the data you provided, my take is…
availability of testing has considerably decrease as mandates are lifted, and medical experts/research scientists have warned throughout these 2 years that COVID infection numbers are severely under-counted because not everyone who gets COVID can get tested for it
you’re completely ignoring the points in time when COVID infection rates were considerably lower than the current point in time
Why do you just happen to use mandates being lifted as evidence that COVID should be taken less seriously, and completely ignore the healthcare experts calling out the policy changes as "not guided by the data"? This is precisely why I brought up qualifications the last time we had this discussion and it’s unfortunate that instead of understanding my point about why credentials matter, you misinterpreted what I said and assumed I had asked you about your educational background for no reason other than to personally insult you.
Assuming you read that article, what is your opinion of the above excerpt?
The NHS Confederation acted overly cautious and obviously was wrong. The British healthcare system did not crumble under Omicron despite mandates being lifted. I am aware that the article is filled with warnings claiming Johnson is lifting mandates far too soon. And I am also convinced that this move was mostly politically motivated.
But this does not mean that we can not look at the results of this decision. And these are clearly not as bad as many including the NHS Confederation predicted.
you’re completely ignoring the points in time when COVID infection rates were considerably lower than the current point in time
Yes, because the ratio of infections to hospitalizations has changed dramatically. What I look at is the pressure on the healthcare system. If healthcare can handle all patients just fine, I do not see a problem with lifting mandates.
But clearly you disagree, is the reason for that indeed that you fear COVID still does a lot of damage even if you do not get hospitalized?
Why do you just happen to use mandates being lifted as evidence that COVID should be taken less seriously
What are you talking about, I did not even mention the severity of COVID in this thread?
Why? Do you think we can actually prevent a significant amount of people from catching COVID-19 in the first place by keeping very strict mandates? Or do you also fear that repeatedly catching COVID-19 might do serious damage to your body?
Omicron hit the UK relatively early and they have lifted most mandates about a month ago. You can have a look at the effect on cases, the healthcare system as well as deaths here: https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/healthcare
Actually the number of infections did not increase (I have to admit that I am not sure how much they have been testing) and there were much less hospitalizations as well as deaths despite much higher infections numbers with Omicron.
From the article you posted…
Politicians lifting public health mandates doesn’t mean their decision was guided by scientific data. Assuming you read that article, what is your opinion of the above excerpt?
Looking at the data you provided, my take is…
availability of testing has considerably decrease as mandates are lifted, and medical experts/research scientists have warned throughout these 2 years that COVID infection numbers are severely under-counted because not everyone who gets COVID can get tested for it
you’re completely ignoring the points in time when COVID infection rates were considerably lower than the current point in time
Why do you just happen to use mandates being lifted as evidence that COVID should be taken less seriously, and completely ignore the healthcare experts calling out the policy changes as "not guided by the data"? This is precisely why I brought up qualifications the last time we had this discussion and it’s unfortunate that instead of understanding my point about why credentials matter, you misinterpreted what I said and assumed I had asked you about your educational background for no reason other than to personally insult you.
The NHS Confederation acted overly cautious and obviously was wrong. The British healthcare system did not crumble under Omicron despite mandates being lifted. I am aware that the article is filled with warnings claiming Johnson is lifting mandates far too soon. And I am also convinced that this move was mostly politically motivated. But this does not mean that we can not look at the results of this decision. And these are clearly not as bad as many including the NHS Confederation predicted.
Yes, because the ratio of infections to hospitalizations has changed dramatically. What I look at is the pressure on the healthcare system. If healthcare can handle all patients just fine, I do not see a problem with lifting mandates. But clearly you disagree, is the reason for that indeed that you fear COVID still does a lot of damage even if you do not get hospitalized?
What are you talking about, I did not even mention the severity of COVID in this thread?
Really bad takes here.
Why? Do you think we can actually prevent a significant amount of people from catching COVID-19 in the first place by keeping very strict mandates? Or do you also fear that repeatedly catching COVID-19 might do serious damage to your body?