Coronavirus: we separate myths from facts and give advice

[Anthea]

Universal Declaration on

Bioethics and Human Rights

The General Conference

Conscious of the unique capacity of human beings to reflect upon their own existence and on their environment, to perceive injustice, to avoid danger, to assume responsibility, to seek cooperation and to exhibit the moral sense that gives expression to ethical principles,

Reflecting on the rapid developments in science and technology, which increasingly affect our understanding of life and life itself, resulting in a strong demand for a global response to the ethical implications of such developments,

Recognizing that ethical issues raised by the rapid advances in science and their technological applications should be examined with due respect to the dignity of the human person and universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms,

Resolving that it is necessary and timely for the international community to state universal principles that will provide a foundation for humanity’s response to the ever-increasing dilemmas and controversies that science and technology present for humankind and for the environment,

Recalling the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 10 December 1948, the Universal Declaration on the Human Genome and Human Rights adopted by the General Conference of UNESCO on 11 November 1997 and the International Declaration on Human Genetic Data adopted by the General Conference of UNESCO on 16 October 2003,

Noting the United Nations International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of 16 December 1966, the United Nations International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination of 21 December 1965, the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women of 18 December 1979, the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child of 20 November 1989, the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity of 5 June 1992, the Standard Rules on the Equalization of Opportunities for Persons with Disabilities adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations in 1993, the UNESCO Recommendation on the Status of Scientific Researchers of 20 November 1974, the UNESCO Declaration on Race and Racial Prejudice of 27 November 1978, the UNESCO Declaration on the Responsibilities of the Present Generations Towards Future Generations of 12 November 1997, the UNESCO Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity of 2 November 2001, the ILO Convention 169 concerning Indigenous and Tribal Peoples in Independent Countries of 27 June 1989, the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture which was adopted by the FAO Conference on 3 November 2001 and entered into force on 29 June 2004, the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) annexed to the Marrakech Agreement establishing the World Trade Organization, which entered into force on 1 January 1995, the Doha Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and Public Health of 14 November 2001 and other relevant international instruments adopted by the United Nations and the specialized agencies of the United Nations system, in particular the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) and the World Health Organization (WHO),

Also noting international and regional instruments in the field of bioethics, including the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Dignity of the Human Being with regard to the Application of Biology and Medicine: Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine of the Council of Europe, which was adopted in 1997 and entered into force in 1999, together with its Additional Protocols, as well as national legislation and regulations in the field of bioethics and the international and regional codes of conduct and guidelines and other texts in the field of bioethics, such as the Declaration of Helsinki of the World Medical Association on Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects, adopted in 1964 and amended in 1975, 1983, 1989, 1996 and 2000 and the International Ethical Guidelines for Biomedical Research Involving Human Subjects of the Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences, adopted in 1982 and amended in 1993 and 2002,

Recognizing that this Declaration is to be understood in a manner consistent with domestic and international law in conformity with human rights law

Recalling the Constitution of UNESCO adopted on 16 November 1945,

Considering UNESCO’s role in identifying universal principles based on shared ethical values to guide scientific and technological development and social transformation in order to identify emerging challenges in science and technology taking into account the responsibility of the present generations towards future generations, and that questions of bioethics, which necessarily have an international dimension, should be treated as a whole, drawing on the principles already stated in the Universal Declaration on the Human Genome and Human Rights and the International Declaration on Human Genetic Data and taking account not only of the current scientific context but also of future developments,

Aware that human beings are an integral part of the biosphere, with an important role in protecting one another and other forms of life, in particular animals,

Recognizing that, based on the freedom of science and research, scientific and technological developments have been, and can be, of great benefit to humankind in increasing, inter alia, life expectancy and improving the quality of life, and emphasizing that such developments should always seek to promote the welfare of individuals, families, groups or communities and humankind as a whole in the recognition of the dignity of the human person and universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms,

Recognizing that health does not depend solely on scientific and technological research developments but also on psychosocial and cultural factors,

Also recognizing that decisions regarding ethical issues in medicine, life sciences and associated technologies may have an impact on individuals, families, groups or communities and humankind as a whole,

Bearing in mind that cultural diversity, as a source of exchange, innovation and creativity, is necessary to humankind and, in this sense, is the common heritage of humanity, but emphasizing that it may not be invoked at the expense of human rights and fundamental freedoms,

Also bearing in mind that a person’s identity includes biological, psychological, social, cultural and spiritual dimensions,

Recognizing that unethical scientific and technological conduct has had a particular impact on indigenous and local communities,

Convinced that moral sensitivity and ethical reflection should be an integral part of the process of scientific and technological developments and that bioethics should play a predominant role in the choices that need to be made concerning issues arising from such developments,

Considering the desirability of developing new approaches to social responsibility to ensure that progress in science and technology contributes to justice, equity and to the interest of humanity,

Recognizing that an important way to evaluate social realities and achieve equity is to pay attention to the position of women,

Stressing the need to reinforce international cooperation in the field of bioethics, taking into account, in particular, the special needs of developing countries, indigenous communities and vulnerable populations,

Considering that all human beings, without distinction, should benefit from the same high ethical standards in medicine and life science research,

Proclaims the principles that follow and adopts the present Declaration

General provisions

Article 1 – Scope

1. This Declaration addresses ethical issues related to medicine, life sciences and associated technologies as applied to human beings, taking into account their social, legal and environmental dimensions.

2. This Declaration is addressed to States. As appropriate and relevant, it also provides guidance to decisions or practices of individuals, groups, communities, institutions and corporations, public and private.

Article 2 – Aims

The aims of this Declaration are:

(a) to provide a universal framework of principles and procedures to guide States in the formulation of their legislation, policies or other instruments in the field of bioethics;

(b) to guide the actions of individuals, groups, communities, institutions and corporations, public and private;

(c) to promote respect for human dignity and protect human rights, by ensuring respect for the life of human beings, and fundamental freedoms, consistent with international human rights law;

(d) to recognize the importance of freedom of scientific research and the benefits derived from scientific and technological developments, while stressing the need for such research and developments to occur within the framework of ethical principles set out in this Declaration and to respect human dignity, human rights and fundamental freedoms;

(e) to foster multidisciplinary and pluralistic dialogue about bioethical issues between all stakeholders and within society as a whole;

(f) to promote equitable access to medical, scientific and technological developments as well as the greatest possible flow and the rapid sharing of knowledge concerning those developments and the sharing of benefits, with particular attention to the needs of developing countries;

(g) to safeguard and promote the interests of the present and future generations;

(h) to underline the importance of biodiversity and its conservation as a common concern of humankind.

Principles

Within the scope of this Declaration, in decisions or practices taken or carried out by those to whom it is addressed, the following principles are to be respected.

Article 3 – Human dignity and human rights

1. Human dignity, human rights and fundamental freedoms are to be fully respected.

2. The interests and welfare of the individual should have priority over the sole interest of science or society.

Article 4 – Benefit and harm

In applying and advancing scientific knowledge, medical practice and associated technologies, direct and indirect benefits to patients, research participants and other affected individuals should be maximized and any possible harm to such individuals should be minimized.

Article 5 – Autonomy and individual responsibility

The autonomy of persons to make decisions, while taking responsibility for those decisions and respecting the autonomy of others, is to be respected. For persons who are not capable of exercising autonomy, special measures are to be taken to protect their rights and interests.

Article 6 – Consent

1. Any preventive, diagnostic and therapeutic medical intervention is only to be carried out with the prior, free and informed consent of the person concerned, based on adequate information. The consent should, where appropriate, be express and may be withdrawn by the person concerned at any time and for any reason without disadvantage or prejudice.

2. Scientific research should only be carried out with the prior, free, express and informed consent of the person concerned. The information should be adequate, provided in a comprehensible form and should include modalities for withdrawal of consent. Consent may be withdrawn by the person concerned at any time and for any reason without any disadvantage or prejudice. Exceptions to this principle should be made only in accordance with ethical and legal standards adopted by States, consistent with the principles and provisions set out in this Declaration, in particular in Article 27, and international human rights law.

3. In appropriate cases of research carried out on a group of persons or a community, additional agreement of the legal representatives of the group or community concerned may be sought. In no case should a collective community agreement or the consent of a community leader or other authority substitute for an individual’s informed consent.

Article 7 – Persons without the capacity to consent

In accordance with domestic law, special protection is to be given to persons who do not have the capacity to consent:

(a) authorization for research and medical practice should be obtained in accordance with the best interest of the person concerned and in accordance with domestic law. However, the person concerned should be involved to the greatest extent possible in the decision-making process of consent, as well as that of withdrawing consent;

(b) research should only be carried out for his or her direct health benefit, subject to the authorization and the protective conditions prescribed by law, and if there is no research alternative of comparable effectiveness with research participants able to consent. Research which does not have potential direct health benefit should only be undertaken by way of exception, with the utmost restraint, exposing the person only to a minimal risk and minimal burden and, if the research is expected to contribute to the health benefit of other persons in the same category, subject to the conditions prescribed by law and compatible with the protection of the individual’s human rights. Refusal of such persons to take part in research should be respected.

Article 8 – Respect for human vulnerability and personal integrity

In applying and advancing scientific knowledge, medical practice and associated technologies, human vulnerability should be taken into account. Individuals and groups of special vulnerability should be protected and the personal integrity of such individuals respected.

Article 9 – Privacy and confidentiality

The privacy of the persons concerned and the confidentiality of their personal information should be respected. To the greatest extent possible, such information should not be used or disclosed for purposes other than those for which it was collected or consented to, consistent with international law, in particular international human rights law.

Article 10 – Equality, justice and equity

The fundamental equality of all human beings in dignity and rights is to be respected so that they are treated justly and equitably.

Article 11 – Non-discrimination and non-stigmatization

No individual or group should be discriminated against or stigmatized on any grounds, in violation of human dignity, human rights and fundamental freedoms.

Article 12 – Respect for cultural diversity and pluralism

The importance of cultural diversity and pluralism should be given due regard. However, such considerations are not to be invoked to infringe upon human dignity, human rights and fundamental freedoms, nor upon the principles set out in this Declaration, nor to limit their scope.

Article 13 – Solidarity and cooperation

Solidarity among human beings and international cooperation towards that end are to be encouraged.

Article 14 – Social responsibility and health

1. The promotion of health and social development for their people is a central purpose of governments that all sectors of society share.

2. Taking into account that the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of health is one of the fundamental rights of every human being without distinction of race, religion, political belief, economic or social condition, progress in science and technology should advance:

(a) access to quality health care and essential medicines, especially for the health of women and children, because health is essential to life itself and must be considered to be a social and human good;

(b) access to adequate nutrition and water;

(c) improvement of living conditions and the environment;

(d) elimination of the marginalization and the exclusion of persons on the basis of any grounds;

(e) reduction of poverty and illiteracy.

Article 15 – Sharing of benefits

1. Benefits resulting from any scientific research and its applications should be shared with society as a whole and within the international community, in particular with developing countries. In giving effect to this principle, benefits may take any of the following forms:

(a) special and sustainable assistance to, and acknowledgement of, the persons and groups that have taken part in the research;

(b) access to quality health care;

(c) provision of new diagnostic and therapeutic modalities or products stemming from research;

(d) support for health services;

(e) access to scientific and technological knowledge;

(f) capacity-building facilities for research purposes;

(g) other forms of benefit consistent with the principles set out in this Declaration.

2. Benefits should not constitute improper inducements to participate in research.

Article 16 – Protecting future generations

The impact of life sciences on future generations, including on their genetic constitution, should be given due regard.

Article 17 – Protection of the environment, the biosphere and biodiversity

Due regard is to be given to the interconnection between human beings and other forms of life, to the importance of appropriate access and utilization of biological and genetic resources, to respect for traditional knowledge and to the role of human beings in the protection of the environment, the biosphere and biodiversity.

Application of the principles

Article 18 – Decision-making and addressing bioethical issues

1. Professionalism, honesty, integrity and transparency in decision-making should be promoted, in particular declarations of all conflicts of interest and appropriate sharing of knowledge. Every endeavour should be made to use the best available scientific knowledge and methodology in addressing and periodically reviewing bioethical issues.

2. Persons and professionals concerned and society as a whole should be engaged in dialogue on a regular basis.

3. Opportunities for informed pluralistic public debate, seeking the expression of all relevant opinions, should be promoted.

Article 19 – Ethics committees

Independent, multidisciplinary and pluralist ethics committees should be established, promoted and supported at the appropriate level in order to:

(a) assess the relevant ethical, legal, scientific and social issues related to research projects involving human beings;

(b) provide advice on ethical problems in clinical settings;

(c) assess scientific and technological developments, formulate recommendations and contribute to the preparation of guidelines on issues within the scope of this Declaration;

(d) foster debate, education and public awareness of, and engagement in, bioethics.

Article 20 – Risk assessment and management

Appropriate assessment and adequate management of risk related to medicine, life sciences and associated technologies should be promoted.

Article 21 – Transnational practices

1. States, public and private institutions, and professionals associated with transnational activities should endeavour to ensure that any activity within the scope of this Declaration, undertaken, funded or otherwise pursued in whole or in part in different States, is consistent with the principles set out in this Declaration.

2. When research is undertaken or otherwise pursued in one or more States (the host State(s)) and funded by a source in another State, such research should be the object of an appropriate level of ethical review in the host State(s) and the State in which the funder is located. This review should be based on ethical and legal standards that are consistent with the principles set out in this Declaration.

3. Transnational health research should be responsive to the needs of host countries, and the importance of research contributing to the alleviation of urgent global health problems should be recognized.

4. When negotiating a research agreement, terms for collaboration and agreement on the benefits of research should be established with equal participation by those party to the negotiation.

5. States should take appropriate measures, both at the national and international levels, to combat bioterrorism and illicit traffic in organs, tissues, samples, genetic resources and genetic-related materials.

Promotion of the Declaration

Article 22 – Role of States

1. States should take all appropriate measures, whether of a legislative, administrative or other character, to give effect to the principles set out in this Declaration in accordance with international human rights law. Such measures should be supported by action in the spheres of education, training and public information.

2. States should encourage the establishment of independent, multidisciplinary and pluralist ethics committees, as set out in Article 19.

Article 23 – Bioethics education, training and information

1. In order to promote the principles set out in this Declaration and to achieve a better understanding of the ethical implications of scientific and technological developments, in particular for young people, States should endeavour to foster bioethics education and training at all levels as well as to encourage information and knowledge dissemination programmes about bioethics.

2. States should encourage the participation of international and regional intergovernmental organizations and international, regional and national non governmental organizations in this endeavour.

Article 24 – International cooperation

1. States should foster international dissemination of scientific information and encourage the free flow and sharing of scientific and technological knowledge.

2. Within the framework of international cooperation, States should promote cultural and scientific cooperation and enter into bilateral and multilateral agreements enabling developing countries to build up their capacity to participate in generating and sharing scientific knowledge, the related know-how and the benefits thereof.

3. States should respect and promote solidarity between and among States, as well as individuals, families, groups and communities, with special regard for those rendered vulnerable by disease or disability or other personal, societal or environmental conditions and those with the most limited resources.

Article 25 – Follow-up action by UNESCO

1. UNESCO shall promote and disseminate the principles set out in this Declaration. In doing so, UNESCO should seek the help and assistance of the Intergovernmental Bioethics Committee (IGBC) and the International Bioethics Committee (IBC).

2. UNESCO shall reaffirm its commitment to dealing with bioethics and to promoting collaboration between IGBC and IBC.

Final provisions

Article 26 – Interrelation and complementarity of the principles

This Declaration is to be understood as a whole and the principles are to be understood as complementary and interrelated. Each principle is to be considered in the context of the other principles, as appropriate and relevant in the circumstances.

Article 27 – Limitations on the application of the principles

If the application of the principles of this Declaration is to be limited, it should be by law, including laws in the interests of public safety, for the investigation, detection and prosecution of criminal offences, for the protection of public health or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. Any such law needs to be consistent with international human rights law.

Article 28 – Denial of acts contrary to human rights, fundamental freedoms and human dignity

Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any claim to engage in any activity or to perform any act contrary to human rights, fundamental freedoms and human dignity.

Date of adoption 2005

http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php-URL_ ... N=201.html

[Anthea]

UK Plan B rules announced

People in England are being asked to work from home again if possible and face masks will be compulsory in most public places, as part of new rules to limit the spread of Omicron

Covid passes will also be needed to get into nightclubs and large venues from next week.

Boris Johnson announced the government was moving to its back-up plan of extra Covid rules at a news conference.

"It's not a lockdown, it's Plan B," the prime minister said.

He said moving to the tougher measures was the "proportionate and responsible" thing to do.

Mr Johnson said more is still being learned about new variant Omicron and the picture might get better, but that it "could lead to a big rise in hospitalisations and therefore sadly in deaths".

He said the new variant was "growing much faster" than Delta and early analysis suggested cases could be doubling every 2.5 to three days.

From Friday, face masks will be required in more public settings - including theatres and cinemas

From Monday, people will be asked to work from home where possible

From Wednesday, the NHS Covid Pass will also be required for visitors to nightclubs, indoor unseated venues with more than 500 people, unseated outdoor venues with more than 4,000 people and any event with more than 10,000 people

The NHS Covid Pass crashed hours after the PM's announcement, with users unable to download their domestic or travel passes. NHS Digital said it was investigating the issue as a priority.

Mr Johnson said Christmas parties and nativity plays should still go ahead - as long as the guidance is followed.

"The best way to ensure we all have a Christmas as close to normal as possible is to get on with Plan B," he said. "Irritating though it may be, it is not a lockdown."

Ministers have repeatedly said there are no plans for another lockdown in England.

Laura Kuenssberg challenges PM over new restrictions

There are currently 568 confirmed cases of Omicron in the UK, figures show - although the UK Health Security Agency estimates that the true number of infections is about 20 times higher and probably closer to 10,000.

Other nations of the UK - which are in charge of their own Covid rules - have already brought in stricter restrictions similar to Plan B.

People in Wales and Scotland have already been told to work from home where possible and Northern Ireland recently strengthened its advice.

Covid passes are also currently required for venues in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

In England, people will be exempt from showing their Covid passport when attending religious worship, weddings and funerals.

Scotland's First Minister Nicola Sturgeon urged people to follow the rules, adding: "Even if you feel angry with a politician just now, please remember just how important compliance is for the health and safety of you, your loved ones and the country."

Sir Patrick Vallance - the government's chief scientific adviser - also urged people to comply. "It only works if we all do it," he said.

There will be a debate and vote in the House of Commons next week on the new rules, said Health Secretary Sajid Javid, who made a statement to MPs at the same time as Mr Johnson's news conference.

After Mr Javid's statement, several Conservative MPs expressed their dismay at the introduction of tougher restrictions. Tory MP Dr Liam Fox said: "We cannot allow permanent threats of overloading the NHS as a means to maintain semi-permanent restrictions on our people."

The health secretary also said vaccine manufacturers may have new vaccines ready to trial "within weeks" to combat Omicron. However, existing vaccines should still protect people against severe illness from Omicron, the World Health Organization said.

Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer welcomed the tougher measures, adding: "I hope the prime minister takes his own guidance this time."

Scientists believe the variant could spread more easily than Delta, and could out-compete it to become the dominant variant in the UK.

But much is still unknown, and it could still take weeks to understand how severe illness from the variant is and what it means for the effectiveness of vaccines.

Last week, the government changed the rules in England so that all contacts of suspected Omicron cases have to self-isolate for 10 days, even if they are fully vaccinated.

On Wednesday, another 51,342 confirmed cases of Covid were recorded and a further 161 deaths reported within 28 days of a positive test.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-59585307

[Anthea]

Your right to choose is enshrined in law

Mandatory vaccinations would be “discussed” has caused some anxiety and unrest, but please don’t worry. Remember, masks have also been “mandatory” at various points over the last two years, and are again now, yet I’ve never worn one and there’s a very strong chance that, if you’re reading this, you haven’t either, or you stopped some while ago. So please do be reassured that “mandatory” does not mean “there is no other option”. There are always options, and your right to choose is enshrined in law: the Equality Act 2010 for masks, and the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984 for vaccinations, which states at section 45E that – even in health emergencies – people cannot be required to take medical treatment, including vaccinations

The UK Government does not have the power or the authority to overthrow this very heavyweight Act, just as it hasn’t had the authority to overthrow the Equality Act, so I think it is very likely this latest threat is just more bluffing to try and scare you into compliance. The current actors playing the roles of “powerful politicians” on television are reading from a script, one written by top behavioural psychologists (who seem to populate SAGE to the exclusion of pesky irrelevances like virologists and immunologists) and NLP experts, who know exactly how to cadge, cajole, persuade, coerce, threaten, and lie – whatever’s necessary – to get you to comply.

As a result of yesterday’s press conference, a lot of people are going to think, well, if the vaccines are going to be made mandatory, I might as well just give in and get them now, before I’m forced to.

That is the result the overlords are hoping for, so obviously, don’t give it to them, and they are also hoping to whip up more of their very favourite frequency – fear – so don’t give them that, either. The bad actors in Westminster are full of bluff and bluster, but their threats and ultimatums are ultimately nothing but paper tigers. Those making these threats are counting on the fact that their audience are scared, ignorant, and weak – that they don’t understand the law or how to invoke it, that they don’t know their rights and are too timid to stand up for them. Unfortunately, that’s true of a lot of people, but not of those who have held out against the injection tyranny up to now, so, please, don’t give up or lose hope now. The battle may be intensifying, but that is to be expected, as it’s always darkest before dawn.

Leading on from this, I notice with my signature wry eye-roll (or at least, that’s what it’s supposed to be, in reality I just look like someone with something in their eye) that the propaganda demonising “anti-vaxxers” has really intensified these last few days, with the mainstream media shilling harder than ever for the obscenely wealthy pharmaceutical industry, by suggesting that families have a civic duty to ban their evil, selfish, “anti-vax” relatives from the Christmas dinner table. There are lots of venomous screeds, all across the “left-wing” (pharma-bankrolled) and “right-wing” (pharma-bankrolled) media alike, featuring scandalised spluttering citizens denouncing the abominable evil of the crazed conspiraloons to whom they are regrettably related, for declining to be injected with experimental serums concocted by serial felons.

What is interesting about this is that, in every case, these vituperative rants exhibit no concern whatsoever for the health and wellbeing of the “anti-vaxxer” – who, according to vaccine dogma, is in imminent and grave danger, having no protection whatsoever from the World’s Deadliest Plague - only for the vaccinated – who are ultra-armoured up with super-sciencey, protective injections. Invariably and without exception, the indignant aunt or aggrieved ex denounces the danger the unvaccinated person poses to the vaccinated, rather than the other way around.

Do forgive me for applying the slightest scintilla of logic here (I know it’s been in short supply since March 2020 and is largely unfashionable to the point of being taboo), but if vaccines work, even imperfectly, isn’t the unvaccinated person far more at risk than the vaccinated person? The theory behind these injections is that, while they don’t stop you contracting the disease or passing it on, they do reduce symptoms. Therefore, were an unvaccinated person to pass on Covid to a vaccinated person, the vaccinated person would be at far lower risk than the reverse – and the vaccinated individual is just as likely to pass it on, according to a recent BBC report.

And yet, not a SINGLE article I have read regarding these festive feuds expresses any concern whatsoever for the health of the unvaccinated person (should they dare to debauch the dinner table with their filthy God-given natural immune system), when - if anything we are told about vaccines is true (and presumably the vaccinated believe that it is) - they are at an incalculably higher risk!

You can’t have it both ways. Either the vaccines work and provide protection, in which case you needn’t worry about being around the unvaccinated (but they should worry about being around you, since you haven’t eliminated the risk of transmission and they haven’t got the protection you’ve supposedly got), or they don’t work, in which case there’s no point in the unvaccinated person getting them. The relentless message is that the vaccinated are at risk from the unvaccinated, that the biggest risk is to those who are ostensibly protected rather than to those who are not, and if you can’t see why that’s roundly ridiculous then, well – do you even science, bro?

The whole point of vaccination is to allow you to be around someone with the disease without contracting it. That’s literally the entire, and only, point of the intervention. If you’re never going to be around someone with the disease, then there’s no point in you having the vaccine, hence why we don’t routinely vaccinate for yellow fever or other tropical diseases in this country. A vaccine protects you from illness should you encounter someone with that illness. That’s it.

What a vaccine is not is some holy elixir of eternal life that rids your body of evil unclean entities – I think what you’re thinking of there is ‘baptism’, and the extraordinary religiosity of the current madness is quite breathtaking to behold. Banning unvaccinated relatives from Christmas is akin to some sort of religious ex-communication ritual for heretics and unbelievers who have blasphemously offended your deity of choice. Vaccination has all-but replaced baptismal rites in this country, and if you look at the language that used to be used to stigmatise and demonise unbaptised children, and the language used against the unvaccinated now, you will see it is sinisterly similar.

The reality is that most human beings appear to be deeply religious at their core, and if you take conventional religion away from them, which has mostly disappeared in the West, then they begin to worship and often be radicalised by some other sect instead (such as BLM, MeToo, transgenderism, veganism, etc.). These all bear the hallmarks of extremist religious cults (tedious disclaimer: that doesn’t mean that every vegan etc. is in a cult, but that the organised form of these movements are cultish), and none more so than the Covenant of Covid and its central redemptive ritual - the blessed sting of the holy needle.

You can see that this is ultimately religious, rather than medical or about health, as nobody gets angry at you or demands to know if you’ve taken your antibiotics, or any other medical product, despite the fact that, if you haven’t and remain ill, you could theoretically pose a danger. The reason the vaccinated get angry at the unvaccinated and issue damning judgements and condemnations of them is for all the same reasons any religious zealot does when they encounter an unbeliever. Talk of hell and the devil has simply been replaced with hospital and ventilators, but the overarching tone and theme is the same. Believe in our God (“$cience”), submit to our cleansing ritual that glorifies our God (injections) or forever be damned (ventilated).

And, just like any other religious cult, these diktats all come from fear-based superstitions used to control and modify behaviour (note again all the behavioural psychologists on SAGE) and force submission and compliance. They’re not based in any sort of reality or reason, any more than the scary monsters in the woods were in the film The Village (if you haven’t seen it, the eponymous village is a remote, rural community committed to preserving traditional ways of life, in which the elders scare the younger inhabitants off ever trying to leave or venture into modernity by telling them there are evil scary monsters living in the woods, who will eat them if they try. In reality, the scary monsters are the village elders dressed up in costumes).

Takeaway point: there’s nothing to fear from so-called “mandates”, or from illusion-weaving actors wearing scary costumes. Take a deep breath (and, hate-fans, in this weather you can clearly see just how effective your mask is once you exhale) and keep going. You’re here now for a very good reason and your voice matters enormously. If it didn’t, ‘they’ wouldn’t be doing so much to literally, and figuratively, silence you. If their ‘muzzle mandate’ didn’t succeed in keeping you quiet, then their ‘poison prime directive’ won’t either. Stay strong and keep shouting.

https://miriaf.co.uk/a-mandate-is-two-b ... o-the-pub/

It’s not correct that the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984 was amended on 27 April. It’s not true that this law says you can be forcibly vaccinated either. The 1984 law specifies that you can’t be forced to have medical treatment, which includes a vaccine, but the law does give magistrates the power to prevent the spread of the disease in other ways, like forcing people to isolate themselves.

When I have time I will read the Act myself

[Anthea]

Will We Ever Eradicate COVID-19?
By Tara C. Smithfor Quanta Magazine

We are nearing the two-year anniversary of COVID-19 pandemic

Globally, over 5 million have died, and that’s almost certainly an undercount, especially in countries that still lack the resources to properly test and vaccinate their populations. The U.S. has reported more than 750,000 COVID-19 deaths, and we’ve seen four surges of cases since early 2020, hoping that each would be our last. Recently, scientists detected a heavily mutated new variant, Omicron, which may end up leading to another rush of cases — or have no lasting effects. We still don’t know enough to tell.

Everyone is ready for the pandemic to be over, but it’s still unclear what that would look like. How likely are we to eradicate the virus? What would that really mean, and what will the world look like if we can’t?

While there is much we still don’t know about SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, we have learned enough to answer some of these questions.

Can we eradicate COVID-19?

Some people think so. Advocates of a campaign to eradicate the virus cite the high costs of an endemic SARS-CoV-2 virus, both in terms of health and as an ongoing economic issue. To date, over 250 million infections have been confirmed globally with over 5 million deaths, and absent any intervention, economists have estimated that COVID-19 infections would cost the U.S. $1.4 trillion by 2030. Even with the vaccines, COVID-19 will still be exceedingly costly in the coming years on multiple fronts.

And it’s true that once a pathogen is eradicated, mitigation measures can be reduced or eliminated. We no longer vaccinate the general public for smallpox (though we do maintain a military smallpox vaccination program due to the potential for bioterrorism). One medical journal has suggested that eradication of SARS-CoV-2 should not be ruled out, and that it could be about as challenging as our ongoing polio eradication efforts.

I disagree. The epidemiology of the virus makes eradication unlikely. Investing in a campaign to do so would be a misuse of limited resources, and the failure of a high-profile eradication campaign could make other levels of control more difficult.

What’s the difference between eradication, extinction and elimination of a virus?

Eradication means that the virus is completely extinguished in nature. We’ve actually achieved this with smallpox in humans and rinderpest in animals. Extinction goes further and includes the destruction of any samples in laboratory stocks as well. This has not yet happened for any pathogen, for many reasons that are primarily political rather than scientific: above all, the mutual distrust between the U.S. and Russia, who each hold remaining stocks of the virus.

Eradication is sometimes confused with elimination. While eradication refers to the global extermination of the virus (except in labs), elimination refers to a more limited form of control, where new infections within particular countries are reduced to zero. In the U.S., we have done this with other viruses including the ones causing measles, rubella (German measles) and polio. While we have had recent outbreaks of measles, the original cases for each outbreak came from an outside source — generally a traveler who was infected abroad before going to an area where measles remains endemic.

Maintaining elimination is difficult. The U.S., which eliminated measles, almost lost that status due to a 2019 epidemic that sent cases surging globally (primarily because of outbreaks among the unvaccinated).

What makes COVID-19 so resistant to eradication?

A candidate for eradication will typically possess three qualities: an effective intervention that can stop transmission, readily available diagnostic tools that can rapidly detect infection, and a lack of the disease among nonhuman animals. COVID-19 fails on all three counts.

We think approximately 35% of COVID-19 infections are asymptomatic. That complicates control of spread and diagnosis. For every symptomatic case, many other infections have almost certainly occurred that went unnoticed. To find them, we would need to build up extensive surveillance programs (as we’ve done in the campaign to eradicate polio), examining human cases as well as samples of sewage to determine if the virus is circulating in a community. It’s hard to interrupt transmission if you don’t even know the disease is there.

And even for symptomatic cases, diagnosis is fraught. Unlike smallpox, which had very distinct symptoms that could readily distinguish it from other rash-causing viruses, COVID-19 causes symptoms that can be similar in presentation to those of influenza and other respiratory viruses, meaning rapid, accurate, widespread and affordable testing are critical to confirm cases.

Finally, the disease is currently circulating among multiple species of animals besides humans, with no end in sight.

What do other animals have to do with our eradication efforts?

Smallpox, measles and polio are all caused by human-specific viruses; they do not infect other animals, and so they’re easier targets for eradication. SARS-CoV-2, by contrast, is a zoonotic pathogen that originated from an as-yet-unknown species, probably a bat. This means there is already a nonhuman reservoir of the virus in nature. Following its spread to humans, researchers have identified SARS-CoV-2 in many other animal species, including ferrets, otters, white-tailed deer, gorillas, mink and more.

These animal infections complicate eradication efforts, because there will always be sources of the virus that could reintroduce it into humans. Animal-to-human transmission may be infrequent (though mink-to-human transmission has already been documented), but it only takes a single event to bring the virus back into an area where it has been eliminated. Each new chain of transmission needs to be stopped if eradication or elimination is the long-term goal.

What about vaccines?

Vaccines have been a great method of interrupting transmission, but the current vaccines for COVID-19 simply aren’t as effective as vaccines for smallpox, measles and polio. COVID-19 vaccines reduce transmission if vaccinated individuals are infected, but they do not completely eliminate it. Again, this makes eradication much more challenging.

An additional issue is variants. The viruses that cause measles, smallpox and polio have less genetic diversity, so variants can generally be neutralized by vaccine-induced immunity. With SARS-CoV-2, we’re not yet sure how much of an impact variants will have, but it is at least theoretically possible that a variant will emerge that can completely escape the immunity brought on by vaccination or previous infection. (Tests are currently underway with the Omicron variant to determine if it has the ability to escape from antibodies generated against prior variants.)

Mutations in the virus’s spike protein, which binds to the host’s cells and is what the immune system recognizes, could result in changes to the protein’s amino acid sequence. If these changes hit in the right places, they could alter the protein to such a degree that our antibodies will bind to it less tightly or no longer recognize the protein.

There’s also the issue of waning immunity over time. Vaccination for polio, smallpox and measles results in long-term, potentially lifelong, immunity. With coronaviruses in general, we know that immunity can wane rapidly, leaving individuals susceptible to reinfection. We are already witnessing this now with SARS-CoV-2, in both vaccinated and previously infected individuals.

The solution to these issues is simply additional vaccinations, but that requires a regular, global vaccine campaign that would have to surpass vaccination efforts in 2021, which themselves only came about with emergency funding and have still left many unvaccinated, either because they declined the vaccine or because it’s not yet available to them.
Are there other reasons to be skeptical about SARS-CoV-2 eradication?

While discussion of the pathogen’s biology may dominate when we look at eradication potential, that is only one aspect of the issue. Potentially more difficult are political and economic considerations.

Eradication is a global enterprise. Interventions must be globally available and affordable, and there must be agreement among nations that eradication is not only possible but necessary. Reaching such an agreement would be facilitated by the World Health Assembly, the World Health Organization’s decision-making body. It is here that any campaign must begin, as delegates are the first to decide if eradication is feasible, if it’s a good use of resources, if all countries would value it enough to contribute, and so on. Even assuming everyone is interested in working toward the goal — which is assuming a lot — countless logistical issues would delay and hinder the project.

What do we do instead?

While eradication is unlikely, we have other options. Elimination of infections — reduction to zero within defined geographic areas — may be possible, but even that would require many years of sustained work. Elimination would be easier if we had second-generation vaccines that could provide long-term immunity and better protection from “breakthrough” infections, but it’s unclear if any coronavirus vaccine can do this, given that even infection does not.

As we consider the loftier goal of elimination, in the short term we must aim simply for control: reduction of incidence to an acceptable level, due to deliberate efforts. This will come at a cost, probably a higher one than many public health experts are comfortable with, of thousands of COVID-19 deaths each year and additional chronic outcomes, such as long COVID.

Luckily, the combination of vaccination, infection-induced immunity and novel treatments should reduce the risk of serious infection and death from COVID over time. Annual vaccination may be necessary to keep immunity high and to respond to any variations in circulating virus, as with influenza. Some individuals may also choose to wear masks in times of increased infections.

We need to be honest about what to expect moving forward. The specter of COVID-19 will likely always be here, but with interventions it can be defanged. Achieving this is unlikely to herald the “return to normal” so many desperately desire — but neither will illusions of eradication.

https://www.quantamagazine.org/will-we- ... obal-en-GB

[Anthea]

Omicron wave appears milder

The wave of Omicron appears to be milder according to preliminary studies published in the UK and South Africa

Early evidence suggests fewer people are needing hospital treatment than with other variants - with estimates ranging from a 30% to a 70% reduction.

But the concern remains that even if Omicron is milder, the sheer number of cases could overwhelm hospitals.

More than 100,000 cases have been reported in the UK in a single day for the first time.

A deeper understanding of the severity of Omicron will help countries decide how to respond to the virus.

The study in Scotland has been tracking coronavirus and the number of people ending up in hospital.

It said that if Omicron behaved the same as Delta, they would expect around 47 people to have been admitted to hospital already. At the moment there are only 15.

The researchers said they were seeing a roughly two-thirds reduction in the number needing hospital care, but there were very few cases and few at-risk elderly people in the study.

Dr Jim McMenamin, the national Covid-19 incident director at Public Health Scotland, described it as a "qualified good news story".

He said the data was "filling in a blank" about protection against hospitalisation, but cautioned it was "important we don't get ahead of ourselves".

The Omicron variant is spreading incredibly quickly and a high number of cases could wipe out any benefit of it being milder.

Prof Mark Woolhouse, from the University of Edinburgh, said: "An individual infection could be relatively mild for the vast majority of people, but the potential for all these infections to come at once and put serious strain on the NHS remains."

Meanwhile, another study in South Africa also points to the Omicron wave being milder.

It showed people were 70-80% less likely to need hospital treatment, depending on whether Omicron is compared to previous waves, or other variants currently circulating.

However, it suggested there was no difference in outcomes for the few patients that ended up in hospital with Omicron.

"Compellingly, together our data really suggest a positive story of a reduced severity of Omicron compared to other variants," said Prof Cheryl Cohen of the National Institute for Communicable Diseases, in South Africa.

Why milder?

The reduction in severity is thought to be a combination of the fundamental properties of the Omicron variant as well as high levels of immunity from vaccinations and previous infections.

An analysis of Omicron by Imperial College London suggests Omicron's mutations have made it a milder virus than Delta.

The researchers said the chances of turning up at A&E would be 11% lower with Omicron than Delta if you had no prior immunity.

However, that now applies to relatively few people due to high levels of vaccination and infection.

The same analysis said that accounting for immunity in the population meant a 25% to 30% lower risk of visiting A&E with Omicron and around a 40% reduction in needing to stay in hospital for more than a day.

Prof Neil Ferguson, one of the researchers, said: "It is clearly good news, to a degree."

However, he warned the reduction is "not sufficient to dramatically change the modelling" and the speed that Omicron is spreading meant "there's the potential of still getting hospitalisations in numbers that could put the NHS in a difficult position".

Laboratories studies have suggested potential reasons Omicron could be milder.

The University of Hong Kong found Omicron was better at infecting the airways, but worse at getting into the deep tissues of the lungs, where it can do more damage.

The University of Cambridge found the variant was not as good at fusing lung cells together, which happens in the lungs of people who become severely ill.

The UK Health Security Agency is expected to publish early real-world data on Omicron soon, which could give further indications of the variant's severity.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-59758784

[Anthea]

S.African study offers Omicron hope

GENEVA/JOHANNESBURG, Dec 22 (Reuters) - South African data offered a glimmer of hope on Wednesday about the severity of the Omicron coronavirus variant, but World Health Organization officials cautioned that it was too soon to draw firm conclusions as the strain spread across the globe

With the second Christmas of the pandemic just days away, countries imposed new restrictions on their citizens while they worried about the damage the variant might inflict on their economies.

Plans for Christmas parties and celebrations were wiped out from London to New Delhi amid the uncertainty.

Omicron was first detected last month in southern Africa and Hong Kong. Preliminary data indicated it was more resistant to vaccines developed before it emerged.

But a study by South Africa's National Institute for Communicable Diseases (NICD) suggested that those infected with Omicron were much less likely to end up in hospital than those with the Delta strain.

COVID-19 cases also appear to have peaked in South Africa's Gauteng province, the region where Omicron first emerged, it said.

The study, which has not been peer-reviewed, compared South African Omicron data from October and November with data about Delta between April and November.

"In South Africa, this is the epidemiology: Omicron is behaving in a way that is less severe," the NICD's Professor Cheryl Cohen said.

"Compellingly, together our data really suggest a positive story of a reduced severity of Omicron compared to other variants."

However, the WHO technical lead on COVID-19, Maria van Kerkhove, said the U.N. agency did not have enough data to draw firm conclusions about the severity of the Omicron variant.

The data was still "messy" as countries reported its arrival and spread, she told a briefing in Geneva.

"We have not seen this variant circulate long enough in populations around the world, certainly in vulnerable populations. We have been asking countries to be cautious, and to really think, especially as these holidays are coming up."

The WHO's European head told Reuters in Brussels that three to four weeks was needed to determine Omicron's severity.

Hans Kluge said that Omicron, already dominant in Britain, Denmark and Portugal, was likely to be the main coronavirus strain in Europe in a few weeks.

"There is no doubt that Europe is once again the epicentre of the global pandemic. Yes, I'm very concerned, but there is no reason for panic. The good news is..., we know what to do."

VACCINATE

Meanwhile governments raced to contain the variant's rapid spread, urging citizens to get vaccinated as Omicron upended reopening plans that many had hoped would herald the end of the pandemic. read more

Germany, Scotland, Ireland, the Netherlands and South Korea have reimposed partial or full lockdowns or other social distancing measures in recent days.

Italy was preparing new measures and might make vaccinations obligatory for more categories of workers, Prime Minister Mario Draghi said.

Austria is to order a 10 p.m. close in the hospitality sector and classified Britain, Denmark, the Netherlands and Norway as risk areas, meaning arrivals from there must go into quarantine if they have not had a booster shot.

Belgium, the Czech Republic and Spain were also considering new curbs. The Indian capital of New Delhi banned Christmas and other celebrations ahead of the New Year. read more

The Chinese city of Xian - home to the Terracotta Warriors - told its 13 million residents to stay at home as it struggles to contain rising COVID-19 cases under Beijing's zero-tolerance policy.

ECONOMIC BLOW

Policymakers across the world are trying to address the economic blow that might come from new outbreaks.

On Wall Street, concern about Omicron upending the economic recovery lingered and U.S. stock indexes were mostly flat at the market open.

"Overall the volatility for December has been much higher than usually seen," said Anu Gaggar, global investment strategist for Commonwealth Financial Network. "The Santa Claus rally is slightly lower this year."

Some 300 South Korean business owners protested in Seoul on Wednesday against the return of strict social distancing rules, urging the government to scrap its "vaccine pass" policy and compensate for losses. read more

Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett welcomed a Health Ministry panel's recommendation that over 60s, those with compromised immune systems and health workers should receive fourth COVID shots.

More than 275 million people have been reported to be infected with the coronavirus around the world, and nearly 5.7 million have died, according to a Reuters tally. read more

Infections have been reported in more than 210 countries and territories since the first cases were identified in central China in December 2019.

U.S. President Joe Biden on Wednesday tested negative for the coronavirus, the White House said. On Tuesday, Biden promised to distribute half a billion free rapid COVID-19 tests, and warned the quarter of American adults who are unvaccinated that their choices could spell the "difference between life and death".

Professor Lawrence Young, virologist at the University of Warwick in England, said it was difficult to justify fourth shots when many people had been vaccinated in richer countries and far fewer in Africa.

WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said boosters should not be seen as the only way of dealing with the pandemic when other countries are struggling to roll out shots.

"Blanket booster programmes are likely to prolong the pandemic rather than ending it," he told a briefing in Geneva.

Interactive graphic tracking global spread of coronavirus: open https://tmsnrt.rs/2FThSv7 in an external browser.

https://www.reuters.com/world/the-great ... 021-12-22/
Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

[Anthea]

Omicron up to 70% less severe

People catching Omicron are 50% to 70% less likely to need hospital care compared with previous variants, a major analysis says

The UK Health Security Agency says its early findings are "encouraging" but the variant could still lead to large numbers of people in hospital.

The health secretary said it was "too early" to determine "next steps".

The study also shows the jab's ability to stop people catching Omicron starts to wane 10 weeks after a booster dose.

Protection against severe disease is likely to be far more robust.

The report comes hot on the heels of data from South Africa, Denmark, England and Scotland which all pointed to reduced severity.

The latest analysis is based on all cases of Omicron and Delta in the UK since the beginning of November, including 132 people admitted to hospital with the variant. There have also been 14 deaths in people within 28 days of catching Omicron.

The report shows people catching Omicron are:

31% to 45% less likely to go to A&E
50% to 70% less likely to be admitted to hospital

However, a milder virus could still put pressure on hospitals because it spreads so fast.

The issue remains that any benefit of a milder virus could be wiped out by large numbers of people catching Omicron. The UK has set another daily Covid record with 119,789 confirmed cases. There were a further 147 deaths within 28 days of a positive test.

There is also uncertainty about what will happen when Omicron reaches older age groups because most of those catching it and going into hospital so far have been under the age of 40.

Hospital admissions increasing

Health Secretary Sajid Javid said the early data was "promising" and government was monitoring the data "hour-by-hour".

But he warned: "Cases of the variant continue to rise at an extraordinary rate - already surpassing the record daily number in the pandemic. Hospital admissions are increasing, and we cannot risk the NHS being overwhelmed."

The government has announced it will not be introducing any new restrictions in England before Christmas but measures could still be introduced if case numbers continue to grow.

Dr Jenny Harries, the chief executive of the UKHSA, said: "Our latest analysis shows an encouraging early signal that people who contract the Omicron variant may be at a relatively lower risk of hospitalisation than those who contract other variants.

"Cases are currently very high in the UK, and even a relatively low proportion requiring hospitalisation could result in a significant number of people becoming seriously ill."
Media caption,

Watch the UKHSA's Dr Susan Hopkins speak about early analysis of Omicron and why it's a cause for "cautious optimism"

Omicron is thought to be milder due to a combination of our immunity and changes to the virus itself.

The variant is mostly infecting people who have been infected with other variants before or who have been vaccinated. Both give the immune system a head start

However, laboratory studies have also shown changes in how Omicron infects our bodies. It is better at infecting our airways rather than the deep tissues of the lungs - this could make it easier for the variant to spread, but milder as it is further away from the delicate parts of the lungs.

Prof Ravi Gupta, who performed those studies at the University of Cambridge, told the BBC: "The clinical data on reduced severity fit with lab data suggesting Omicron has shifted its preference.

"Vaccination remains vital to protect against severe disease and also to protect against future variants."

There are also signs that the effect of booster doses is waning.

Two doses of a vaccine were shown to offer limited protection against catching Omicron, which was then restored with a booster dose.

However, the report says this protection drops by between 15% and 25% after 10 weeks. This is still better than having no booster dose and the protection against severe disease or death is likely to be even greater.

There are no suggestions that a fourth dose will be rolled out in the UK anytime soon and there will be discussions over whether to wait for an update vaccine.

Northern Ireland agrees a grant scheme to support hospitality operators affected by the latest restrictions

The Welsh government announces that people who have tested positive for coronavirus will not be able to leave isolation as early as those in England

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-59769969

[Anthea]

AstraZeneca behind UK’s lower death rate

The UK’s early reliance on the AstraZeneca vaccine could be a reason why the country’s death rate is currently below other European nations

Dr Clive Dix said he believed the jab “may just get us out of the woods” as it helped to stave off serious Covid for longer than RNA-based alternatives made by Pfizer and Moderna.

The Oxford/AstraZeneca jab was approved last December.

AstraZenca vaccines were rolled out among the older and the most vulnerable in society.

“If you look across Europe, with the rise in cases, there’s also a corresponding lagged rise in deaths, but not in the UK,” Dr Dix told The Daily Telegraph.

“I personally believe that’s because most of our vulnerable people were given the AstraZeneca vaccine.”

He explained although the RNA jabs produce a more rapid jump in antibody levels in lab tests, other vaccines may be better at preparing another part of the immune system – cellular immunity.

That includes the T-cells that help fight off an infection in the body.

“We’ve seen early data that the Oxford jab produces a very durable cellular response and if you’ve got a durable cellular immunity response then they can last for a long time. It can last for life in some cases.” He added.

“I do think we’ve lost the battle with transmission. There’s no vaccine that is going to change that. I think we should focus on the cellular immune response and it may just get us out of the woods.”

AstraZeneca was one of the first jabs on the market.

Under 40s were offered an alternative jab to the AstraZenca due to a link with rare blood clots.

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/astr ... 73951.html

[Anthea]

Omicron is not the same disease

Omicron is “not the same disease we were seeing a year ago” and high Covid death rates in the UK are “now history”, a leading immunologist has said

Sir John Bell, regius professor of medicine at Oxford University and the government’s life sciences adviser, said that although hospital admissions had increased in recent weeks as Omicron spreads through the population, the disease “appears to be less severe and many people spend a relatively short time in hospital”. Fewer patients were needing high-flow oxygen and the average length of stay was down to three days, he said.

A number of scientists have criticised the government’s decision not to introduce further Covid restrictions in England before New Year’s Eve, with some describing it as “the greatest divergence between scientific advice and legislation” since the start of the pandemic.

They have expressed concern that while the Omicron variant appears to be milder, it is highly transmissible, meaning hospital numbers and deaths could rise rapidly without intervention.

The NHS Providers chief executive, Chris Hopson, said it was still unclear what would happen when infection rates in older people started to rise. “We’ve had a lot of intergenerational mixing over Christmas, so we all are still waiting to see, are we going to see a significant number of increases in terms of the number of patients coming into hospital with serious Omicron-related disease,” he told BBC Breakfast.

NHS staff absences caused by having to isolate over Omicron are also causing strain on the health service, with experts predicting up to 40% of staff in London could be off in a “worst case scenario”.

“We’re now seeing a significant increase in the level of staff absences, and quite a few of our chief executives are saying that they think that that’s probably going to be a bigger problem and a bigger challenge for them than necessarily the number of people coming in who need treatment because of Covid,” said Hopson.

George Eustice, the environment secretary, said the government was keeping the level of Covid hospital admissions under “very close review”.

He acknowledged that infection rates from the new Omicron variant were rising but said there was evidence it was not resulting in the same level of hospital admissions as previous waves.

“There is early encouragement from what we know in South Africa that you have fewer hospitalisations and that the number of days that they stay in hospital if they do go into hospital is also lower than in previous variants,” he told the BBC.

“At the moment we don’t think that the evidence supports any more interventions beyond what we have done. But obviously we have got to keep it under very close review, because if it is the case that we started to see a big increase in hospitalisations then we would need to act further.”

John Bell told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme: “The horrific scenes that we saw a year ago of intensive care units being full, lots of people dying prematurely, that is now history, in my view, and I think we should be reassured that that’s likely to continue.”

He said that over the course of multiple waves of Covid, including Delta and Omicron, “the incidence of severe disease and death from this disease has basically not changed since we all got vaccinated”.

He added that quiet streets over the past couple of weeks showed people had been “pretty responsible” with regard to protecting themselves from the virus.

Speaking after the government’s announcement on Monday that they would not be introducing any more Covid restrictions this year, Simon Clarke, an associate professor in cellular microbiology at the University of Reading, warned that the latest data was incomplete.

He cautioned that the latest case figures did not include data for samples taken between Christmas Eve and Boxing Day, and that it would become clear how the virus had moved through the population over the Christmas period in the coming week or so.

“While nobody wants to live under tighter controls, the public need to realise that if we end up with a significant problem of hospitalisations and mass sickness, it will be worse than if authorities had acted earlier,” he said.

Speaking on Tuesday, Paul Hunter, a professor in medicine at the University of East Anglia, said people with Covid should eventually be allowed to “go about their normal lives” as they would with a common cold.

“This is a disease that’s not going away. Ultimately, we’re going to have to let people who are positive with Covid go about their normal lives as they would do with any other cold,” he told BBC Breakfast. “If the self-isolation rules are what’s making the pain associated with Covid, then we need to do that perhaps sooner rather than later. Maybe not quite just yet.

“Covid is only one virus of a family of coronaviruses, and the other coronaviruses throw off new variants typically every year or so, and that’s almost certainly what’s going to happen with Covid. It will become effectively just another cause of the common cold.

“Once we’re past Easter, perhaps, then maybe we should start to look at scaling back, depending on, of course, what the disease is at that time.”

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/ ... -scientist

[Anthea]

Pfizer Records Sealed For 55 YEARS

Hungry for details on Pfizer's COVID-19 vaccine? Just file a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request and wait until the U.S. tricentennial in 2076. That's the schedule the FDA proposed in documents filed in a U.S. District Court this week

According to the documents filed (PDF) in a U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, the FDA asked a federal judge for 55 years to complete a FOIA request for data and information on the approval of Pfizer-BioNTech's COVID-19 vaccine, Comirnaty.

If the judge grants the FDA's request, the plaintiffs, Public Health and Medical Professionals for Transparency, would have to wait until the U.S. celebrates its 300th year anniversary in 2076 to view the full report.

What do I need to consider when deciding on a delivery system? How can I prove that it will be safe and effective and comply with regulatory authority requirements? In an environment that calls for more convenient delivery systems, we will guide you on how to make the right choice for your product. This webinar will cover selection criteria for pre-filled syringes and enhanced delivery systems.

The FDA's request comes about a month after the plaintiffs, comprising more than 30 professors and scientists from some of the country's top schools, filed suit (PDF) to expedite their FOIA request. The group originally asked for documentation after the vaccine's approval in August, but the FDA has yet to turn anything over.

The plaintiffs' lawyers say the FDA needs to fork over the information to "settle the ongoing public debate" around the agency's review process as well as to confirm its conclusion that the Pfizer vaccine is safe, effective and worthy of the public's trust.

The plaintiffs' request covers some 329,000 pages, which must first be processed and redacted before the FDA can hand them over, Department of Justice (DOJ) lawyers representing the regulator stated in court documents.

The group asked the FDA to satisfy their request by no later than March 3, 2022, giving the agency the same 108 days "from when Pfizer started producing the records for licensure on May 07, 2021, to when the product was licensed on August 23, 2021."

To meet that deadline, the FDA would need to process some 80,000 pages a month. That simply isn't feasible, the DOJ lawyers argued.

"Reviewing and redacting records for exempt information is a time-consuming process that often requires government information specialists to review each page line-by-line," the defense said in this week's court filing. "When a party requests a large amount of records, like Plaintiff did here, courts typically set a schedule whereby the processing and production of the nonexempt portions of records is made on a rolling basis," they added.

Meanwhile, the time it takes an agency to process a FOIA request varies "depending on the complexity of the request and any backlog of requests pending at the agency," the U.S. says on a FOIA fact page.

The branch that would be in charge of processing the plaintiffs' FOIA request only has 10 employees and is already saddled with about 400 outstanding bids for information, lawyers for the defense said.

Instead, the FDA has proposed to release 500 pages per month. "By processing and making interim responses based on 500-page increments, FDA will be able to provide more pages to more requesters, thus avoiding a system where a few large requests monopolize finite processing resources," the agency's defense said.

U.S. District Judge Mark Pittman has set a scheduling conference for Dec. 14, 2021, to weigh the timeline for the plaintiffs' request, Reuters reported Friday.

https://www.fiercepharma.com/pharma/fda ... 19-vaccine

[Anthea]

Does bee venom apitherapy

prevent coronavirus infection?

Immune is the ability of the body to fight or resist a particular infection to toxin, protecting it against various diseases

A strong immune system is the key to staying healthy. This is now assured in the current situation whereby immune is a key to play in combating COVID-19. Therefore, ensuring health and wellness by strengthening immunity to protect ourselves from falling ill is crucial especially during this critical hour. So we must boost our immune system with Bee Sting.

Papers published in Nature Medicine journal at the Peter Doherty Institute, Melbourne, for infection and immune was based on blood samples tested at four different time which shows how a patient’s immune system responds to the virus.

A 47 years old women in Melbourne with mild to moderate Corona virus disease or COVID-19, produced antibodies that fought the infection and recovered in about 10 days without any medicine. The women had travelled from Wuhan in China, the epicentre of the Global epidemic. To be sure, the patient was otherwise healthy, the disease was mild to moderate and she was a non smoker. She was administered intravenous fluids to prevent dehydration but not given any antibodies.

Prof. Katherine Kedzieskn of the Institute said - “We should see that even though COVID-19 is caused by a new virus, in an otherwise healthy cell types, was associated with chemical recovery, similar to what we see in influenza”.

Bee venom and SARS-CoV-2 - Toxicon

When the Global number of confirmed COVID-19 case exceeded 2 million on the 15th April, 2020, Physicians of Johns Hopkins Corona Virus Resource Centre participated in the prevention and control of Corona Virus in China. The report of the discovery reflected of the discovery of Cowpox and the eventual victory of humans over the disease follows as in Hubei province, the epicentre of COVID-19 in China.

The local beekeepers were surveyed from February 23 to March 8, including 723 in Wuhan, the outbreak epicentre of Hubei. None of these beekeepers developed symptoms associated with COVID-19 and their health was totally normal. After that they interviewed patients in five apitherapy clinics.

These patients had received apitherapy from October 2019 to December 2019 and all the five bee apitherapists have the habit of self-apitherapy for their health care (Apitherapy means making use of bee Venom from the honeybee’s sting to treat or prevent certain disease).

Without any protective measures, two of the five apitherapists were exposed to suspected COVID-19 cases and others were exposed to confirmed COVID-19 case, but none of them were infected eventually.

Further, none of the 121 patients were infected by SARS- Cov-2, and three of them had close contact with immediate family members who were confirmed with SARS-Cov-2 because they live in less densely populated rural areas. But the five apitherapists and their patients are from densely populated areas in Wuhan.

These people have one thing common, they developed a tolerance to bee sting further mentioned as Bee Sting can cause allergic reactions (Park and Lee, 2016), and it can even lead to death due to the excessive stress response of the immune system (Vazquez – Revuelta and Madrigal Burgaleta, 2018).

Bee-Venom can affect the body’s immune system( Cherniaek and Govorushko, 2018) and enhance the differentiation of human regulatory T Cells (Coramalhoelal, 2015) which play an important role in control of SARS-Cov infection (Chen etal 2010).

Does the stimulation of the immunity system caused by bee Venom reduce susceptibility to Sars-Cov? To test this, animal experiments would be needed. Monkeys might be suitable for this study. Monkeys could be divided into experimental groups with the same breed and age.

The UK has prisons full of Murderers - Rapists - Drug Dealers - Child Molesters who should be used for experimentation NOT innocent monkeys

One group could be made tolerant to bee venom after a period of daily bee stings, while the other group receives no intervention. They could then be raised in the same environment contaminated by SARS-Cov-2, and multiple tests performed to see if they were infected by SARS Cov-2.

Bee Venom in human history

Whether the humans began keeping bees because of the healing effects of their stings or to get honey or for both reasons, we do not know. Already the early civilization knows about the healing found virtues in the painful bee stings.

Bee stings are probably one of the first natural cures for arthritis in the ancient civilization of China, India, Egypt, Babylon and Greece. In Huangdi Neijing, an ancient Chinese medical book, around 500 BC, bee sting therapy was mentioned (Chen, 1984, Apiculture in China).

Aristotle (384-322) was the first researcher into bees, and has rightly been dubbed ‘The Sun of Ancient Apiculture’. His History of animals, his writings on the parts and reproduction of animals contain many references based on experiments with and observation of bees. He referred to the stinging apparatus of bees and powerful properties of bee.

The ancient Greek Doctor Hippocrates used bee venom for therapeutic purposes. In his story of Aristoma Chus, Pliny tells how the philosopher was so enchanted by the life and work of bees and importance of bee venom to human

It is documented that Charlemagne (742-814) preserved bee stings for therapy against goud, while Monfat (566-1634) prescribed bee stings to immediate flow of urine and against kidney stones. In 1858 the French medical doctor De Marti began to use bee stings for treatment of several diseases. In the same year, C.W. Wolf a prominent homeopathic physician of Berlin edited his book Apis Mellifira or the poison of the honey bee considered as a therapeutic agent.

In 1868 the Russians Lokumski and Lubarski published a book named “Bee Venom a Remedy”. The modern use of Bee-Venom in apitherapy was initiated through the efforts of Austrian Physician Philip Tere in his published results “Report about a Peculiar Connection between the Bee Stings and Rheumatism”. A book on Bee-Venom therapy was published in USA in the year 1935 by Bodog of Beek.

In Europe the first commercial bee venom preparations was released in 1928. Charles Mraz, a student of Beck, popularised Bee-Venom therapy in USA. In 1957 the Learned Council of the USA Ministry of Health sanctioned a temporary instruction for its use in the form of a bee sting for the treatment of certain illness. In 1864,

Prof. M.I. Lukomsky of the St. Petersburg Forestry Institute published an article in which he demonstrated that bee Venom was a valuable remedy and appeal to doctors to study it. In 1936-37 M.B. Krol, Member of the Academy of Science made an experimental preparation of Bee-Venom and employed with success to treat patients with disorders of the nervous system.

https://www.thesangaiexpress.com/Encyc/ ... tion-.html

[Anthea]

Bee Venom - Uses - Benefits - Side Effects

As the name implies, bee venom is an ingredient derived from bees. It’s used as a natural treatment for a variety of ailments

Its proponents claim that it offers a wide range of medicinal properties, ranging from reducing inflammation to treating chronic illnesses. However, research in some of these areas is either lacking or conflicting.

This article reviews the uses, benefits, and side effects of bee venom.

Bee venom is a colorless, acidic liquid. Bees excrete it through their stingers into a target when they feel threatened.

It contains both anti-inflammatory and inflammatory compounds, including enzymes, sugars, minerals, and amino acids.

Melittin — a compound that consists of 26 amino acids — comprises about 50% of the dry weight of the venom and has been shown to have antiviral, antibacterial, and anticancer effects in some studies.

That said, it’s primarily responsible for the pain associated with bee stings.

Bee venom also contains the peptides apamin and adolapin. Although they act as toxins, they have been shown to possess anti-inflammatory and pain-relieving properties.

Additionally, it contains phospholipase A2, an enzyme and major allergen that causes inflammation and cell damage. Nevertheless, according to some research, the enzyme may also have anti-inflammatory and immunoprotective effects.

As you can see, the substances in bee venom have been associated with both positive and negative health effects.

Importantly, while research shows that some compounds in the venom may have beneficial properties, the isolated effects of each component are unknown, as many components have not been well studied.

How is it used?

Apitherapy is an alternative medicine practice that uses bee products — including their venom — to treat and prevent illnesses, pain, and more.

Although bee venom has recently experienced a surge in popularity, bee-venom therapy has been used in traditional medicine practices for thousands of years (6Trusted Source).

The venom is used in a number of ways and available in many forms. For example, it’s added to products like extracts, supplements, moisturizers, and serums.

You can purchase bee-venom products, such as moisturizers, lotions, and lozenges, online or in specialty stores.

Meanwhile, bee-venom injections can be administered by healthcare professionals.

Lastly, bee venom is used in live bee acupuncture or bee-sting therapy — a treatment method in which live bees are placed on your skin and a sting is induced.

Some substances in bee venom, including melittin and apamin, may have medicinal properties. Bee-venom therapy has been used for thousands of years as a natural treatment for a variety of conditions.

While not all of the purported benefits of bee venom are backed by science, research has shown that it has several powerful medicinal properties.

Has anti-inflammatory properties

One of the most well-documented benefits of bee venom is its powerful anti-inflammatory effects. Many of its components have been shown to reduce inflammation, particularly melittin — its main component.

Although melittin can cause itching, pain, and inflammation when delivered in high doses, it has potent anti-inflammatory effects when used in small amounts.

Melittin has been shown to suppress inflammatory pathways and reduce inflammatory markers, such as tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNF-α) and interleukin 1 beta (IL-1β)

May reduce arthritis-related symptoms

The anti-inflammatory effects of bee venom have been shown to especially benefit those with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), a painful inflammatory condition that affects your joints.

An 8-week study in 120 people with RA found that bee-venom acupuncture, which employed 5–15 bee stings every other day, provided symptom relief effects that were similar to those of traditional RA medications like Methotrexate and Celecoxib.

Another study in 100 people with RA showed that combining bee-sting therapy with traditional medications like Methotrexate, Sulfasalazine, and Meloxicam was more effective at reducing pain and joint swelling than treatment with the traditional medication alone.Though promising, more high-quality studies are needed to confirm these effects.

May benefit skin health

Multiple skincare companies have started adding bee venom to products like serums and moisturizers. This ingredient may promote skin health in several ways, including by reducing inflammation, providing antibacterial effects, and reducing wrinkles.

A 12-week study in 22 women demonstrated that applying a facial serum containing bee venom twice daily significantly reduced wrinkle depth and total wrinkle count, compared with the placebo.

Another 6-week study found that 77% of participants with mild to moderate acne who used a serum containing purified bee venom twice daily experienced an improvement in acne, compared with the placebo.

What’s more, test-tube studies have shown that the venom has powerful antibacterial and anti-inflammatory effects against the acne-causing bacteria Propionibacterium acnes.

May benefit immune health

Bee venom has been shown to have beneficial effects on immune cells that mediate allergic and inflammatory responses.

Evidence from animal studies suggests that bee-venom therapy might help reduce symptoms of autoimmune conditions, such as lupus, encephalomyelitis, and rheumatoid arthritis, by decreasing inflammation and bolstering your immune response.

Other animal studies suggest that bee-venom therapy may also help treat allergic conditions like asthma.

It’s thought that bee venom increases the production of regulatory T cells, or Tregs, which inhibit allergen responses and reduce inflammation. Although promising, the effects of bee-venom therapy in humans with allergies is unknown.

Additionally, venom immunotherapy, in which bee venom is administered by a healthcare professional by injection — is used to treat people with severe allergies to bee stings.

Research has shown that this treatment is safe and effective and can reduce the future risk of serious reactions to bee stings. In fact, it’s recommended as a first-line treatment for those who are allergic to the venom.

Other potential benefits

Though research is limited, bee venom may benefit the following conditions.

Neurological diseases. Some research suggests that bee-venom therapy may help reduce symptoms related to neurological diseases, including Parkinson’s disease, though human studies are limited

Pain. One study showed that bee-venom acupuncture, along with traditional medication, significantly reduced pain and improved functional status in 54 patients with chronic lower back pain, compared with the placebo group

May fight Lyme disease. Some research suggests that bee venom and isolated melittin may have antimicrobial effects against Borrelia burgdorferi, which is the bacteria that causes Lyme disease. However, more research is needed

Although these potential benefits are promising, more research is needed to confirm them.

Bee venom has powerful anti-inflammatory properties and may benefit the health of your skin and immune system. It may also improve certain medical conditions like rheumatoid arthritis and chronic pain

While bee venom has been shown to offer several potential benefits, it’s important to note that studies supporting these benefits are limited. In fact, most available research has been conducted on animals or in test tubes.

Thus, it’s unclear how effective bee-venom therapy is as an alternative medicine treatment, as well as whether it’s any more effective than traditional treatments for conditions like rheumatoid arthritis, chronic pain, or autoimmune diseases.

Certain methods of bee-venom therapy, including acupuncture, can lead to side effects, such as pain, swelling, and redness.

Additionally, bee-venom therapy can cause serious side effects or even death in highly allergic individuals by causing anaphylaxis, a potentially life-threatening allergic reaction that can make it hard to breathe.

Other serious adverse effects related to this therapy have also been documented, including hyperventilation, fatigue, appetite loss, extreme pain, increased bleeding risk, and vomiting.

Of particular note, a review of 145 studies on the side effects of bee-venom therapy found that an average of 29% of people experienced adverse effects — ranging from mild to severe — after treatment.

In addition, the review found that compared with a saline injection, bee-venom acupuncture increased the occurrence of adverse side effects by a whopping 261%..

In susceptible individuals, using topical bee-venom products like serums and moisturizers can also cause adverse reactions, such as itching, hives, and redness.

Based on the available research, it’s safe to say that adverse reactions — ranging from mild to potentially fatal — are common when using bee venom. For this reason, you should exercise extreme caution when using these products or treatments.

Bee-venom therapy and acupuncture should only be administered by a qualified healthcare professional.

Bee venom can cause side effects, ranging from mild to life threatening. Bee-venom therapy should only be administered by medical professional

Bee venom is a natural product that has risen in popularity due to its variety of potential health benefits.

It has been shown to have anti-inflammatory properties, may benefit skin health, and can possibly help treat symptoms related to various health conditions, such as rheumatoid arthritis and chronic pain.

However, using bee-venom products or undergoing bee-venom therapy may cause serious side effects, so be sure to practice caution and consult a trained medical professional for advice before trying it out.

https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/bee-venom

[Anthea]

Covid patients almost 7 times lower

Seven times fewer Covid 'cases' are ending up in hospital now compared to England's devastating second wave, official data suggests as proof that Omicron is milder continues to pile up

No10's own advisers feared the ultra-infectious variant could overwhelm the NHS, which prompted calls for Boris Johnson to adopt tougher restrictions.

But mounting evidence now shows the strain causes less severe disease than previous strains, which the PM today used to justify his refusal to tighten curbs.

And MailOnline's analysis of UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA) data adds to the slew of statistics that suggest the days of the UK recording several hundred deaths a day are 'history'.

The proportion of Covid cases ending up in hospital a week later now stands at just 1.5 per cent, compared to 10.9 per cent during the depths of the country's Delta crisis last January and February.

Experts told MailOnline immunity from vaccination and prior infection means 'what we’re seeing this winter is a very different picture' — but warned hospitalisations and deaths could still tick upwards in the coming weeks.

Meanwhile, separate figures show five times fewer Covid-infected patients are hooked up to ventilators now than during the NHS's darkest days fighting Delta. And data from South Africa — the first country to fall victim to the variant — shows Omicron is causing just a quarter of the number of deaths seen before it took hold.

The Prime Minister today said Omicron — which now makes up 90 per cent of cases in all nine regions of England — is 'obviously milder' than previous strains, labelling it as one of the main reasons as to why he has opted against tightening restrictions.

Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have all imposed new measures on socialising to combat the ultra-infectious variant. Nicola Sturgeon today insisted it was 'prudent' and 'essential' to take action to 'avoid the sheer volume of cases overwhelming us'.

But in another sign of hope, MailOnline today revealed that experts are hopeful the outbreak in London may have already peaked. It would mirror the same trend seen in the 'ground zero' of South Africa, if it comes to fruition.

The number of Covid patients in hospitals across England is on the rise, with 9,546 under NHS care yesterday. But the figure less than half of that recorded on the same day last winter, when 20,426 were in hospitals, and less than a third of the number seen at the peak of the Delta wave, when 34,336 were in hospital

Despite the number of patients in hospital rising, those requiring mechanical ventilation beds has remained flat. Around 750 people were on ventilators yesterday, compared 1,641 on the same day last year and 3,736 at the Delta peak

Speaking to reporters during a visit to a vaccination clinic in Milton Keynes today, Boris Johnson said: 'The Omicron variant continues to cause real problems. You are seeing cases rising in hospitals. But it is obviously milder than the Delta variant and we are able to proceed in the way that we are'

PM urges people to celebrate New Year in 'cautious and sensible way'

Covid cases in Omicron-hotspot London may have peaked a week before Christmas, scientists say.

Slightly more than 30,000 people living in the capital tested positive on December 21 before the number fell for two consecutive days, causing the city's average infection rate to flatten off. Cases are already trending down in some of the worst-hit boroughs.

One of the Government's own advisers told MailOnline it was possible rates were dropping because of a 'genuine decline' in cases, mirroring the same trend seen in South Africa — the first country in the world to fall victim to the variant, where infections now appear to be in freefall.

Other experts urged caution over the figures, saying they could be skewed by fewer tests being carried out over the Christmas period. Statisticians, however, insisted the rate will 'eventually' fall but it was 'really difficult' to say when.

Despite Covid infection rates appearing to level off in London, they are still at the highest levels seen throughout the pandemic.

UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA) statistics show almost 3 per cent of people living in Lambeth tested positive for the virus in the week ending December 23. That tally only takes into account people who were swabbed, and up to half of the infected never get tested.

The Omicron-fuelled wave of infections seen in London, where the variant first took hold in the UK, are expected to play out across the country in the coming weeks. All the other regions are now seeing a sustained increase in cases. Ministers have already ruled out imposing regional restrictions to fight Omicron.

Data from the UKHSA — the agency in charge of the Government's Covid statistics — shows 71,210 people tested positive for Covid on December 19.

Scientists say there's approximately a week lag between someone testing positive and being admitted to hospital.

For this reason, Government officials compare the two figures — cases by specimen data vs hospital admissions exactly a week later — to work out a rough hospitalisation rate.

Virologists say it's impossible to use this data to work out the exact proportion of infected patients who end up in hospital because of a variety of factors.

UKHSA data also shows there were 1,374 new Covid NHS admissions in England on December 26, the most recent day figures are available for.

This data suggests around 1.9 per cent of cases end up in hospital a week later, but the average daily figure now stands at 1.5 per cent when day-to-day fluctuations in data are removed.

For comparison, on February 12, 10,576 people tested positive and 1,068 were admitted to hospital a week later, equating to a 10.9 per cent hospitalisation rate — seven times higher than the current figure.

But the rates are skewed by testing rates, with around 600,000 swabs being carried out every day then compared to 1.5million now.

Dr Alexander Edwards, an associate professor in biomedical technology at Reading University, told MailOnline the high level of immunity from vaccination and high levels of previous infection 'gives us a far stronger chance of wiping out the virus before it can cause more serious illness'.

He said: 'As a result, what we’re seeing this winter is a very different picture.

'We’re still seeing incredibly high numbers of infection, but far fewer people getting ill enough to need hospital treatment.'

But Dr Edwards warned Omicron can still cause 'really nasty disease' and the country could still see 'hospital overload and tragically, may still see increases in death rates'.

'The incredibly rapid rise in Omicron cases happened so recently that we’d only start to see these numbers coming through in the next week or two,' he added.

Several real-world studies have already found Omicron — which has now been found in around 90 different countries —to be milder than previous strains of the virus.

The UKHSA found people who catch the super-mutant variant are up to 45 per cent less likely to be admitted to A&E and up to 70 per cent less likely to be hospitalised.

Andrew Bridgen MP: 'Hospitalisations won't continue to rise'

UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA) data showed 129,471 people tested positive in England over the last 24 hours, up 43 per cent on last week's figure of 90,629 — which included case numbers for the other home nations as well

Ministers 'will NOT impose regional restrictions to fight Omicron'

Ministers have ruled out regional lockdowns to tackle the Omicron coronavirus variant, according to reports - meaning that all of Britain could pay the price for some Londoners not getting jabbed.

A return to regional restrictions, such as tiers - which were credited with slowing the virus but ultimately failed to head off a third national lockdown - will not go ahead, reports The Times.

A Government source told the newspaper: 'We are not looking at doing regional restrictions. That is not on the table.'

Referring to regional curbs, another source added: 'It is difficult for people to understand because of different sets of rules. We want one set of rules for everyone in the country, which is easier for people to understand.'

The move could result in regulations being imposed on parts of the UK with comparatively low hospital admissions to areas such as London, where medics fear that rate could increase in the coming weeks due to a lag between people getting infected and becoming severely ill.

And a study in South Africa found people who catch Omicron are 80 per cent less likely to be hospitalised than those who catch Delta, and 70 per cent less likely to be admitted to ICU or put on a ventilator compared to those who caught Delta in early 2020.

Data on patients who are admitted to hospital also suggests that Omicron infections are less severe than previous Covid strains.

Of the 9,546 people in hospitals across England yesterday, 758 were on mechanical ventilation beds (7.9 per cent).

For comparison, 3,736 patients were on ventilators at the peak last winter — five times as many as now — out of 32,907 patients (11.4 per cent).

It comes after a top expert yesterday said Omicron is 'not the same disease we were seeing a year ago.

Sir John Bell, a world-leading immunologist and former Government adviser, said high Covid death rates were now consigned to 'history'.

In response to the growing evidence, Mr Johnson today said Omicron is 'obviously milder' than previously-dominant Delta.

Speaking to reporters during a visit to a vaccination clinic in Milton Keynes, Mr Johnson said the vaccine rollout has allowed England to resist imposing further Covid restrictions, despite the other three UK nations bringing in strict curbs.

He said: 'The Omicron variant continues to cause real problems. You are seeing cases rising in hospitals.

'But it is obviously milder than the Delta variant and we are able to proceed in the way that we are.'

Asked why England had acted differently to the devolved nations, Mr Johnson said: 'I think that we've looked at the balance of the risks together, we generally concert our strategies together, we see the data showing that, yes, the cases are rising and, yes, hospitalisations are rising, but what is making a huge difference is the level of booster resistance or level of vaccine-induced resistance in the population.

'What we need to do now is really finish off that work. I've no doubt at all that by January 1, by the New Year, every adult in the country will have been offered the slot to get a booster. They'll be given a slot to get one.

'The question is, are we getting people coming forward to take advantage of those slots? And that's what needs to happen.'

England's 1,374 hospitalisation figure on Boxing Day was up nearly 50 per cent on the previous Sunday. It marked England's highest daily toll since February, during the darkest days of the country's devastating second wave.

But a senior health official called for caution in misinterpreting the figures, warning hospitals were now recording more 'incidental' cases due to the rapid spread of Omicron.

Sir John Bell: 'Horrific scenes' in hospitals last year 'now history'

Did London's Covid outbreak peak an entire WEEK before Christmas? Capital's cases began to flatten out on Dec 18 as official figures show up to 3% of people in worst-hit boroughs tested positive in final week before Xmas Eve

Covid cases in Omicron-hotspot London may have peaked a week before Christmas, scientists say.

Slightly more than 30,000 people living in the capital tested positive on December 21 before the number fell for two consecutive days, causing the city's average infection rate to flatten off. Cases are already trending down in some of the worst-hit boroughs.

One of the Government's own advisers told MailOnline it was possible rates were dropping because of a 'genuine decline' in cases, mirroring the same trend seen in South Africa — the first country in the world to fall victim to the variant, where infections now appear to be in freefall.

Other experts urged caution over the figures, saying they could be skewed by fewer tests being carried out over the Christmas period. Statisticians, however, insisted the rate will 'eventually' fall but it was 'really difficult' to say when.

Despite Covid infection rates appearing to level off in London, they are still at the highest levels seen throughout the pandemic.

UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA) statistics show almost 3 per cent of people living in Lambeth tested positive for the virus in the week ending December 23. That tally only takes into account people who were swabbed, and up to half of the infected never get tested.

The Omicron-fuelled wave of infections seen in London, where the variant first took hold in the UK, are expected to play out across the country in the coming weeks. All the other regions are now seeing a sustained increase in cases. Ministers have already ruled out imposing regional restrictions to fight Omicron.

But hospitalisations and deaths – the key measurements monitored by ministers to determine whether tougher curbs are required to control the spread of the virus – are still a fraction of the levels seen last winter.

Coronavirus admissions in London have doubled in a fortnight, which, coupled with rising staff absences among NHS staff, has piled pressure on hospitals. But daily hospitalisations are still below the 400-a-day level that could trigger a Government intervention.

NHS leaders have warned many admissions are incidental as they include people admitted for routine surgery or other conditions but coincidentally test positive for Covid. But they fear the Covid hospitalisation figures will still increase over the coming weeks.

In the week to December 23 (second image), 2.8 per cent of people in Lambeth (2,874 per 100,000) tested positive, followed by 2.6 per cent in Wandsworth and Southwark (2,686 and 2,621 per 100,000) and 2.5 per cent in Lewisham (2,531 per 100,000) . But these boroughs had some of the lowest week-on-week growth in infection rates compared to the week to December 16 (first image), suggesting the capital's outbreak is flattening. Cases rose 11 per cent in Wandsworth, 15 per cent in Lambeth, 25 per cent in Southwark and 43 per cent in Lewisham

Cases rose by 12 per cent in the week ending December 23 in Wandsworth, 15 per cent in Lambeth, 25 per cent in Southwark and 43 per cent in Lewisham – the areas with the highest infection rate

Ministers are thought to be watching admissions in Omicron hotspot London closely, with a breach of 400 expected to trigger further restrictions nationwide. The latest data shows 374 people were admitted to the capital on Boxing Day, up 73 per cent on the week before
No10 rules out cutting Covid self-isolation to five days

Ministers today revealed there are no plans to cut the Covid self-isolation period to just five days, despite fears that crippling staff shortages will threaten the NHS and other vital parts of the economy.

Scientists, MPs and business leaders have lined up to urge Boris Johnson to follow the US' example by once again reducing the time spent in quarantine.

But the Government has said there are 'no further changes' planned. Chloe Smith, minister for disabled people, health and work, said the current seven-day isolation span was the 'right' length of time.

No10 only last week slashed the quarantine period in England from ten days to seven for those who test negative two days in a row. Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have yet to make any changes.

But late on Monday, American health officials announced they would cut their isolation time for positive cases to just five days – provided people were showing no symptoms, piling pressure on the UK to follow suit.

Sir John Bell, a world-leading immunologist and former Government adviser, yesterday revealed he would back a similar move in the UK, as long as people still recorded negative lateral flow results. Professor Paul Hunter, from the University of East Anglia, went further, calling for strict isolation rules to be scrapped altogether 'sooner rather than later'.

But others urged No10 to avoid 'rushing into' cutting isolation times. Any decision to cut the quarantine period to five days 'would have to be based on very clear evidence' that it will not drive a rise in infections, one NHS leader said.

This is despite health bosses warning that NHS staffing shortages are a 'bigger problem' than rising coronavirus admissions.

The UKHSA has published positive Covid infections for the four subsequent days up to December 27 in London but these figures are incomplete.

They will be revised upwards as more positive tests are registered and backdated in the coming days.

The most up-to-date accurate figure is for December 23 (27,218). This was down on the two days before (28,696 and 30,269).

Boroughs with the highest infection rate have also seen cases flatten out in recent days.

In the week to December 23, 2.8 per cent of people in Lambeth tested positive for the virus, followed by 2.6 per cent in both Wandsworth and Southwark.

But these boroughs had some of the lowest week-on-week growth.

Cases rose just 15 per cent in Lambeth, 25 per cent in Southwark and 43 per cent in Lewisham.

For comparison, in the week to December 16, cases jumped by between 166 and 265 per cent in the boroughs.

However, the week-on-week growth rate doesn't take into account more recent infection trends which show rates heading down in several boroughs.

Case rates are heavily skewed by testing, which has left many experts cautious about interpreting the London infection numbers.

The capital carried out around 270,000 tests per day in the week before Christmas, and test positivity — which measures the number of samples containing the virus — continued to rise.

One in four people who took a PCR test in the week to December 22 were infected with the virus, compared to one in 16 before Omicron swept across the city.

Professor Peter Openshaw, an immunologist at Imperial College London and SAGE scientist, told MailOnline: 'There are many reasons for the apparent decline, a genuine decline being amongst them.'

'I hope this is good news, but really urge caution,' he added.

Christmas inevitably caused data glitches and packed indoor New Year celebrations could push cases upwards, Professor Openshaw said.

Professor Kevin McConway, emeritus professor of applied statistics at The Open University, told MailOnline, it is 'difficult to say' whether cases have peaked in London, as testing patterns likely changed over Christmas, which can 'feed through into confirmed case numbers'.

And the drop in infections seen after December 21 is likely following the weekly pattern in cases, which usually peak on Tuesday or Wednesday, rather than 'definite evidence of a change in the trend', he said.

Professor McConway said: 'London cases will certainly begin to fall eventually, as the virus runs out of people to infect.

'It's reasonably clear that case numbers in London are at least rising more slowly, but we just can't be sure when the peak is reached – not yet anyway.'

The positivity rate in London will 'eventually fall, but it's really difficult to say when', due to uncertainty with infection trends and testing patterns in London, he added.

Cases of Covid in South Africa are continuing to fall, as the wave caused by Omicron appears to burn itself out. The country, which was one of the first in the world to fall victim to Omicron, hit its peak in the seven days to December 17, when an average of 23,437 cases were recorded. But by Monday, the number had plummeted by 38 per cent to 14,390 cases

Professor Paul Hunter, an infectious disease expert at the University of East Anglia, told MailOnline cases in London 'probably haven't peaked yet' because positive cases in the week before Christmas 'will be down somewhat on actual numbers because people are less likely to go for a test even if symptomatic in the few days before a bank holiday'.

It is never clear whether changes in cases are 'real or not' around bank holidays, he said.
Covid lateral flows ARE less effective at spotting Omicron, US officials fear

Covid lateral flow tests may be less effective at detecting Omicron , US health chiefs have warned.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA ) said new laboratory findings indicated the rapid kits — which give results in as little as 15 minutes — could still spot the highly-infectious variant.

But bosses warned they may have reduced sensitivity, meaning they could wrongly tell more infected people they are free of the virus.

Doubts over the tests come as ministers and health officials in the UK urge people to take a lateral flow test before going out to meet people in an attempt to reduce the chances of people unknowingly passing the virus on to others.

Scores of Britons have complained over the Christmas period that they received a negative lateral flow result only later to test PCR positive.

But the UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA) has insisted that data shows lateral flow tests are just effective at detecting Omicron.

Professor Hunter added: 'London I think is particularly difficult as I believe many people leave London to be with their families over Christmas.

'Also with schools being closed so fewer people may be doing regular lateral flow tests.

'The proportion of London tests positive on 22nd December was 24.9 per cent up from 24.2 per cent the day before so probably hasn't peaked yet.'

However, deaths in the capital have remained somewhat static, with an average of 12 deaths per day within four weeks of a positive test recorded so far in December, compared to 11 per day in November.

Around 70 daily deaths were registered at the same time last year in London and fatalities peaked at more than 200 last winter.

But hospitalisations - which ministers are watching closely, with a breach of 400 per day in London expected to trigger further restrictions nationwide - shows 374 people were admitted in hospitals across the city on Boxing Day, up 73 per cent on the week before.

The trend in admissions lags two to three weeks behind the pattern in cases, due to the time it takes someone to become seriously unwell after testing positive.

But the 374 daily admissions on December 26 is much lower than the 607 people admitted on the same day in London last year and well below the city's peak of 977 last winter.

And among patients who were hospitalised with a confirmed Omicron infection in London, 40 per cent were unvaccinated, according to the UKHSA.

NHS leaders have cautioned against over interpreting the number of Covid patients admitted to hospital, as they inflate the real impact of the patients on the health service.

Chris Hopson, NHS Providers chief executive, yesterday said: 'Trust leaders are watching their current hospital admissions data very closely.

'Talking to chief executives this morning, the sense is that admissions are rising but not precipitately so. What's particularly interesting is how many chief executives are talking about the number of asymptomatic patients being admitted to hospital for other reasons and then testing positive for Covid.

'Trusts are not, at the moment, reporting large numbers of patients with Covid type respiratory problems needing critical care or massively increased use of oxygen, both of which we saw in January's Delta variant peak.

'We should therefore be cautious about over interpreting current Covid admission data.' He added that trusts are 'preparing for the worst and hoping for the best'.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... -wave.html

[Anthea]

Laboratory Alert

Changes to CDC RT-PCR for SARS-CoV-2 Testing

After December 31, 2021, CDC will withdraw the request to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) of the CDC 2019-Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel.

The assay first introduced in February 2020 for detection of SARS-CoV-2 only. CDC is providing this advance notice for clinical laboratories to have adequate time to select and implement one of the many FDA-authorized alternatives.

In preparation for this change, CDC recommends clinical laboratories and testing sites that have been using the CDC 2019-nCoV RT-PCR assay select and begin their transition to another FDA-authorized COVID-19 test.

CDC encourages laboratories to consider adoption of a multiplexed method that can facilitate detection and differentiation of SARS-CoV-2 and influenza viruses. Such assays can facilitate continued testing for both influenza and SARS-CoV-2 and can save both time and resources as we head into influenza season. Laboratories and testing sites should validate and verify their selected assay within their facility before beginning clinical testing.

Opt in to receive updates from the CDC Laboratory Outreach Communication System (LOCS).

Online resources:

FAQ: CDC Distribution of COVID-19 Assays
Guidance for SARS-CoV-2 Point-of-Care Testing
Interim Guidance for SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Testing
Interim Guidelines for Collecting, Handling, and Testing Clinical Specimens for COVID-19
Frequently Asked Questions about COVID-19 for Laboratories
Information for Laboratories about COVID-19
CDC COVID-19 Website
Clinical Laboratory COVID-19 Response Weekly Calls
CDC Laboratory Outreach Communication System (LOCS)

If you have any questions, please contact us at LOCS@cdc.gov.

Thank you,

The Laboratory Outreach Communication System

Laboratory Outreach Communication System (LOCS) | Division of Laboratory Systems (DLS)

Center for Surveillance, Epidemiology, and Laboratory Services (CSELS)

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)

LOCS@cdc.gov

http://www.cdc.gov/csels/dls/locs

CDC encourages laboratories to consider adoption of a multiplexed method that can facilitate detection and differentiation of SARS-CoV-2 and influenza viruses

By stating the above they are stating that original RT-PCR test - which has been ued on millions - is unable to detect the difference between Covid and Flu

[Anthea]

Jab Compensation in Thailand

Millions Receive Vaccination No-Fault Compensation in Thailand

The National Health Security Office released a report stating that a total of US$ 6.8 million dollars has been paid by Thailand’s government’s no-fault compensation program. According to the National Health Security Office, 464 people who have died or become severely and permanently disabled from Covid-19 vaccinations have so far been financially compensated.

Since the launch of the government’s no-fault compensation program, a total of 3,626 requests for compensation received by the National Health Security Office (NHSO) has been approved. said

Dr. Jadej Thammatacharee, secretary-general of the NHSO, said yesterday a total of 230 million baht (US$6,837,403.00) has been paid out to people with serious side effects from vaccinations, including 464 vaccine-related deaths.

Dr. Jadej said as of yesterday, another 287 requests for compensation were still being examined. He also said a total of 1,252 requests have been rejected because they did not fit the criteria for receiving the financial compensation.

The criteria for the government’s no-fault compensation program are broken into three levels of the severity of reported side effects of the vaccines, he said.
The three compensations levels are:

– Illness requiring continuous treatment is compensated for at most 100,000 baht per case.

– Compensation for partial disabilities following the Covid-19 vaccination is set at 240,000 baht.

– In case of death or severe permanent disabilities, 400,000 baht is offered.

Meanwhile, a woman whose 70-year-old sister died on July 13 after she had received a Covid-19 vaccine shot, said the process for claiming was very efficient. Health officials who visited her at her sister’s funeral assisted her in filing for compensation. She said it only took about three weeks to receive the 400,000-baht compensation.

She later gave all the money to her dead sister’s 70-year-old husband.

Dr. Jadej said each of the area committees handling the government’s program requests consists of a number of medical experts and members of the public.

https://www.chiangraitimes.com/health/m ... -thailand/