I’d rather maximise the chance of my squadron staying open by erring on the side of caution for a bit longer than forego a minimal annoyance.
We have staff who work with vulnerable and disabled people, catching it with us could be disastrous for their workplace. We have others who likewise don’t have the option to work from home and come into contact with dozens of the public and other colleagues daily, with the chance to spread it either direction with potentially great consequences.
We are not yet at the stage where transmission is as (or near to as) meaningless as other “everyday” viruses and illnesses. Research, treatment, and vaccination development is still ongoing, immunity is still developing, and the virus is still mutating (omicron - which is itself multiple strains of the same major mutation from my understanding - has a difference in the spike protein that has so far been targeted, and therefore immunity is reduced even among the vaccinated because memory B and T cells have been trained on the protein and its amino acids, whereas we need longevity in recognition of other factors to speed up reaction of CD8+/killer T cells).
Judging by other conversations on the forum, face coverings are not proving to be a major factor in blocking membership and participation. Uncomfortable and inconvenient, yes, but not a total disaster nor the blocker to activities actually running. Desire to remove masks - as it appears to me - is part of a wider rejection of controls more generally borne from the length of time that this has continued, which itself has been caused by mishandling, slow responses, and misinformation (across the globe). The spread of the disease, exacerbated by these factors, has allowed the mutations and led to the situation dragging on. Continuing to allow the spread only increases the risk of further mutations - with omicron it can be argued that it’s less serious (but those arguments often neglect the role of vaccination and existing partial immunity), but it’s not beyond the realms of feasibility that another comes along that hits harder and is less affected by existing immune memory and response.
The sensible intermediate is more along the lines of:
- 1m+ indoors with exception for short term group activities <20min
- no masks outdoors when 1m+, masks when closer
- masks indoors
- rooms as ventilated as possible
- maintain hand and surface hygiene
Which is pretty close with what we have while allowing a bit more flexibility. You could potentially tweak for reducing mask use to only <1m indoor and out, but why complicate it?
Double jabbed effectiveness is reduced to around 45% against Omicron at 12 weeks, from a lower starting efficacy of I think 70-80% compared to the 90-95% against previous variants. Severe reduction in protection from around 7 weeks onwards. Severe effects requiring ICU still being experienced by those without vaccines or with otherwise weakened immune responses despite the “lower severity” of the disease.
2 days ago we reported our highest number of deaths for 11 months (as far as I can tell) - and that’s WITH the so called “Plan B” restrictions. Only about a third of our peak a year ago, but we’re not yet over this peak in deaths - cases are indeed now coming down, however. How might it have looked without expanded booster rollout and reintroduction of other controls? There’s also a strong possibility that their removal is a political and not health-motivated manoeuvre.
Face coverings aren’t our issue, but to me keeping them would be the key to increased flexibility and authorisation of available activities. Would you rather “face masks and do everything”, or “no masks and can’t do close-ranged physical activities such as a lot of leadership practical, FT, etc”?
Being on a unit that’s had isolated cases of 1 to 2 at a time only twice, had protections not been in place those numbers could have easily grown to a level that would have shut the unit down for a week or two, having a far worse effect on all of our members (and their families) than the discomfort of a piece of cloth.
