At her age, yes.

I don't see any reason for anyone to enter Buckingham Palace for unnecessary business to meet a 95 year old monarch and take photos in the midst of the Omicron surge. At this stage of her life, nothing is more important than her health.

FYI, it's not spread by hugging and shaking hands. It's aerosolized and easily spread through speaking.

Ummm, close proximity, right? Geesh.

I knew her trip somewhere had been cancelled because her doctor wanted her to rest, but hadn't heard about this. I wish her well and hope she makes a quick recovery.

Yeah, everyone will get it. Everyone will die eventually too. What's all the fuss about?

Yes, they are in close proximity and speaking, emitting aerosolized particles. That was my purpose for posting the photo. At her age, extra precautions needed to be taken.

Do we hear every time she gets a cold/the flu?

If it causes her to miss engagements, we do indeed: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-38546484

Eileen, both Charles and Camilla had already tested positive for Covid, so perhaps she got it from them. It could also have come from anyone on her staff that was near her.

"It could also have come from anyone on her staff that was near her."

Concerning staff who were near her or who were in indoor locations she would be expected to be in, I'd hope and expect protocols have been in place to minimize risk. As is the case with other similar public figures.

Right, Charles and Camilla have tested positive within the last 10 days. But who knows where she may have been exposed, the immunity achieved from the vaccine by that age group isn't clear to me.

I'm heartsick to read that anyone who has reached their 90's, is productive and in reasonably good health is found to have to deal with this virus. We've spent the last two years all but turning ourselves wrong side out protecting my same age mother and the other residents of her care facility from any exposure.

I wish the Queen a hasty and full recovery.

All we're looking at is a picture, a snippet of time. Perhaps they took off their masks for that picture? We don't know if they were wearing masks the entire time except for the few seconds it took to take a picture. They're standing a distance aways from each other. Look at other pictures of her with people - not standing so far away from each other. And from the CDC:

"For COVID-19, a close contact is anyone who was less than 6 feet away from you for a combined total of 15 minutes or more over a 24-hour period."

" I don't see any reason for anyone to enter Buckingham Palace for unnecessary business to meet a 95 year old monarch and take photos in the midst of the Omicron surge."

Curious as to how you know the workings and business of Buckingham Palace, and know what's considered necessary/unnecessary. And we're not in the midst of the Omicron surge. Cases, hospitilazions, and even deaths, are down. We're beyond the surge.

I have read that she’s been vaccinated and boosted. If it’s good enough for the Queen . …

" I don't see any reason for anyone to enter Buckingham Palace for unnecessary business to meet a 95 year old monarch and take photos in the midst of the Omicron surge."

The Queen is the Head of State, and has always taken her duties in that regard very seriously. Most (but not all) of those duties are largely ceremonial, but they are duties nonetheless, so it is inevitable that she will be meeting senior members of the British government and foreign dignitaries from time to time. She stepped back during the early days of Covid, when there were limited effective treatments and no vaccines, but has become more active as risk levels have receded.

As for that particular photo, the Queen was being introduced to Maj-Gen Eldon Millar, who has just taken up his position as a senior member of the Royal Household, acting as liaison between the Queen and the Armed Forces. So, very much, "necessary business." I'm quite sure Gen. Millar will have been fully vaxxed and boosted so the risk level of that meeting was pretty low. That said, there's only so much that can be done to protect a public figure.

jmm, thanks for identifying the gentleman. I do assume they know what they are doing.

I wish her a speedy recovery as a mother, grandmother, friend, and person. Not a big fan of the monarchy and what it represents--colonialism and racism--a family that personally profited from the oppression of others.

"Not a big fan of the monarchy and what it represents--colonialism and racism--a family that personally profited from the oppression of others."

That's not a very accurate description of what the monarchy represents, actually. The British Empire was certainly a racist and colonialist institution, but the fault lay as much (or possibly more) with the Parliaments and entrepreneurs of the day as with the reigning monarch, whose powers were severely restricted by the time the colonial era got into full swing in the 18th century.

The reality is that Britain, and the British people, not just the monarchy, need to come to terms with their past, as indeed do Americans, Canadians and Australians, not to forget the French and the Spanish. All of them represent colonialism and racism to the people whose lands they took. It's way too easy just to blame the institution of monarchy rather than the people who really benefitted, which is all of us.

I agree that there is plenty of blame to go around. However, they oversaw an expanding empire that was firmly entrenched in the racial subjugation and exploitation of populations in the Americas, India, Africa, and Asia and throughout the Pacific. Have they apologized or offered any amends?

My point was that the monarchy didn't and couldn't control that expansion. After 1649, it wasn't in charge. You're laying all the blame on it when  a very large share of responsibility lies elsewhere.

At what points did they disagree or turn away the benefits of that system? BTW, the Belgian Monarchy apologized to the Congo.

At her age, that worries me. She's been a monarch our entire lives. I find that meaningful. She pledged her life to her country, And she's made it thus far.

The Belgian King, Leopold, personally owned the Congo.

There is ***no*** comparison between this fact and what a constitutional monarchy did to expand its hegemony.

As for their apologies, perhaps Belgians could forgo these lovely chocolate reminders of what happened to slaves who failed to work hard enough.

From National Geographic:

On February 5, 1885, Belgian King Leopold II established the Congo Free State by brutally seizing the African landmass as his personal possession. Rather than control the Congo as a colony, as other European powers did throughout Africa, Leopold privately owned the region. (Colonizing other peoples, regardless of the justification, is wrong. The people being colonized are robbed of their land, resources, and freedom.) Leopold financed development projects with money loaned to him from the Belgian government.

https://www.nationalgeographic.org/thisday/feb5/belgian-king-establishes-congo-free-state/

PS Colonialism is shape shifting. What was once done out in the open, as a bald move to enslave people and exploit resources, is now done more subtly, through third parties providing raw materials and labor. Look closely at everything from your electronic devices to your clothing and furniture and see who is paying the full cost of your/our goods.

Agree with you Zalco--that is appalling.

Leopold II had personal control over what was then the Belgian Congo. What happened there lay directly at his feet, not at those of the Belgian government. That is a very different situation to the expansion of the British Empire, which, after the Restoration, was undertaken by Parliament and private companies like the East India Company, and not by the monarch.

I do think the Queen or her successor will apologise- but on the instructions of the Prime Minister and on behalf of Parliament and the British people in general because that is where responsibility lies.

As for turning away from the benefits of the system, I would say that happened in 1950, when King George congratulated India on becoming a Republic.

"The impressions left among the subjugated and abused peoples are manifested by the contempt held to this day by the ancestors (sic) of its victims around the globe.The payback has been, in part, the marginalization and minimization of standing in the world of Britain and its Commonwealth members. Once holding overwhelming power and influence, today they're little more than bit players of minor influence."

Odd, then, that though most of the former colonies have become republics, the descendants of those victims still choose to remain in the Commonwealth. The relationship of the former colonies, especially the African and Asian ones, to the UK and to other former colonies, is more complicated than you appear to understand.

And I certainly don't think I'd consider a Commonwealth member like India to be a "bit player of minor influence." Nigeria, Kenya and South Africa all have quite substantial influence, at least at a regional level, as well, as of course does Pakistan (not necessarily for the better).

Britain itself, like the other great colonial powers -Spain, France, the Netherlands and Portugal - has faded away as a superpower, but that's pretty much in the nature of things. The Roman Empire, the Byzantine Empire, the Holy Roman Empire, all had their day in the sun and left behind legacies of varying value. It will be interesting to see what the US legacy will be.

Exactly what does some distant relation have to do with Elizabeth? I could recount the degree but wont. I hope she recovers. It is concerning given her age but she is vaccinated and boosted.

As for turning away from the benefits of the system, I would say that happened in 1950, when King George congratulated India on becoming a Republic.

I don't think King George deserves a clap on the back for giving back what was never his. The credit for this goes not to King George but to the courageous people of India who resisted the oppression of a foreign power and their dedication to obtaining self-determination.

I've read that it was possibly Prince Charles who exposed the Queen to Covid.

She has lost a lot of weight since Phillip died. There are rumors about her health. She has some seriously good genes. I wish her the best of luck in overcoming this illness.

"I don't think King George deserves a clap on the back for giving back what was never his"

I wasn't implying he deserved a clap on the back. You asked when they turned away from the " benefits of the system." I think that was the moment.

"What choices do individuals have? What governments decide to do is hardly indicative of anything. "

You are aware that the Commonwealth members are democracies? India is quite a chaotic and vibrant one, actually. Plus, the current government there is very populist. Most of the governments of the former colonies have observed the will of the people in becoming republics, while at the same time remaining within the Commonwealth. And in fact several countries that were never British colonies have joined the Commonwealth as well. Your comment about the nature of the Commonwealth was simply wrong.

Further, for what it's worth, in India the popular animus is directed towards far more towards Pakistan than Britain. Memories of the horrors of the Partition, (on both sides), not to mention 3 subsequent wars and continuing interference in Kashmir outweigh any bitterness towards the British. Let's not forget, either, the subjugation of Hindu India to the invader Mughals long before the British entered the picture. That still rankles.

"As far as "influence" - India has a large population, Nigeria has oil, and the rest have minor roles on the world stage. Including Britain itself."

You really need to expand your understanding of global politics. You are simply wrong about the relationship of Commonwealth countries to each other: you are seeing international issues from a very narrow, purely American-centric perspective.  Out in the real world, India is a powerful and influential player within Asia and becoming more so as its economy and military capacity grow.  Its participation in the Quad (along with the US,Japan and Australia) is an important element in containing Chinese expansion in the Pacific. I call that significant.  

Nigeria and South Africa are important players within Africa because, again, of their growing economic strength.  No, none of these countries are superpowers (yet), but that doesn't mean their roles are " minor."

The border measures were imposed by one democratically elected federal government and six democratically elected state and two territorial governments. All the closures had broad popular support. I'm not sure how you expect democratic governments to behave in a crisis: they are elected to make decisions on behalf of the people, after all.That is irrelevant to my point about India et al remaining in the Commonwealth. If the people didn't like it, they've had 70 years to vote for change.

I am not predisposed to insult you. I am predisposed to respond to your constant attacks on and denigration of almost everything I write, particularly when those attacks are as poorly informed as these were.

Have a good day.

It’s funny that the Aussies i know seem to have different views from yours, on these and other topics. I guess they’re misinformed too, from your perspective.

"...99% of people if they got vaccinated will be JUST FINE."

Huh. Wonder what my father-in-law, who just died of covid pneumonia two days ago and was fully vaccinated, would say if he knew he was a 1 percenter?

Ah, Bluebell66, so sorry to hear this. Numbers and percentages are merely gritty dust in the face of the death of someone you love.

"It’s funny that the Aussies i know seem to have different views from yours, on these and other topics."

Why would it be funny? This is a democratic country and people can freely express their own opinions. The reality is that we all grumbled about the lockdowns and border closures, but most of us also recognized their necessity in the larger public interest. If your "friends" didn't, they were in the minority.

None of which has anything to do with your bizarre depiction of the post-colonial Commonwealth. Nice red herring, though.

"You asked when they turned away from the " benefits of the system." I think that was the moment."

This was not a voluntary, goodness of the heart turn away from the system. It was a reaction to mass civil unrest. The word reparations comes to mind. Or at least return the stolen goods--the list of items in the British museums that belong to India is quite long.

Annagriet- You are quite right that it was mass resistance, the non-violent movement led by Gandhi (along with the threat of violent resistance led by Bose) that ended the British will to stay in India.  Your timing is, however, off.  The British left India in 1947: the country had therefore already been an independent nation for several years when it made the decision in 1950 to become a republic while remaining in the Commonwealth. At that point the British were under no compulsion to do anything, but had the common sense to accept the reality of the situation, recognize the new Republic and agree to its continued membership in the Commonwealth.

The point I am trying to make is that the King had no role in any of the decision-making surrounding the initial decision that the British would withdraw, nor in mandating the subsequent  Partition (with its disastrous results,) nor in the subsequent acceptance of India as a member of the Commonwealth.  All of these were decisions made by the British Government: the King simply delivered the speech.   

To me, that speech marked the beginning of the end of colonial rule. The real question then becomes, why did so many African colonies have to resort to bush wars from the 1950s on in order to achieve their own independence.  And the responsibility for that lies entirely with the British Government, not the King or Queen. I continue to believe apologies are owed, but by the British nation and every government that was complicit in the whole colonial system.  Laying the blame on the Monarch is missing those who were really responsible.

Bluebell66, your FIL didn't get Remdesivir did he? In the later stage of his illness with Covid?

Wow, when someone in my family dies, please don't start asking specifics about their medical treatment unless I give clues that I know the specifics and might like to talk about them.

Wow, when someone in my family dies or ails, please don’t start talking about my forbears’ official or unofficial treatment of aboriginal peoples in other lands.

Olliesmom, why do you want to know? Isn't that the classic Ann Landers response when someone asks a rude question?

Bluebell66, my deepest condolences to you and your family, and prayers for all of you.

I don't think Olliesmom's question was meant to be rude, it was just a question. It's one I've wanted to ask people several times, but didn't because I knew I would get the response it's gotten here. There are medical professionals who think Remdesivir is causing Covid pneumonia. They are saying Remdesivir can cause inflammation and fluid buildup in the lungs and is the possible cause of Covid pneumonia. Of course, we'll never know if that's true or not, but it would be good to know if we should refuse treatment with this drug, or not.

Woodrose, thank you very much. I may have been off the mark, but I'm just tired of the general insensitivity, I guess. So many people have asked what the underlying conditions were, or how old he was. Perhaps I would take it better if people express sympathy and THEN ask the question - but it's still rude. The bottom line is that it doesn't really matter to anyone here if he was treated with Remdesivir or not, because it's all just anecdotal, not to mention that there are so many other factors at play. I think I would ask my doctor if I wanted to know if I should be treated with certain medications or not, not rely on what a stranger on the internet said. Whether I say yes or no doesn't help anyone.

I'm so sorry for your loss Bluebell. Brother of my DH's best friend also died of covid despite being fully vaxed. Regardless of the cause, a loss is a loss and awful for those who grieve.

Sorry for you and your family, bluebell.

I thought asking such a question concerning a family death just a few days earlier was incredibly inappropriate.

Bluebell, I am truly sorry for your loss. Certainly did not mean to be rude-actually just the opposite, but in the way I wrote my comment I can see why you thought that. I am sorry. I am very concerned and interested because, Woodrose is right, there are many concerns with the way Remdesivir is being used on patients right now. If it is not used in the beginning, it can do harm. More and more info is coming out about it. However, you did post medical information in that, he was vaccinated and died of Covid-on the internet. So, my asking that didn't seem any more intrusive than what you stated already, but I did not come across very well, you are right. I guess I was just doing a little personal research due to a situation my best friend had recently.

My best friend's husband, 10 years her senior, was in ICU for Covid last month and made it home finally, and the doctors were wanting to give him Remdesivir and she told them no way, because he had already had Covid for about two weeks at that point. She probably saved his life-from the doctors who wanted to give him Remdesivir after waiting too long at that point to where it could do harm.

edited

Bluebelle, I am sorry to read about the loss of your father-in-law. My sincere condolences to your family.

olliesmom, unless your friend is a physician or biomed scientist, you can help her out by gently suggesting that next time she encounters a medical issue, she should refrain from overriding advice given by an expert (a physician with experience in the field).

(((Bluebell)))

olliesmom, saved? Past tense? I'm so sorry.

And for you Bluebell