Jump to content
Fuzzar

Corona Virus main thread

Recommended Posts

If you want to be cold hearted then it is OK that a lot of people die every year whether it is from an illness or accident.

There are too many people alive and living longer. Three score and ten is no longer applicable.

It is important that the services do not get overwhelmed. I have just walked the dog and seen the carer going in to a neighbour to put them to bed. At 5.30pm!

There are not enough services around to look after those who would have been dead already 25 years ago.

A major portion of the deaths occurred in Care Homes, a place where old people are sent for someone to lookafter. Personally, I don't have an answer. One solution is for families to be responsible for and look after elderly parents. But that will never happen.

So I will have the flu jab later this month and be grateful for it. And no doubt a vaccine will come along in the next twelve months and keep us free from Covid. But it won't solve the problem of the system being overwhelmed each time.

If we really believe in the NHS then back it to the hilt. Otherwise these type of crises will keep repeating.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Aggy said:

How do you know they will?


And if people with mild covid where you don’t show symptoms or only show mild symptoms (which is what the majority of people who have covid have) are going to develop horrible issues in the long term then we may as well just get on with it.


Or do you suggest every time a new strand of any infectious illness comes along we perpetually lockdown in full for twenty years until we can ascertain the long term affects?

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(20)30701-5/fulltext
 

I don’t know, and that’s the whole point. There is so much we have yet to learn about this virus, evidence is certainly emerging around long term health implications and we need to know a lot more before making a broad assumption about the absence of long term effects, we have to act with caution. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, keelansgrandad said:

If you want to be cold hearted then it is OK that a lot of people die every year whether it is from an illness or accident.

There are too many people alive and living longer. Three score and ten is no longer applicable.

It is important that the services do not get overwhelmed. I have just walked the dog and seen the carer going in to a neighbour to put them to bed. At 5.30pm!

There are not enough services around to look after those who would have been dead already 25 years ago.

A major portion of the deaths occurred in Care Homes, a place where old people are sent for someone to lookafter. Personally, I don't have an answer. One solution is for families to be responsible for and look after elderly parents. But that will never happen.

So I will have the flu jab later this month and be grateful for it. And no doubt a vaccine will come along in the next twelve months and keep us free from Covid. But it won't solve the problem of the system being overwhelmed each time.

If we really believe in the NHS then back it to the hilt. Otherwise these type of crises will keep repeating.

Maybe you are making an argument for euthanasia 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Van wink said:

Maybe you are making an argument for euthanasia 

I wasn't really trying to make any particular argument VW because I don't think there is a solution.

However, I have always been in favour of Euthanasia. It would be a good time right now to revive the question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, keelansgrandad said:

I wasn't really trying to make any particular argument VW because I don't think there is a solution.

However, I have always been in favour of Euthanasia. It would be a good time right now to revive the question.

One of those topics that I could be persuaded either way KG, can see both sides of the argument and give them similar weight.

I think when all this is over could be an opportunity to reopen the debate, but having said that when this is all over it may not be an issue!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

positives up slightly on yesterday but still below 2% of tests

Latest UK Numbers  4422 - 27

Inpatients  1081 up by 61

 

https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/

Yesterdays European.

Italy   1906 - 10

France 13215 - 153

Spain   4697 - 90

Germany  2202 - 9

Highest so far for France. Others in much the same ballpark as previous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Aggy said:

We know how to treat flu? See, this is the sort of thing that irritates me a bit. Are you saying the 20,000 people who die from flu every single year don’t matter then? You don’t care about them? Your social life is more important than 20,000 people dying from something which would be far less deadly if people were banned from leaving their homes and spreading it? 

Plenty of people who get flu have long term issues. If you’re elderly, or having cancer treatment for instance, and you “survive” “normal” flu it can still have long-standing effects on you (especially if it gets to pneumonia stage where you’re hospitalised).

Equally, the large large majority of people who have covid will have literally no long-standing effects whatsoever (and many won’t have any symptoms whatsoever at any point).

I think you missed the point of the post. I wasn’t comparing the two. I was making the point that 20,000 die from flu in lots of years. We don’t ban people from leaving their homes. When the current group of “50-70s” were in their twenties, 60,000 or 80,000 people were dying every single year from flu. They still went about their daily lives - did the 80,000 dying every year from “normal” flu then not matter because it wasn’t covid? 

As for whether we can still have a flu outbreak, yes of course we can. but who dies from flu and who dies from covid? You can’t die twice. As much as some people like to deny it’s the case, covid almost exclusively kills elderly and/or unwell people. After the “first wave”, we saw deaths below the five yearly average - in large part because many who “would” have died in June, July, August had already died from covid in March and April. The ONS statistics compared “flu and pneumonia 2019” with “flu, pneumonia and covid 2020” for the same reason - you can’t just look at covid in isolation.

Point being we need to get back to looking at excess deaths - there is always an increase in pneumonia and flu related deaths in elderly and unwell people as we get into September. That covid deaths are rising now is no more of an issue than flu deaths rising every September and winter. If, however, excess deaths are so much higher than the norm that hospitals will start to become swamped, then it is an issue. 

Aggy - The issue irrespective of unknown side effects surely is that Covid threatens still to have 100s of thousands of deaths (we are at 45 to 60K despite lockdowns now, however how you want to measure it) let alone completely swamping the hospitals. If we hadn't of locked down when we did would it now stand at 100K , 200K , 500K? 

The normal seasonal flu does not do this even if we do indeed have 20,000 flu related deaths on average annually and I believe is also more easily contained.

If a particularly nasty version of the seasonal flu hit without an effective vaccine (bird flu, swine flu) I suspect we would be in exactly the same lock-down boat. It is after all what the original 'pandemic' planning was based upon but Covid was quicker and escaped / beat the 'pandemic flu' restraints.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Legal duty to self isolate coming in later this month, should have been law all the while but a move in the right direction, albeit far too late

Edited by Van wink

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Yellow Fever said:

Aggy - The issue irrespective of unknown side effects surely is that Covid threatens still to have 100s of thousands of deaths (we are at 45 to 60K despite lockdowns now, however how you want to measure it) let alone completely swamping the hospitals. If we hadn't of locked down when we did would it now stand at 100K , 200K , 500K? 

The normal seasonal flu does not do this even if we do indeed have 20,000 flu related deaths on average annually and I believe is also more easily contained.

If a particularly nasty version of the seasonal flu hit without an effective vaccine (bird flu, swine flu) I suspect we would be in exactly the same lock-down boat. It is after all what the original 'pandemic' planning was based upon but Covid was quicker and escaped / beat the 'pandemic flu' restraints.

What at the moment suggests there is going to be 100, 200 or 500 k deaths between now and March/April say (a normal flu season generally October to April)?

27 deaths yesterday? Or the increased number of infections (which is now almost as high as it has ever been without anything like the corresponding number of deaths or hospital admissions)?

I don’t disagree that if there are going to be 500,000 deaths from covid in the next six months, strong action and restrictions/lockdowns are required. But calls now for strict lockdowns and two week “circuit breaks” to start next week are ridiculous and that’s the point I’ve been making all day. 

The healthcare system is geared up to deal with 20k plus flu deaths and associated  hospitalisations/side affects - that’s we deal with every year. We have got the nightingale hospitals sitting empty ready to help with capacity (a couple have been repurposed as they were literally never used by anyone but could easily be re-repurposed). We’ve got social distancing measures to a far greater extent than at the start of March. We’ve got hand sanitizers on every corner and in multiple places around every public place. We’ve got limits on how many people can meet up. We have to wear masks in public places. We haven’t got large public gatherings. We’ve got 27 deaths a day currently. Even when we had c.1500 deaths a day, only two of the seven nightingale hospitals had been used at all by anyone  - 154 patients ever used them, despite capacity for 12,000 at any one time.

So what suggests the healthcare system is about to be overwhelmed?

As I said before, the focus needs to (as it was originally) get back to avoiding so many excess deaths that hospitals get swamped and away from this idea that nobody should ever die from covid and that a small increase in covid deaths is a sign of guaranteed impending disaster. 

2 hours ago, Van wink said:


https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(20)30701-5/fulltext
 

I don’t know, and that’s the whole point. There is so much we have yet to learn about this virus, evidence is certainly emerging around long term health implications and we need to know a lot more before making a broad assumption about the absence of long term effects, we have to act with caution. 

I’m really not sure what point you’re trying to make. Are you genuinely saying you think we should restrict people’s lives, ban them from seeing their families, from going to work, restrict their ability to see their mates, because there might (or might not) be long term affects from one specific virus at some point in the future? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You made a very dismissive remark earlier about long term health effects, I am pointing out that your view should be treated with a high degree of caution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Van wink said:

You made a very dismissive remark earlier about long term health effects, I am pointing out that your view should be treated with a high degree of caution.

What was the very dismissive remark?  
 

And i still don’t understand your point. What caution do you suggest? That we all lock ourselves away because there might (or might not) be some possible side affects that we can’t do anything about anyway?

 

Edit: you may also perhaps like to warn everyone that views posted by others on here that we know how to treat flu and disregarding the fairly significant after affects it has on a lot of people ought also to be treated with caution. I personally though wouldn’t suggest we lock down permanently because of the increased risk of heart attack and stroke (amongst other things which can lead to poorer functions and lower quality of life) that “normal” flu causes in people either.

Edited by Aggy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Aggy said:

What was the very dismissive remark?  
 

That one-

‘Equally, the large large majority of people who have covid will have literally no long-standing effects whatsoever ‘

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Van wink said:

That one-

‘Equally, the large large majority of people who have covid will have literally no long-standing effects whatsoever ‘

 

I wouldn’t say that’s dismissive. If we look at the way every other very similar virus works (and let’s not forget there are loads of coronaviruses and lots of different strands of “normal” flu that behave very similarly to covid19), the people  who do have long/medium lasting affects are the ones where it has taken hold of their immune system to a large degree and causes significant damage in the first place.

Given that the vast, vast majority of people who have covid have very mild or even no symptoms, it’s not dismissive to suggest the vast vast majority aren’t going to have disastrous long or medium term side affects.

Edited by Aggy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Aggy said:

What at the moment suggests there is going to be 100, 200 or 500 k deaths between now and March/April say (a normal flu season generally October to April)?

27 deaths yesterday? Or the increased number of infections (which is now almost as high as it has ever been without anything like the corresponding number of deaths or hospital admissions)?

I don’t disagree that if there are going to be 500,000 deaths from covid in the next six months, strong action and restrictions/lockdowns are required. But calls now for strict lockdowns and two week “circuit breaks” to start next week are ridiculous and that’s the point I’ve been making all day. 

The healthcare system is geared up to deal with 20k plus flu deaths and associated  hospitalisations/side affects - that’s we deal with every year. We have got the nightingale hospitals sitting empty ready to help with capacity (a couple have been repurposed as they were literally never used by anyone but could easily be re-repurposed). We’ve got social distancing measures to a far greater extent than at the start of March. We’ve got hand sanitizers on every corner and in multiple places around every public place. We’ve got limits on how many people can meet up. We have to wear masks in public places. We haven’t got large public gatherings. We’ve got 27 deaths a day currently. Even when we had c.1500 deaths a day, only two of the seven nightingale hospitals had been used at all by anyone  - 154 patients ever used them, despite capacity for 12,000 at any one time.

So what suggests the healthcare system is about to be overwhelmed?

As I said before, the focus needs to (as it was originally) get back to avoiding so many excess deaths that hospitals get swamped and away from this idea that nobody should ever die from covid and that a small increase in covid deaths is a sign of guaranteed impending disaster. 

I’m really not sure what point you’re trying to make. Are you genuinely saying you think we should restrict people’s lives, ban them from seeing their families, from going to work, restrict their ability to see their mates, because there might (or might not) be long term affects from one specific virus at some point in the future? 

Aggy - First the current number of daily infections are now-where near the 100,000 day estimated at the peak prior lockdown - when it was doubling every 3 or 4 days. The problem is that it shows every sign of growing back that way if we don't take more action.

Secondly - the virus hasn't changed - it just as nasty and virulent as ever. If the infected numbers start to approach what we had before there is little reason beyond mildly improved treatments to think that we wouldn't have a similar eventual outcome. Don't add a lockdown or more restrictions (treat just like seasonal flu) and yes you are again looking at the hundreds of thousands dead just in time for Christmas or New Year. That's what terrifies Johnson.

The success - if you want to call it that - of the previous lockdown was to currently limit CV-19 deaths to 60K or thereabouts and in some ways save the NHS (although at the ruthless hard-nosed cost of the care homes being dumped on) - similar to a very bad flu year. However the comparison you then draw between a 'no lockdown' carry on as normal flu or even severe flu season with a no-holds barred lockdown to stop CV-19 season is clearly false. Treat CV-19 as common or even severe flu then expect indeed plan for ten times plus more deaths and the associated collapse of the NHS.

Hence comparison between everyday - or even a bad flu season and and CV-19 is entirely false. 

I no more want a lock-down or further restrictions than anybody else - but we have to see it as not as we wish.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just had this update by email, it is hopefully going to add some weight to trace and isolate, also pleased to see a renewed emphasis on working with local authorities, yet again though, why wait till now. 

image.thumb.png.65621be44211b0d8c9f172b30b9454f6.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Aggy said:

I wouldn’t say that’s dismissive. If we look at the way every other very similar virus works (and let’s not forget there are loads of coronaviruses and lots of different strands of “normal” flu that behave very similarly to covid19), the people  who do have long/medium lasting affects are the ones where it has taken hold of their immune system to a large degree and causes significant damage in the first place.

Given that the vast, vast majority of people who have covid have very mild or even no symptoms, it’s not dismissive to suggest the vast vast majority aren’t going to have disastrous long or medium term side affects.

This has multi organ affects, the true extent of which are still being discovered, this doesn’t behave like “normal flu”.

Edited by Van wink

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Van wink said:

This has multi organ affects, the true extent of which are still being discovered, this doesn’t behave like “normal flu”.

VW, this is going to go back to the point I was making yesterday. People underestimate “normal” flu a lot and it seems you don’t know all that much about it either. 

Plenty of strands of “normal” flu affect multiple organs. Without even mentioning multi organ failure which can happen as the virus spreads whilst still infected, and focussing just on the after affects,  plenty of strands of “normal flu” can increase the later risk of heart attack and stroke, they can affect the liver long term, there are plenty of studies showing that well beyond 6-12 months after surviving “normal” flu many elderly people continue to have significant lung function impairment. It can result in long term problems and increased chance of later issues with the kidneys, even the brain.

I do agree the full extent of after effects from covid are yet to be made clear, and it is likely that COVID-19 will affect more people and more severely in the long run. But what is clear is that actually in the large part it acts very similarly (albeit “stronger”) to a lot of influenza viruses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Yellow Fever said:

Aggy - First the current number of daily infections are now-where near the 100,000 day estimated at the peak prior lockdown - when it was doubling every 3 or 4 days. The problem is that it shows every sign of growing back that way if we don't take more action.

Secondly - the virus hasn't changed - it just as nasty and virulent as ever. If the infected numbers start to approach what we had before there is little reason beyond mildly improved treatments to think that we wouldn't have a similar eventual outcome. Don't add a lockdown or more restrictions (treat just like seasonal flu) and yes you are again looking at the hundreds of thousands dead just in time for Christmas or New Year. That's what terrifies Johnson.

The success - if you want to call it that - of the previous lockdown was to currently limit CV-19 deaths to 60K or thereabouts and in some ways save the NHS (although at the ruthless hard-nosed cost of the care homes being dumped on) - similar to a very bad flu year. However the comparison you then draw between a 'no lockdown' carry on as normal flu or even severe flu season with a no-holds barred lockdown to stop CV-19 season is clearly false. Treat CV-19 as common or even severe flu then expect indeed plan for ten times plus more deaths and the associated collapse of the NHS.

Hence comparison between everyday - or even a bad flu season and and CV-19 is entirely false. 

I no more want a lock-down or further restrictions than anybody else - but we have to see it as not as we wish.

YF - i think you’re misreading my posts.

I’m not sure where I have drawn any comparison between a no- lockdown carry on and normal flu. In fact I’ve clearly said (a couple of times) that action was needed in March and if it gets to the stage where the hospitals will be overwhelmed in the future, I would support stricter restrictions then. I’ve previously on this thread made exactly the point you have here (I think it was in response to Jools or real bruh or someone) - that the lockdown in March stopped a number of deaths that would otherwise have occurred.

To be clear, my point is that restrictions need to be based on whether or not the hospitals and healthcare systems will be overwhelmed and at the moment I don’t see that as enough of a concern for full lockdown or “circuit breaks” starting next week.

Youve not answered the question in my previous post - what currently suggests the health service will be overwhelmed? I listed multiple reasons why it possibly won’t happen (no correlating rise in deaths  or hospital admissions against increased infections, completely empty nightingale hospitals ready to be used, increased social distancing, use of masks, existing social distancing and restrictions on numbers of people who can meet up etc.). My comparison to numbers of deaths from normal flu every year was made merely to show that we regularly cope with a lot more deaths than we currently have from covid - which is why we need to go back to worrying about excess deaths and not just covid deaths.
 

However other than “infections are going up and therefore deaths must have to follow in a few weeks”, without any evidence for that (other than that it happened previously when there were literally no measures in place other than being asked to wash your hands after having a wee) there hasn’t been any real stats or evidence supporting the idea that stricter lockdowns or “circuit breaks” are needed next week to avoid healthcare systems being overwhelmed.... 

Edited by Aggy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another point I would make, and you touch on it YF, is that we have no idea how many infections there were in March.

When we had 1000 deaths a day, for all we know there could have been 200,000 new infections a day. That’s again why the current increase in infections alone can’t be what we’re basing policies on. 
 

If the end game is to stop healthcare systems being overwhelmed, then without knowing how many infections a day caused the number of hospital admissions and deaths that caused us to get close to being overwhelmed in March, the current number of infections is not hugely useful. What would be useful is knowing how many infections we can deal with and making sure we don’t exceed that.  Of course we don’t know what that figure is,  but you can’t impose full lockdown, for instance, without either an idea of that number, or evidence in some other form such as deaths/hospital admissions increasing to the extent that the hospitals will be overwhelmed fairly soon - which isn’t the case currently.

Edited by Aggy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Aggy said:

YF - i think you’re misreading my posts.

I’m not sure where I have drawn any comparison between a no- lockdown carry on and normal flu. In fact I’ve clearly said (a couple of times) that action was needed in March and if it gets to the stage where the hospitals will be overwhelmed in the future, I would support stricter restrictions then. I’ve previously on this thread made exactly the point you have here (I think it was in response to Jools or real bruh or someone) - that the lockdown in March stopped a number of deaths that would otherwise have occurred.

To be clear, my point is that restrictions need to be based on whether or not the hospitals and healthcare systems will be overwhelmed and at the moment I don’t see that as enough of a concern for full lockdown or “circuit breaks” starting next week.

Youve not answered the question in my previous post - what currently suggests the health service will be overwhelmed? I listed multiple reasons why it possibly won’t happen (no correlating rise in deaths  or hospital admissions against increased infections, completely empty nightingale hospitals ready to be used, increased social distancing, use of masks, existing social distancing and restrictions on numbers of people who can meet up etc.). My comparison to numbers of deaths from normal flu every year was made merely to show that we regularly cope with a lot more deaths than we currently have from covid - which is why we need to go back to worrying about excess deaths and not just covid deaths.
 

24 minutes ago, Aggy said:

 

I do agree the full extent of after effects from covid are yet to be made clear, and it is likely that COVID-19 will affect more people and more severely in the long run. But what is clear is that actually in the large part it acts very similarly (albeit “stronger”) to a lot of influenza viruses.

 

I know a great deal about flu Aggy, the problem is how very little we know about COVID 19.

I’m not going to continue this because we are never going to agree and it’s going nowhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

now down again and still below 2% of tests

Latest UK Numbers  3899 - 18

Inpatients  1081  same or no update yet?

 

https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/

Yesterdays European.

Italy   1638 - 24

France 13498 - 26

Spain  no update?

Germany  1064 - 2

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Herman said:

Image

Is that crass little meme from the horses mouth or some Lefty publication/site that barely anyone reads or visits? I'll hazard a guess it's the latter 🙃

The following IS from the horses mouth and it contains information on deaths of patients who have died in hospitals in England and had either tested positive for COVID-19 or where COVID-19 was mentioned on the death certificate ---- 

https://www.england.nhs.uk/statistics/statistical-work-areas/covid-19-daily-deaths/

 

437a2dee-23ca-402c-8bba-ef7c8f27b7cd-0b74be01-1f75-41fe-997c-1917b7d9c7ee


So as we can see and the NHS states, only 1,396 out of 29,705 have died FROM the virus --- All other deaths (28,309) had pre existing conditions.

Nobody I know thinks the virus is a scam, but given the figures above, people are obviously right to question government actions.  
  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...