Corona Virus main thread

[Yellow Fever 3,785]

1 hour ago, Aggy said:

The use of “So called ‘health’ issues” to describe potentially hundreds of thousands of deaths? ‘Mental health’ in inverted commas?

Wow. 

Wow indeed Aggy. I don't think anybody else chooses to interpret these comments through the metaphorocal wrong end of telescope your way.

[Well b back 3,208]

3 minutes ago, Yellow Fever said:

It may well be the policy of this government and indeed most others in the world. The question for this particular government is however their incompetence in implementing it.

Agreed

As pointed out by Herman, we will just reduce the quarantine time from 14 days to 7 so more people MAY comply. They have lost complete control.

[Yellow Fever 3,785]

14 minutes ago, Well b back said:

Agreed

As pointed out by Herman, we will just reduce the quarantine time from 14 days to 7 so more people MAY comply. They have lost complete control.

Yes. My original comment was simply to restate the true problems before us as they seemed to be getting lost in quirky arguments. Can't see the wood for the trees etc.

The complaint is not the policy but the implementation. 

Edited October 25, 2020 by Yellow Fever

[Teemu’s right foot 53]

2 hours ago, Aggy said:

The use of “So called ‘health’ issues” to describe potentially hundreds of thousands of deaths? ‘Mental health’ in inverted commas?

Wow. 

Only one type of death and health problems matters now to some people. They have been engulfed by it. Hard to remember a time when people died of all causes every day and it wasn’t rammed down our throats by the media...

Edited October 25, 2020 by Teemu’s right foot

[Well b back 3,208]

2 minutes ago, Yellow Fever said:

Yes. My original comment was simply to restate the true problems before us as they seemed to be getting lost in quirky arguments. Can't see the wood for the trees etc.

The complaint is not the policy but the implementation. 

Nobody has respect for him anymore. Whichever side of the fence you are on you are laughing at him. Nothing to do with Coronavirus I know but he will cave in to Marcus Rashford then somebody from the government will be moved from their job so he can place the blame elsewhere.

Dont like Nicola Sturgeon at all, but to be fair she speaks and her Nation listens to her, wether she is right or not, and where there is dissent she comes back and explains.

[Aggy 755]

3 minutes ago, Yellow Fever said:

Wow indeed Aggy. I don't think anybody else chooses to interpret these comments through the metaphorocal wrong end of telescope your way.

All I can see is a “certain section of opinion” arguing that we need to save as many lives as possible but not using measures that are disproportionate and cause more harm than good - and then varying different opinions on what is proportionate.

The only two posters I’ve seen suggesting tens of thousands of deaths are nothing more than a “supposed ‘health’ issue” are you and Jools. And I don’t even want to know why you put mental health in inverted commas.

[Yellow Fever 3,785]

8 minutes ago, Well b back said:

Nobody has respect for him anymore. Whichever side of the fence you are on you are laughing at him. Nothing to do with Coronavirus I know but he will cave in to Marcus Rashford then somebody from the government will be moved from their job so he can place the blame elsewhere.

Dont like Nicola Sturgeon at all, but to be fair she speaks and her Nation listens to her, wether she is right or not, and where there is dissent she comes back and explains.

The Rashford thing is interesting. I can fully accept that provision was made via other routes for school meals. However, politically they must be asleep at the wheel to be caught out again by the demands. 

This is simply political ineptness of the highest order which is what they are supposed if nothing else to be good at.

Hopeless.

Edited October 25, 2020 by Yellow Fever

[Well b back 3,208]

1 minute ago, Teemu’s right foot said:

Only one type of death and health problems matters now to some people. They have been engulfed by it. Hard to remember a time when people died of all causes every day and it wasn’t rammed down our throats by the media...

I will try again, what’s your answer. 
If people with these diseases catch Coronavirus as I understand it’s a death sentence, if reports over the weekend are to be believed the people with the most ‘ mental health issues ‘ are our doctors and nurses that are seeing some horrific scenes and we are now if The Times is to be believed over 80’s are left to die.

After this wave is over we face the prospect of many of these heroines and hero’s walking away from the NHS.

[Aggy 755]

As to your wider point though, YF, it assumes hospitals will definitely be overwhelmed. You didn’t comment on my post a few days ago showing NHS England’s stats that icus in the north west in October 2020 were no more busy than they had been in October 2019, despite months of increasing covid cases. 

It fails to acknowledge that many missed screenings etc. Wouldn’t have been carried out in hospital settings. My grandparents could only get video GP consultations because of the lockdown rules and shielding - try doing a blood test (Or something more invasive!) over Skype.

It assumes the nhs nightingale hospitals won’t be usable. It assumes they won’t have any staff. It ignores a medical director of one of the hospitals saying only last week they were ready to accept patients.

It ignores the economical affect that could in the future wipe years off the youngsters and middle aged people who have little to worry about from covid.

That’s not to say that lockdowns aren’t the best way. I have previously said on here that if all of the modelling is factored in and a short circuit break is the most proportionate way of dealing, then I wouldn’t be surprised to see it and wouldn’t be against it.

But your constant dismissal of anything other than Covid deaths, your calling anything else “supposed ‘health’ issues”, your downplaying of “mental health” (in inverted commas!) issues which could cause thousands of deaths, other serious issues for thousands of others and cause problems for the medical infrastructure in the future,  your dismissal of people talking about these things as “quirky arguments” is, well, horrible. It is no better than Jools effectively saying screw the 80 year olds let’s crack on.

 

[Well b back 3,208]

2 minutes ago, Yellow Fever said:

The Rashford thing is interesting. I can fully accept that provision was made via other routes for school meals. However, politically they must be asleep at the wheel to be caught out again by the demands. 

This is simply political ineptness of the highest order which is what they are supposed if nothing else to be good at.

Hopeless.

Agreed, and although I said it’s not really coronavirus related I suppose it is really as his respect levels will drop even further once the inevitable happens and he caves in.

[Teemu’s right foot 53]

51 minutes ago, Well b back said:

I will try again, what’s your answer. 
If people with these diseases catch Coronavirus as I understand it’s a death sentence, if reports over the weekend are to be believed the people with the most ‘ mental health issues ‘ are our doctors and nurses that are seeing some horrific scenes and we are now if The Times is to be believed over 80’s are left to die.

After this wave is over we face the prospect of many of these heroines and hero’s walking away from the NHS.

I’ll answer again, I haven’t got the answer, it’s not my job to find it but this isn’t working. As for doctors being the ones with the most mental health issues I presume you are aware that suicide is the biggest killer of men in this country under the age of 45? In 2019 the suicide rate was 11.4 deaths per 100,000 people, most of those were men under 45. Those numbers in that age bracket will now continue to rise because of lockdown, rising unemployment and future life prospects for the young 

Edited October 25, 2020 by Teemu’s right foot

[Well b back 3,208]

2 minutes ago, Aggy said:

As to your wider point though, YF, it assumes hospitals will definitely be overwhelmed. You didn’t comment on my post a few days ago showing NHS England’s stats that icus in the north west in October 2020 were no more busy than they had been in October 2019, despite months of increasing covid cases. 

It fails to acknowledge that many missed screenings etc. Wouldn’t have been carried out in hospital settings. My grandparents could only get video GP consultations because of the lockdown rules and shielding - try doing a blood test (Or something more invasive!) over Skype.

It assumes the nhs nightingale hospitals won’t be usable. It assumes they won’t have any staff. It ignores a medical director of one of the hospitals saying only last week they were ready to accept patients.

It ignores the economical affect that could in the future wipe years off the youngsters and middle aged people who have little to worry about from covid.

That’s not to say that lockdowns aren’t the best way. I have previously said on here that if all of the modelling is factored in and a short circuit break is the most proportionate way of dealing, then I wouldn’t be surprised to see it and wouldn’t be against it.

But your constant dismissal of anything other than Covid deaths, your calling anything else “supposed ‘health’ issues”, your downplaying of “mental health” (in inverted commas!) issues which could cause thousands of deaths, other serious issues for thousands of others and cause problems for the medical infrastructure in the future,  your dismissal of people talking about these things as “quirky arguments” is, well, horrible. It is no better than Jools effectively saying screw the 80 year olds let’s crack on.

 

Have you read the Times report today Aggy ?

That claims the hospitals weren’t overwhelmed in April as the over 80’s were left to die, with many not being allowed into hospital and many more if they did get that far not being allowed the use of ICU beds. Worrying if true.

My biggest fear now is the tsunami of the next phase catching up ( cancer, Heart, mental illness ) will be thrown into disarray if doctors and nurses carry out their threats to leave the NHS once a vaccine is present or this wave is finished.

[ricardo 7,395]

340k  tests

19790 - 151         7days ago 16982       14 days ago  12872

positives continue up and down a bit within a small range

 

Inpatients  7850    no update today as yet

 

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

Yesterdays European. 

Italy   19644 - 151

France 45422 - 137      another record number of positives

Spain  usual no report during weekend

Germany  10458 - 21

[ricardo 7,395]

10 minutes ago, Well b back said:

Have you read the Times report today Aggy ?

That claims the hospitals weren’t overwhelmed in April as the over 80’s were left to die, with many not being allowed into hospital and many more if they did get that far not being allowed the use of ICU beds. Worrying if true.

My biggest fear now is the tsunami of the next phase catching up ( cancer, Heart, mental illness ) will be thrown into disarray if doctors and nurses carry out their threats to leave the NHS once a vaccine is present or this wave is finished.

I am sorry but this shouldn't go unchallenged. For people in the latter stages of life with other complications there is always a decision to be made about whether further treatment is pointless. If you've watched any of Ivor Cummins video's of the situation in Ireland you would see that 95% of Covid deaths never made it as far as an ICU bed because that treatment would have been totally inappropriate. I would expect that to be the situation everywhere and it has nothing at all to do with hospitals not being overwhelmed because people are left to die. The unvarnished truth is that very early on in the epidemic, apart from a single region in Italy and an area in Spain, no health service was overwhelmed anywhere in Europe and certainly not in the UK.

[Well b back 3,208]

1 minute ago, ricardo said:

I am sorry but this shouldn't go unchallenged. For people in the latter stages of life with other complications there is always a decision to be made about whether further treatment is pointless. If you've watched any of Ivor Cummins video's of the situation in Ireland you would see that 95% of Covid deaths never made it as far as an ICU bed because that treatment would have been totally inappropriate. I would expect that to be the situation everywhere and it has nothing at all to do with hospitals not being overwhelmed because people are left to die. The unvarnished truth is that very early on in the epidemic, apart from a single region in Italy and an area in Spain, no health service was overwhelmed anywhere in Europe and certainly not in the UK.

Agreed

But were we not told there were free beds and plenty of icu capacity. These people ( alledgedly ) were not included in the death figures as they didn’t have a test.
The view as I understand is from doctors who claim they were forced to decide who lived and who died so capacity could be kept down. 
I will stand corrected as you know quite happily but I understood the Goverment told us this never did or never would happen.

[Aggy 755]

22 minutes ago, Well b back said:

Agreed

But were we not told there were free beds and plenty of icu capacity. These people ( alledgedly ) were not included in the death figures as they didn’t have a test.
The view as I understand is from doctors who claim they were forced to decide who lived and who died so capacity could be kept down. 
I will stand corrected as you know quite happily but I understood the Goverment told us this never did or never would happen.

I’d be interested to know what happens in previous years. October 2019, Tameside’s icu beds were 100 per cent full. Salford’s were 97 per cent full. Manchester royal infirmary’s were 88 per cent full (in October before flu season had kicked off in earnest, I haven’t got figures for later in the year but will try and find). And we have the same on a regular basis lots of years where we get the wrong strand of flu in the flu jab for instance. What do we do then?

From a quick google -  https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/9875009/Dozens-of-hospitals-too-full-to-take-new-patients.html 2013 - a third of hospitals were too full to take patients at some point throughout the year.

https://www.cqc.org.uk/sites/default/files/20170302b_stateofhospitals_web.pdf A report from 2016 which states: 

“Bed occupancy rates for general and acute settings have remained very high. In each quarter since at least the start of 2014/15, they were above the recommended maximum of 85% for rated acute trusts (figure 1). This is the bed occupancy at midnight. In reality, during the day it is often much higher. Many hospitals face a daily struggle throughout the year to find suitable beds for both emergency and planned admissions.”

So that’s at least 85 per cent full every quarter from at least  April 2014 to the 2016 report. In winter months likely a lot higher.

My main point is that we need to be careful. Hospitals are not unoften at or near to capacity. We’ve got some evidence that, despite covid cases rising here now for months, the worst hit area of the country had no more patients in icu in October 2020 than they did in October 2019.  Of course that might change in a few months, and some might dismiss as “wishful thinking” the idea that it isn’t guaranteed to be overwhelmed. But with more and more modelling and analysis coming out showing the significant health impact that restrictions have, we can’t just blindly ignore everything else. We need to be factoring everything in and making proportionate decisions.

 

 

Edited October 25, 2020 by Aggy

[sonyc 5,519]

1 hour ago, Well b back said:

Dont like Nicola Sturgeon at all, but to be fair she speaks and her Nation listens to her, wether she is right or not, and where there is dissent she comes back and explains

Well, Wbb, I'm reading that the UK may be following Scotland and their tiers by  introducing a Tier 4 system here.

[ricardo 7,395]

1 minute ago, sonyc said:

Well, Wbb, I'm reading that the UK may be following Scotland and their tiers by  introducing a Tier 4 system here.

If we did the same as Scotland she would change it just to be different.

[sonyc 5,519]

Just now, ricardo said:

If we did the same as Scotland she would change it just to be different.

Very probably!

What would be tier 4 though? A complete lockdown?

 

[ricardo 7,395]

9 minutes ago, sonyc said:

Very probably!

What would be tier 4 though? A complete lockdown?

 

No, more like compulsory kilt wearing in Supermarkets.😉

[Well b back 3,208]

31 minutes ago, Aggy said:

I’d be interested to know what happens in previous years. October 2019, Tameside’s icu beds were 100 per cent full. Salford’s were 97 per cent full. Manchester royal infirmary’s were 88 per cent full (in October before flu season had kicked off in earnest, I haven’t got figures for later in the year but will try and find). And we have the same on a regular basis lots of years where we get the wrong strand of flu in the flu jab for instance. What do we do then?

From a quick google -  https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/9875009/Dozens-of-hospitals-too-full-to-take-new-patients.html 2013

https://www.cqc.org.uk/sites/default/files/20170302b_stateofhospitals_web.pdf A report from 2016 which states: 

“Bed occupancy rates for general and acute settings have remained very high. In each quarter since at least the start of 2014/15, they were above the recommended maximum of 85% for rated acute trusts (figure 1). This is the bed occupancy at midnight. In reality, during the day it is often much higher. Many hospitals face a daily struggle throughout the year to find suitable beds for both emergency and planned admissions.”

So that’s at least 85 per cent full every quarter from at least  April 2014 to the 2016 report. In winter months likely a lot higher.

My main point is that we need to be careful. Hospitals are not unoften at or near to capacity. We’ve got some evidence that, despite covid cases rising here now for months, the worst hit area of the country had no more patients in icu in October 2020 than they did in October 2019.  Of course that might change in a few months, and some might dismiss as “wishful thinking” the idea that it isn’t guaranteed to be overwhelmed. But with more and more modelling and analysis coming out showing the significant health impact that restrictions have, we can’t just blindly ignore everything else.

 

 

I agree, but I just don’t know how without getting the virus under control. Non lockdowns may or may not have had the same effect ie protect the economy virus ravages the population, those with cancer, heart problems die earlier, doctors and nurses and care workers driven insane youngsters carry on. I would love a comparison on, cancer, heart, mental illness deaths and unemployment figures from Brazil. If the West had followed China, we would probably be close to it being gone now, we have freedom here and it would never had worked.

I think what we really need is the facts no spin, no exaggeration, no playing them down. I will give you a good example I am 60 with type 2 diabetes. I am terrified of it because the government have said ‘ don’t worry you youngsters, it only gets people with underlying conditions ‘. Now I don’t think that’s really true. When I saw it coming across based on the figures from China it said I had a 7 % chance of dieing, but that was a person 60 - 70 with type 2 diabetes, it didn’t say if I have my sugar under control a good diet, no other conditions my chances go to 1%, and likewise if I have no control, a high BMI, kidney problems my odds go to 50 % giving me an average of 7 %. As time has gone on I have the Goverment telling me I am likely to die to reassure the youngsters, but as time has gone on I have begun to give my chances of survival as fairly good, but do I want to put that theory to test, certainly not.

Dont know if you saw that Times report. If it was true the health authorities that ignored the recommendations of not giving an icu bed to the over 80’s found the vast majority of the over 80’s they put into icu survived. In other areas where icu beds were at a premium, they denied them to the over 60’s. Now if true ( I stress if true ) that really worries me as the hospitals fill ( go to my age, underlying condition ).

[It's Character Forming 1,161]

An idea of testing in practice - a cousin requested a test, sent it off by post Friday before last and had the response last Wednesday (happily the all clear).

 

My feeling is we need a Tier 4 which is closer to a full lockdown but I hope we can avoid closing down completely- most workplaces have adapted by now to achieve social distancing. 

[Well b back 3,208]

14 minutes ago, ricardo said:

If we did the same as Scotland she would change it just to be different.

I agree absolutely and she has used it to get people behind her agenda, however ( at least up until now ) the people of Scotland have listened to her, unlike the people of England with Boris.

Would it work if she took over from Boris and ran the U.K. - probably not but in her own country she seems to be listened to. The discussions on who got it right will only be answered with history.

[sonyc 5,519]

10 minutes ago, ricardo said:

No, more like compulsory kilt wearing in Supermarkets.😉

😆...Maybe it's where you're not allowed to catch yourself coming back?

Or, everything shut....except Spoonies.

[Teemu’s right foot 53]

 

[Creative Midfielder 1,996]

1 hour ago, ricardo said:

I am sorry but this shouldn't go unchallenged. For people in the latter stages of life with other complications there is always a decision to be made about whether further treatment is pointless. If you've watched any of Ivor Cummins video's of the situation in Ireland you would see that 95% of Covid deaths never made it as far as an ICU bed because that treatment would have been totally inappropriate. I would expect that to be the situation everywhere and it has nothing at all to do with hospitals not being overwhelmed because people are left to die. The unvarnished truth is that very early on in the epidemic, apart from a single region in Italy and an area in Spain, no health service was overwhelmed anywhere in Europe and certainly not in the UK.

Whilst you are quite right that some people reach the point where further treatment is pointless and you may be right about what happened in Ireland as well, I haven't followed that. But I'm afraid that doesn't alter the fact that the Times report was accurate as far as what happened in the UK.

Certainly in our trust (and given the shortage of ICU beds I'm pretty certain the same applied in all others) patients arriving at hospital with suspected Corvid where triaged very early on into one of three 'streams' and once allocated to a stream it was very unusual for them to be moved into another.

One stream was the 'fortunate' ones who were ill enough to require hospital treatment but judged not to be in serious danger. The more seriously ill were split into those who were judged to have the best chance of survival who normally went straight to ICU. Those who formed the 'middle' stream, perhaps because of their age or some underlying condition, would not go to ICU even if there was a space available in ICU at the time because they were effectively reserved for patients who would be arriving shortly with a better chance of survival. Those in the middle stream were given basic (and palliative) treatment but very rarely moved to ICU for more serious intervention when it became necessary\appropriate.

So in many cases these unfortunate patients were denied treatment not because it was pointless but because they didn't score highly enough in a prioritisation process for an extremely rare resource - an acute or ICU bed. Now of course you can argue that it is entirely logical for hospitals to focus access to scarce resources to those with the best potential outcome, in fact they do it all the time in all sorts of areas and we seem to accept it, albeit reluctantly, as normal.

However that is not the story we were told by the government at the time, or since for that matter - likewise with regard to care homes the Times is correct. As we've always known the government's accounts of what did and didn't happen at care homes was a complete fiction and this, at least, was well documented at the time.

I've said this before but I think it bears repeating (several times!) - it has been clear from the very start that so many of the Government's actions, mistakes and lies have been driven by the overriding political imperative of avoiding the NHS being visibly overwhelmed - that imperative, rather than acting in the national interest which is what I think we rather expect in a major crisis, has warped their policies and resulted in a constantly duplicitous presentation as to what was actually going on and why (following the science, my a**e!).

Edited October 25, 2020 by Creative Midfielder

[sonyc 5,519]

For those interested I watched a piece on BBC this morning and a fella (virologist) called Pillay. He made a lot of sense.

Found this site link and there is a lot of very interesting pieces and reports. Sharing for interest.

 Independent SAGE | Following the Science https://www.independentsage.org/

 

Edited October 25, 2020 by sonyc

[Van wink 2,994]

38 minutes ago, ricardo said:

No, more like compulsory kilt wearing in Supermarkets.😉

The point you have omitted is that in an enclosed environment you have to pull your kilt up and use it as a face covering, unlike this laddie.

 

[Well b back 3,208]

47 minutes ago, Creative Midfielder said:

Whilst you are quite right that some people reach the point where further treatment is pointless and you may be right about what happened in Ireland as well, I haven't followed that. But I'm afraid that doesn't alter the fact that the Times report was accurate as far as what happened in the UK.

Certainly in our trust (and given the shortage of ICU beds I'm pretty certain the same applied in all others) patients arriving at hospital with suspected Corvid where triaged very early on into one of three 'streams' and once allocated to a stream it was very unusual for them to be moved into another.

One stream was the 'fortunate' ones who were ill enough to require hospital treatment but judged not to be in serious danger. The more seriously ill were split into those who were judged to have the best chance of survival who normally went straight to ICU. Those who formed the 'middle' stream, perhaps because of their age or some underlying condition, would not go to ICU even if there was a space available in ICU at the time because they were effectively reserved for patients who would be arriving shortly with a better chance of survival. Those in the middle stream were given basic (and palliative) treatment but very rarely moved to ICU for more serious intervention when it became necessary\appropriate.

So in many cases these unfortunate patients were denied treatment not because it was pointless but because they didn't score highly enough in a prioritisation process for an extremely rare resource - an acute or ICU bed. Now of course you can argue that it is entirely logical for hospitals to focus access to scarce resources to those with the best potential outcome, in fact they do it all the time in all sorts of areas and we seem to accept it, albeit reluctantly, as normal.

However that is not the story we were told by the government at the time, or since for that matter - likewise with regard to care homes the Times is correct. As we've always known the government's accounts of what did and didn't happen at care homes was a complete fiction and this, at least, was well documented at the time.

I've said this before but I think it bears repeating (several times!) - it has been clear from the very start that so many of the Government's actions, mistakes and lies have been driven by the overriding political imperative of avoiding the NHS being visibly overwhelmed - that imperative, rather than acting in the national interest which is what I think we rather expect in a major crisis, has warped their policies and resulted in a constantly duplicitous presentation as to what was actually going on and why (following the science, my a**e!).

I don’t really want to read it again but am I right in saying those NHS authorities who ignored the rules found a high % of over 80’s given icu survived, and in areas where it was busier they dropped under 80 to under 60. That’s my recollection but please feel free to correct me if that’s not correct.

[Well b back 3,208]

52 minutes ago, sonyc said:

For those interested I watched a piece on BBC this morning and a fella (virologist) called Pillay. He made a lot of sense.

Found this site link and there is a lot of very interesting pieces and reports. Sharing for interest.

 Independent SAGE | Following the Science https://www.independentsage.org/

 

Thanks for that Sonyc.

Looks pretty much just like Oxford they are now putting their advice in the public domain. As CM just said - following the science, my a***