The big Coronavirus thread

kingstongraham

Stevo_666 said:

Interesting article this morning about NHS capacity:
https://telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/04/14/just-19-patients-treated-easter-weekend-4000-bed-nhs-nightingale/

Not sure if people can read it but the text in the link gives a hint. Only 19 people were treated in the Nightingale hospital (London Excel) which has a 4,000 bed capacity. London hospital ICU capacity did not exceed 80% over that period, so the Nightingale must have been dealing with overspill in a few individual hospitals.

It appears that the strategy of keeping within NHS ICU capacity is working so far.

I'm sure I heard that they are also discharging patients who may still be infectious back to care homes which seems strange when there are all these beds not being used.

It's good news that that is even a story because of the extra capacity.

First.Aspect

Stevo_666 said:

Interesting article this morning about NHS capacity:
https://telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/04/14/just-19-patients-treated-easter-weekend-4000-bed-nhs-nightingale/

Not sure if people can read it but the text in the link gives a hint. Only 19 people were treated in the Nightingale hospital (London Excel) which has a 4,000 bed capacity. London hospital ICU capacity did not exceed 80% over that period, so the Nightingale must have been dealing with overspill in a few individual hospitals.

It appears that the strategy of keeping within NHS ICU capacity is working so far.

I'm guessing that those nightingale hospitals will turn into Covid hospitals as this develops and they will try to keep other hospitals entirely Covid free.

nickice

Stevo_666 said:

nickice said:

So, if the lockdown were lifted tomorrow, and work excepted, how many people would go back to bars, restaurants etc?

Good question and this will be a big challenge for a lot of countries - and people.

Not sure yet what I would do. I think I will assess more closely based on the situatuon when the time comes.

I personally, as a diabetic, wouldn't go anywhere near them but I think the message is so ingrained now that, without an effective treatment/vaccine, people wouldn't exactly flock back. The media isn't helping by picking up rare cases of deaths in young, healthy people. If they did that for the seasonal flu, a lot of people would rarely venture out.

This is why I don't quite understand why Macron is opening schools six weeks before the summer holidays. We've been given this message of avoiding the virus but opening schools seems pretty obviously an attempt to allow the virus to slowly progress through the population.

First.Aspect

kingstongraham said:

Stevo_666 said:

Interesting article this morning about NHS capacity:
https://telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/04/14/just-19-patients-treated-easter-weekend-4000-bed-nhs-nightingale/

Not sure if people can read it but the text in the link gives a hint. Only 19 people were treated in the Nightingale hospital (London Excel) which has a 4,000 bed capacity. London hospital ICU capacity did not exceed 80% over that period, so the Nightingale must have been dealing with overspill in a few individual hospitals.

It appears that the strategy of keeping within NHS ICU capacity is working so far.

I'm sure I heard that they are also discharging patients who may still be infectious back to care homes which seems strange when there are all these beds not being used.

It's good news that that is even a story because of the extra capacity.

Have you got a source for the suggestion that infectious people are being sent back to care homes? This statement has a whiff about it.

I've heard that 5G masts spread Covid-19, and that English PPE manufacturers are anti-Scottish. I've also heard that drinking lots of tonic water treats Covid-19.

pangolin

Stevo_666 said:

kingstongraham said:

rick_chasey said:

For those who can read it, a deep dive into the battle at the heart of the of British science on Corona

https://www.ft.com/content/1e390ac6-7e2c-11ea-8fdb-7ec06edeef84

That one is free to all, I think. Interesting reading.

Some interesting stuff there.

- It demonstrates the complexity of the issue hence the lack of agreement between experts etc
- I understand better now the relationship between track and trace to minimising the number quarantined. But given the fundamental doubts expressed over whether track and trace is workable and various reasons put forward on here, I don't think it is a practically viable strategy.
- The point about only quarantining say 10% of the population points toward what I mentioned before, I.e. a lifting of the lockdown but keeping it in place for the elderly and vulnerable until a vaccine is found - which would make sense in terms of both medical risk mitigation and the economy (given that those who remain in lockdown are less likely to be economically active).

I think track and trace would be extremely hard to implement effectively with any real numbers of live infections still about if you are doing it manually.

But with a good app and everyone who can use it, using it, I think it becomes a lot more realistic.

Personally the idea of being tracked everywhere I go bothers me, but despite what I and others have thought in the past about people being up in arms about privacy issues - in reality the majority of the British public just don't seem to give a $hlt. Look at how many people still use FB. Look at how many were installing a Covid symptom tracker app a couple of weeks ago.

surrey_commuter

pangolin said:

rick_chasey said:

Dorset_Boy said:

rick_chasey said:

Even Sunak’s money-printer-goes-brrr has run aground at the delivery point, which is as critical as the policy in the first place at this point.

It's this sort of comment that puts you at the extreme negative end of the spectrum. You post what come across as snide criticisms without posting any detail. It's not helpful.

Also, maybe some of us slightly older than yourself accept that errors will have been made but that those in charge are desperately trying to make good choices for the benefit of us all.

Many of us also understand that short term figures are not a good measure of a medium or longer term situation.

This isn’t snide. It’s a real problem. Businesses that are eligible can’t get the money.

How is that not a critical problem?

You are being a bit vague here. Last I read the means to claim funding for furloughed employees was an online portal due to go live I think 20th April.

Are you referring to the fact that it's not live yet (agree this is not great) or some other deeper issue?

In fairness to Rick I gave the detail recently and everybody ignored it.

The Govt made a big announcement that huge sums of money were being made available to stop viable businesses from going bust.

300,000 businesses have applied for this money.
4,000 businesses have had their applications approved

If the media and opposition do not criticise then there is no chance that this Govt will up it’s game.

It was obvious to a blind man that the UK would never be able to administer loans to hundreds of thousands of businesses. If they were not so arrogant they could have looked for an alternative solution.

rick_chasey

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

sungod said:

rick_chasey said:

What I don’t quite understand is why in Italy and Spain the death rate isn’t dropping faster.

Surely if the majority of the nation is being quite strict with social distancing, after 3-4 weeks there should be a really big drop off. Yet they’re still running at 500 deaths a day.

afaik 3-4 weeks isn't long enough

one factor may be that as the pressure eases and experience is gained they are keeping people alive for longer but without a major improvement in recovery rate, i.e. the daily death rate drops, but a similar proportion of people still die, giving a long tail in the numbers

It could also mean people are transmitters for a lot longer than 2 weeks.

We don't know because there isn't enough testing.

I'm sorry but this just isn't true. To the extent we, the entire species (rather than this insignificant northern bit of it) don't know because the pathogen is 4 months old.

Besides, it IS known that people are not carriers after recovery. There are a tiny, tiny number of unverified cases suggesting otherwise, but these are most likely due to errors in early testing and diagnosis. What isn't known is how much immunity builds up or lasts, or how fast it will mutate, or how it will mutate. Are you critical of a lack of time travel and future testing? Or just shouting at the wind?

It is also well understood that there is around a 4 week lag in admissions and fatality figures. This is because most people are dying from pneumonia, which develops after a couple of weeks. Dying of pneumonia then takes a while longer thereafter, so bear with people while they get on with that.

If you insist on banging your little drum Rick, at least do it right.

I can't dig it out now but there is some scepticism about how transmittable it was; if it is as it says, the models say the reduction of infections should be much greater.

First.Aspect

nickice said:

Stevo_666 said:

nickice said:

So, if the lockdown were lifted tomorrow, and work excepted, how many people would go back to bars, restaurants etc?

Good question and this will be a big challenge for a lot of countries - and people.

Not sure yet what I would do. I think I will assess more closely based on the situatuon when the time comes.

I personally, as a diabetic, wouldn't go anywhere near them but I think the message is so ingrained now that, without an effective treatment/vaccine, people wouldn't exactly flock back. The media isn't helping by picking up rare cases of deaths in young, healthy people. If they did that for the seasonal flu, a lot of people would rarely venture out.

This is why I don't quite understand why Macron is opening schools six weeks before the summer holidays. We've been given this message of avoiding the virus but opening schools seems pretty obviously an attempt to allow the virus to slowly progress through the population.

This is for two reasons - 1. there is very little suggestion that schools actually are a powerful vector. Counter intuitive but that's what the number crunchers are saying. 2. letting kids back to school lets their parents do some work.

pangolin

surrey_commuter said:

pangolin said:

rick_chasey said:

Dorset_Boy said:

rick_chasey said:

Even Sunak’s money-printer-goes-brrr has run aground at the delivery point, which is as critical as the policy in the first place at this point.

It's this sort of comment that puts you at the extreme negative end of the spectrum. You post what come across as snide criticisms without posting any detail. It's not helpful.

Also, maybe some of us slightly older than yourself accept that errors will have been made but that those in charge are desperately trying to make good choices for the benefit of us all.

Many of us also understand that short term figures are not a good measure of a medium or longer term situation.

This isn’t snide. It’s a real problem. Businesses that are eligible can’t get the money.

How is that not a critical problem?

You are being a bit vague here. Last I read the means to claim funding for furloughed employees was an online portal due to go live I think 20th April.

Are you referring to the fact that it's not live yet (agree this is not great) or some other deeper issue?

In fairness to Rick I gave the detail recently and everybody ignored it.

The Govt made a big announcement that huge sums of money were being made available to stop viable businesses from going bust.

300,000 businesses have applied for this money.
4,000 businesses have had their applications approved

If the media and opposition do not criticise then there is no chance that this Govt will up it’s game.

It was obvious to a blind man that the UK would never be able to administer loans to hundreds of thousands of businesses. If they were not so arrogant they could have looked for an alternative solution.

It would be super helpful if one of you could post a source or make it clear which specific funding scheme we're talking about.

rjsterry

kingstongraham said:

First.Aspect said:

kingstongraham said:

Pross said:

Trump suspends funding to the WHO for failing in their duties. Of only they had dealt with it as well as Trump has. Definitely one for the irony thread.

I'm pretty sure he doesn't know what they do.

"Whu" is a Chinese word. That's a bad thing. A very bad thing. We are looking at that. We have some good people looking into that.

Can someone paraphrase the FT article? Not free.

weird, I clicked through from twitter on my phone and read it, but not available on the browser.

It's free to read, but you need to register. I think the key point they suggest is that the government put too much trust in the modelling and not enough in those with practical experience on the ground.

kingstongraham

First.Aspect said:

kingstongraham said:

Stevo_666 said:

Interesting article this morning about NHS capacity:
https://telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/04/14/just-19-patients-treated-easter-weekend-4000-bed-nhs-nightingale/

Not sure if people can read it but the text in the link gives a hint. Only 19 people were treated in the Nightingale hospital (London Excel) which has a 4,000 bed capacity. London hospital ICU capacity did not exceed 80% over that period, so the Nightingale must have been dealing with overspill in a few individual hospitals.

It appears that the strategy of keeping within NHS ICU capacity is working so far.

I'm sure I heard that they are also discharging patients who may still be infectious back to care homes which seems strange when there are all these beds not being used.

It's good news that that is even a story because of the extra capacity.

Have you got a source for the suggestion that infectious people are being sent back to care homes? This statement has a whiff about it.

I've heard that 5G masts spread Covid-19, and that English PPE manufacturers are anti-Scottish. I've also heard that drinking lots of tonic water treats Covid-19.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/878099/Admission_and_Care_of_Residents_during_COVID-19_Incident_in_a_Care_Home.pdf

"As part of the national effort, the care sector also plays a vital role in
accepting patients as they are discharged from hospital – both because recuperation is
better in non-acute settings, and because hospitals need to have enough beds to treat
acutely sick patients. Residents may also be admitted to a care home from a home setting.
Some of these patients may have COVID-19, whether symptomatic or asymptomatic."

Clicked through to from this story: https://www.theguardian.com/society/2020/apr/02/uk-care-home-bosses-threaten-quit-over-return-coronavirus-patients

First.Aspect

kingstongraham said:

First.Aspect said:

kingstongraham said:

Stevo_666 said:

Interesting article this morning about NHS capacity:
https://telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/04/14/just-19-patients-treated-easter-weekend-4000-bed-nhs-nightingale/

Not sure if people can read it but the text in the link gives a hint. Only 19 people were treated in the Nightingale hospital (London Excel) which has a 4,000 bed capacity. London hospital ICU capacity did not exceed 80% over that period, so the Nightingale must have been dealing with overspill in a few individual hospitals.

It appears that the strategy of keeping within NHS ICU capacity is working so far.

I'm sure I heard that they are also discharging patients who may still be infectious back to care homes which seems strange when there are all these beds not being used.

It's good news that that is even a story because of the extra capacity.

Have you got a source for the suggestion that infectious people are being sent back to care homes? This statement has a whiff about it.

I've heard that 5G masts spread Covid-19, and that English PPE manufacturers are anti-Scottish. I've also heard that drinking lots of tonic water treats Covid-19.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/878099/Admission_and_Care_of_Residents_during_COVID-19_Incident_in_a_Care_Home.pdf

"As part of the national effort, the care sector also plays a vital role in
accepting patients as they are discharged from hospital – both because recuperation is
better in non-acute settings, and because hospitals need to have enough beds to treat
acutely sick patients. Residents may also be admitted to a care home from a home setting.
Some of these patients may have COVID-19, whether symptomatic or asymptomatic."

Clicked through to from this story: https://www.theguardian.com/society/2020/apr/02/uk-care-home-bosses-threaten-quit-over-return-coronavirus-patients

Oh. Not good. This suggests a lack of staff, not beds.

morstar

First.Aspect said:

Stevo_666 said:

Interesting article this morning about NHS capacity:
https://telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/04/14/just-19-patients-treated-easter-weekend-4000-bed-nhs-nightingale/

Not sure if people can read it but the text in the link gives a hint. Only 19 people were treated in the Nightingale hospital (London Excel) which has a 4,000 bed capacity. London hospital ICU capacity did not exceed 80% over that period, so the Nightingale must have been dealing with overspill in a few individual hospitals.

It appears that the strategy of keeping within NHS ICU capacity is working so far.

I'm guessing that those nightingale hospitals will turn into Covid hospitals as this develops and they will try to keep other hospitals entirely Covid free.

I think practically, this makes sense. However, there is a risk these hospitals then become recognised as death camps (either in reality or perception).

bobmcstuff

Has the burning of phone masts by retards been covered on here?

nickice

First.Aspect said:

nickice said:

Stevo_666 said:

nickice said:

So, if the lockdown were lifted tomorrow, and work excepted, how many people would go back to bars, restaurants etc?

Good question and this will be a big challenge for a lot of countries - and people.

Not sure yet what I would do. I think I will assess more closely based on the situatuon when the time comes.

I personally, as a diabetic, wouldn't go anywhere near them but I think the message is so ingrained now that, without an effective treatment/vaccine, people wouldn't exactly flock back. The media isn't helping by picking up rare cases of deaths in young, healthy people. If they did that for the seasonal flu, a lot of people would rarely venture out.

This is why I don't quite understand why Macron is opening schools six weeks before the summer holidays. We've been given this message of avoiding the virus but opening schools seems pretty obviously an attempt to allow the virus to slowly progress through the population.

This is for two reasons - 1. there is very little suggestion that schools actually are a powerful vector. Counter intuitive but that's what the number crunchers are saying. 2. letting kids back to school lets their parents do some work.

I don't disagree about your first point but the best evidence I've seen is that children do get infected but have mild symptoms and most of the current measures (especially in France) have been taken on the basis of precaution without any real evidence behind them so France can't have it both ways; If it's dangerous for me to walk past or sit in the same park as somebody, it's dangerous for me to send my son to school. In fact, I obviously disagree with the former but I do see the latter as a risk I'm not prepared to take especially as I can make other arrangements. Older kids could probably practise social distancing (and be obliged to wear masks) but younger kids will never be able to do that.

Regarding your second point, I'd agree if it weren't so close to the summer holidays.

Stevo_666

kingstongraham said:

Stevo_666 said:

Interesting article this morning about NHS capacity:
https://telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/04/14/just-19-patients-treated-easter-weekend-4000-bed-nhs-nightingale/

Not sure if people can read it but the text in the link gives a hint. Only 19 people were treated in the Nightingale hospital (London Excel) which has a 4,000 bed capacity. London hospital ICU capacity did not exceed 80% over that period, so the Nightingale must have been dealing with overspill in a few individual hospitals.

It appears that the strategy of keeping within NHS ICU capacity is working so far.

I'm sure I heard that they are also discharging patients who may still be infectious back to care homes which seems strange when there are all these beds not being used.

It's good news that that is even a story because of the extra capacity.

I saw your link - clearly it does not make sense to discharge anyone who is potentially infectious back to a care home (residential or nursing) especially where there are no cases at the relevant care home While there are hospital or hospital overflow beds then clearly it makes sense to keep people there longer.

nickice

Having looked at the French press, I think we'll see an abandoning of the plan (or very few pupils actually attending) to open schools and creches.

First.Aspect

6 weeks seems like a good trial period to me, to inform later decisions.

I can't explain why the modeling that several governments seem to be following suggests that closing the schools doesn't make much, or any, difference. Perhaps because the mixing is very localised?

Out of curiosity, if your kid's school re-opens, what option do you have, really?

First.Aspect

nickice said:

Having looked at the French press, I think we'll see an abandoning of the plan (or very few pupils actually attending) to open schools and creches.

It is France, so the children will go on strike.

Stevo_666

nickice said:

Stevo_666 said:

nickice said:

So, if the lockdown were lifted tomorrow, and work excepted, how many people would go back to bars, restaurants etc?

Good question and this will be a big challenge for a lot of countries - and people.

Not sure yet what I would do. I think I will assess more closely based on the situatuon when the time comes.

I personally, as a diabetic, wouldn't go anywhere near them but I think the message is so ingrained now that, without an effective treatment/vaccine, people wouldn't exactly flock back. The media isn't helping by picking up rare cases of deaths in young, healthy people. If they did that for the seasonal flu, a lot of people would rarely venture out.

This is why I don't quite understand why Macron is opening schools six weeks before the summer holidays. We've been given this message of avoiding the virus but opening schools seems pretty obviously an attempt to allow the virus to slowly progress through the population.

I can understand your position as someone in an at risk group. I clearly don't want the disease but at the same time I don't want to live under a rock for a year while they sort a vaccine - and the economy can't wait that long either.

I think that the actions of Macron that you mention and the relaxation we are seeing in Italy, Spain and China are tacit admissions that the virus can't be stopped, only slowed and they have to let that happen to stop the economic effects being too damaging (and to keep large numbers of people who have been cooped up for some time on side).

TheBigBean

The problem with reopening schools and nurseries is that a lot of the teachers don't want to work in what they see as a high risk environment,

nickice

First.Aspect said:

6 weeks seems like a good trial period to me, to inform later decisions.

I can't explain why the modeling that several governments seem to be following suggests that closing the schools doesn't make much, or any, difference. Perhaps because the mixing is very localised?

Out of curiosity, if your kid's school re-opens, what option do you have, really?

Again, I don't disagree but I'm not going to take that risk as a diabetic. If I weren't I probably would just send my son back to school. I was pretty consistent on this from the beginning (though not on this forum) but I was still working at the university while my son was at school so I saw no real point in withdrawing him.

This is the problem now that there is so much hysteria that very few people will want to be part of the experiment of schools reopening and that's what it looks like.

I can look after my children at home even if schools do reopen. I appreciate that others can't.

rjsterry

Stevo_666 said:

kingstongraham said:

Stevo_666 said:

Interesting article this morning about NHS capacity:
https://telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/04/14/just-19-patients-treated-easter-weekend-4000-bed-nhs-nightingale/

Not sure if people can read it but the text in the link gives a hint. Only 19 people were treated in the Nightingale hospital (London Excel) which has a 4,000 bed capacity. London hospital ICU capacity did not exceed 80% over that period, so the Nightingale must have been dealing with overspill in a few individual hospitals.

It appears that the strategy of keeping within NHS ICU capacity is working so far.

I'm sure I heard that they are also discharging patients who may still be infectious back to care homes which seems strange when there are all these beds not being used.

It's good news that that is even a story because of the extra capacity.

I saw your link - clearly it does not make sense to discharge anyone who is potentially infectious back to a care home (residential or nursing) especially where there are no cases at the relevant care home While there are hospital or hospital overflow beds then clearly it makes sense to keep people there longer.

The 4000-bed Nightingale hospital is ICU-only. If you are merely unwell enough to be in hospital, but not in ICU, you won't end up there. It's possible we have focused on the the latter and not thought to boost non-ICU provision to a similar degree.

Pross

kingstongraham said:

First.Aspect said:

kingstongraham said:

Stevo_666 said:

Interesting article this morning about NHS capacity:
https://telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/04/14/just-19-patients-treated-easter-weekend-4000-bed-nhs-nightingale/

Not sure if people can read it but the text in the link gives a hint. Only 19 people were treated in the Nightingale hospital (London Excel) which has a 4,000 bed capacity. London hospital ICU capacity did not exceed 80% over that period, so the Nightingale must have been dealing with overspill in a few individual hospitals.

It appears that the strategy of keeping within NHS ICU capacity is working so far.

I'm sure I heard that they are also discharging patients who may still be infectious back to care homes which seems strange when there are all these beds not being used.

It's good news that that is even a story because of the extra capacity.

Have you got a source for the suggestion that infectious people are being sent back to care homes? This statement has a whiff about it.

I've heard that 5G masts spread Covid-19, and that English PPE manufacturers are anti-Scottish. I've also heard that drinking lots of tonic water treats Covid-19.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/878099/Admission_and_Care_of_Residents_during_COVID-19_Incident_in_a_Care_Home.pdf

"As part of the national effort, the care sector also plays a vital role in
accepting patients as they are discharged from hospital – both because recuperation is
better in non-acute settings, and because hospitals need to have enough beds to treat
acutely sick patients. Residents may also be admitted to a care home from a home setting.
Some of these patients may have COVID-19, whether symptomatic or asymptomatic."

Clicked through to from this story: https://www.theguardian.com/society/2020/apr/02/uk-care-home-bosses-threaten-quit-over-return-coronavirus-patients

My reading of that is that they are sending back patients who were in hospital with non-Covid related illnesses but they aren't testing them first so they may have the virus which is subtly different from what Rick said that suggested they were sending back Covid patients who are still ill. The one person who got kicked out of hospital back to one of my wife's homes in the early stages was tested first but I think they felt she may have the virus so I don't know if that was normal practice (and the NHS and care in Wales are devolved so may be done differently). The second point is that homes are being forced to take ill patients which seems to be wholly unacceptable, especially if they haven't got the ability to isolate them and provide the necessary level of care.

Either way it certainly isn't ideal and as First Aspect says it points to the main issue being a lack of staff rather than beds. It's something I've wondered about when people have been constantly talking about additional ventilators or creating greater bed capacity, all those things are possible in relatively short timescales but you can't train up doctors or even re-train nursing staff to be able to undertake ICU roles in weeks or even months. As above the better solution would appear to be to move as many serious Covid cases as possible to the new hospitals that have been designed to be less staff intensive.

kingstongraham

Pross said:

kingstongraham said:

First.Aspect said:

kingstongraham said:

Stevo_666 said:

Interesting article this morning about NHS capacity:
https://telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/04/14/just-19-patients-treated-easter-weekend-4000-bed-nhs-nightingale/

Not sure if people can read it but the text in the link gives a hint. Only 19 people were treated in the Nightingale hospital (London Excel) which has a 4,000 bed capacity. London hospital ICU capacity did not exceed 80% over that period, so the Nightingale must have been dealing with overspill in a few individual hospitals.

It appears that the strategy of keeping within NHS ICU capacity is working so far.

I'm sure I heard that they are also discharging patients who may still be infectious back to care homes which seems strange when there are all these beds not being used.

It's good news that that is even a story because of the extra capacity.

Have you got a source for the suggestion that infectious people are being sent back to care homes? This statement has a whiff about it.

I've heard that 5G masts spread Covid-19, and that English PPE manufacturers are anti-Scottish. I've also heard that drinking lots of tonic water treats Covid-19.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/878099/Admission_and_Care_of_Residents_during_COVID-19_Incident_in_a_Care_Home.pdf

"As part of the national effort, the care sector also plays a vital role in
accepting patients as they are discharged from hospital – both because recuperation is
better in non-acute settings, and because hospitals need to have enough beds to treat
acutely sick patients. Residents may also be admitted to a care home from a home setting.
Some of these patients may have COVID-19, whether symptomatic or asymptomatic."

Clicked through to from this story: https://www.theguardian.com/society/2020/apr/02/uk-care-home-bosses-threaten-quit-over-return-coronavirus-patients

My reading of that is that they are sending back patients who were in hospital with non-Covid related illnesses but they aren't testing them first so they may have the virus which is subtly different from what Rick said that suggested they were sending back Covid patients who are still ill. The one person who got kicked out of hospital back to one of my wife's homes in the early stages was tested first but I think they felt she may have the virus so I don't know if that was normal practice (and the NHS and care in Wales are devolved so may be done differently). The second point is that homes are being forced to take ill patients which seems to be wholly unacceptable, especially if they haven't got the ability to isolate them and provide the necessary level of care.

Either way it certainly isn't ideal and as First Aspect says it points to the main issue being a lack of staff rather than beds. It's something I've wondered about when people have been constantly talking about additional ventilators or creating greater bed capacity, all those things are possible in relatively short timescales but you can't train up doctors or even re-train nursing staff to be able to undertake ICU roles in weeks or even months. As above the better solution would appear to be to move as many serious Covid cases as possible to the new hospitals that have been designed to be less staff intensive.

The guidance also says "If you are caring for a resident who has been discharged from hospital and has tested
positive for COVID-19, the discharging hospital will provide you with the following
information upon discharge:
• The date and results of any COVID-19 test.
• The date of the onset of symptoms.
• A care plan for discharge from isolation.
Annex D provides further information on the appropriate isolation required for care home
residents who have been discharged from hospital following treatment for COVID-19. "

kingstongraham

It might have been unavoidable, but putting patients with covid19 back into the places where a lot of those who will be worst affected if the infection spreads seems, on the face of it, like a bad move.

rjsterry

Pross said:

kingstongraham said:

First.Aspect said:

kingstongraham said:

Stevo_666 said:

Interesting article this morning about NHS capacity:
https://telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/04/14/just-19-patients-treated-easter-weekend-4000-bed-nhs-nightingale/

Not sure if people can read it but the text in the link gives a hint. Only 19 people were treated in the Nightingale hospital (London Excel) which has a 4,000 bed capacity. London hospital ICU capacity did not exceed 80% over that period, so the Nightingale must have been dealing with overspill in a few individual hospitals.

It appears that the strategy of keeping within NHS ICU capacity is working so far.

I'm sure I heard that they are also discharging patients who may still be infectious back to care homes which seems strange when there are all these beds not being used.

It's good news that that is even a story because of the extra capacity.

Have you got a source for the suggestion that infectious people are being sent back to care homes? This statement has a whiff about it.

I've heard that 5G masts spread Covid-19, and that English PPE manufacturers are anti-Scottish. I've also heard that drinking lots of tonic water treats Covid-19.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/878099/Admission_and_Care_of_Residents_during_COVID-19_Incident_in_a_Care_Home.pdf

"As part of the national effort, the care sector also plays a vital role in
accepting patients as they are discharged from hospital – both because recuperation is
better in non-acute settings, and because hospitals need to have enough beds to treat
acutely sick patients. Residents may also be admitted to a care home from a home setting.
Some of these patients may have COVID-19, whether symptomatic or asymptomatic."

Clicked through to from this story: https://www.theguardian.com/society/2020/apr/02/uk-care-home-bosses-threaten-quit-over-return-coronavirus-patients

My reading of that is that they are sending back patients who were in hospital with non-Covid related illnesses but they aren't testing them first so they may have the virus which is subtly different from what Rick said that suggested they were sending back Covid patients who are still ill. The one person who got kicked out of hospital back to one of my wife's homes in the early stages was tested first but I think they felt she may have the virus so I don't know if that was normal practice (and the NHS and care in Wales are devolved so may be done differently). The second point is that homes are being forced to take ill patients which seems to be wholly unacceptable, especially if they haven't got the ability to isolate them and provide the necessary level of care.

Either way it certainly isn't ideal and as First Aspect says it points to the main issue being a lack of staff rather than beds. It's something I've wondered about when people have been constantly talking about additional ventilators or creating greater bed capacity, all those things are possible in relatively short timescales but you can't train up doctors or even re-train nursing staff to be able to undertake ICU roles in weeks or even months. As above the better solution would appear to be to move as many serious Covid cases as possible to the new hospitals that have been designed to be less staff intensive.

A friend teaches nursing and was expecting to be called up for front line service but they have asked her to stay on to ensure this 'year' complete their training ASAP.

Pross

bobmcstuff said:

Has the burning of phone masts by retards been covered on here?

Yes. I thought the person I 'unfriended' on Facebook who was the first person I'd seen mention a link was just a one off loon (she has history of anti-vax, anti-pharma rants and is into her natural remedies and meditation) but it seems to be worryingly widespread stupidity. It's not helped by so called celebrities like Amanda Holden Tweeting about it and, let's face it, those who follow Amanda Holden on Twitter are unlikely to be capable of thinking and reasoning for themselves.

nickice

Stevo_666 said:

nickice said:

Stevo_666 said:

nickice said:

So, if the lockdown were lifted tomorrow, and work excepted, how many people would go back to bars, restaurants etc?

Good question and this will be a big challenge for a lot of countries - and people.

Not sure yet what I would do. I think I will assess more closely based on the situatuon when the time comes.

I personally, as a diabetic, wouldn't go anywhere near them but I think the message is so ingrained now that, without an effective treatment/vaccine, people wouldn't exactly flock back. The media isn't helping by picking up rare cases of deaths in young, healthy people. If they did that for the seasonal flu, a lot of people would rarely venture out.

This is why I don't quite understand why Macron is opening schools six weeks before the summer holidays. We've been given this message of avoiding the virus but opening schools seems pretty obviously an attempt to allow the virus to slowly progress through the population.

I can understand your position as someone in an at risk group. I clearly don't want the disease but at the same time I don't want to live under a rock for a year while they sort a vaccine - and the economy can't wait that long either.

I think that the actions of Macron that you mention and the relaxation we are seeing in Italy, Spain and China are tacit admissions that the virus can't be stopped, only slowed and they have to let that happen to stop the economic effects being too damaging (and to keep large numbers of people who have been cooped up for some time on side).

100% agree. It's just that Macron's message has been about being 'at war'. It's going to be difficult to change that message now. The excuse he gave about opening schools was because of inequality with some pupils not having access to digital resources which, although it may be true, is clearly just that: an excuse.

I'm beginning to think we'll look back and see Sweden took the most sensible approach.

Pross

kingstongraham said:

Pross said:

kingstongraham said:

First.Aspect said:

kingstongraham said:

Stevo_666 said:

Interesting article this morning about NHS capacity:
https://telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/04/14/just-19-patients-treated-easter-weekend-4000-bed-nhs-nightingale/

Not sure if people can read it but the text in the link gives a hint. Only 19 people were treated in the Nightingale hospital (London Excel) which has a 4,000 bed capacity. London hospital ICU capacity did not exceed 80% over that period, so the Nightingale must have been dealing with overspill in a few individual hospitals.

It appears that the strategy of keeping within NHS ICU capacity is working so far.

I'm sure I heard that they are also discharging patients who may still be infectious back to care homes which seems strange when there are all these beds not being used.

It's good news that that is even a story because of the extra capacity.

Have you got a source for the suggestion that infectious people are being sent back to care homes? This statement has a whiff about it.

I've heard that 5G masts spread Covid-19, and that English PPE manufacturers are anti-Scottish. I've also heard that drinking lots of tonic water treats Covid-19.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/878099/Admission_and_Care_of_Residents_during_COVID-19_Incident_in_a_Care_Home.pdf

"As part of the national effort, the care sector also plays a vital role in
accepting patients as they are discharged from hospital – both because recuperation is
better in non-acute settings, and because hospitals need to have enough beds to treat
acutely sick patients. Residents may also be admitted to a care home from a home setting.
Some of these patients may have COVID-19, whether symptomatic or asymptomatic."

Clicked through to from this story: https://www.theguardian.com/society/2020/apr/02/uk-care-home-bosses-threaten-quit-over-return-coronavirus-patients

My reading of that is that they are sending back patients who were in hospital with non-Covid related illnesses but they aren't testing them first so they may have the virus which is subtly different from what Rick said that suggested they were sending back Covid patients who are still ill. The one person who got kicked out of hospital back to one of my wife's homes in the early stages was tested first but I think they felt she may have the virus so I don't know if that was normal practice (and the NHS and care in Wales are devolved so may be done differently). The second point is that homes are being forced to take ill patients which seems to be wholly unacceptable, especially if they haven't got the ability to isolate them and provide the necessary level of care.

Either way it certainly isn't ideal and as First Aspect says it points to the main issue being a lack of staff rather than beds. It's something I've wondered about when people have been constantly talking about additional ventilators or creating greater bed capacity, all those things are possible in relatively short timescales but you can't train up doctors or even re-train nursing staff to be able to undertake ICU roles in weeks or even months. As above the better solution would appear to be to move as many serious Covid cases as possible to the new hospitals that have been designed to be less staff intensive.

The guidance also says "If you are caring for a resident who has been discharged from hospital and has tested
positive for COVID-19, the discharging hospital will provide you with the following
information upon discharge:
• The date and results of any COVID-19 test.
• The date of the onset of symptoms.
• A care plan for discharge from isolation.
Annex D provides further information on the appropriate isolation required for care home
residents who have been discharged from hospital following treatment for COVID-19. "

Yes, I assumed that wouldn't happen until they were outside of their infectious window though and that the first two points were to provide assurance that they weren't a risk on their return. If not I would suggest that is the worst policy I've seen in relation to the crisis.