The big Coronavirus thread
Comments
-
So, what's the plan?
“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
Has there been nuanced discussion about testing?First.Aspect said:engage with any nuanced discussion about testing
“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
In the upside down world we live in, that's actually slightly (only slightly) reassuring.
The COVID19 number is 78% of the deaths above the average, which means the under reporting has reduced between 3rd and 10th April. The terrible numbers are probably not even worse. That's the only reassuring bit.
Deaths up 76% on what would be expected, and in London, up 164% on the average week for Jan/Feb this year. Which is horrific. Wales and the SW didn't get much worse between 3rd and 10th April. Everywhere else did. And deaths of those under 25 are down.
0 -
Yeah sure so explain it to the thick then.First.Aspect said:
I think the point is trying to balance policy so that corona victims aren't the only people in hospitals Rick.rick_chasey said:
I totally get this but I don't understand the logic that lifting lockdown will somehow stop this.TheBigBean said:https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-52361519
The Office for National Statistics data showed there were 18,500 fatalities in the week up to 10 April - around 10,000 deaths a week would be expected.
More than 6,200 were linked to coronavirus, a sixth of which were outside of hospital.
But deaths from other causes also increased, suggesting the lockdown may be having an indirect impact on health.
If hospitals are full of corona victims how are they gonna support other people?
The reason people are branding you extreme is because you are. You simply won't engage with any nuanced discussion about testing, for example. You are also steadfastly ignoring comments/questions and moving on to the next new one you feel you can actually rebut.
I see it like this, so tell me where I am wrong.
Lifting lockdown = more infections = more people with corona needing care, right?
The lockdown doesn't forbid people to get healthcare.
Instead, hopsitals that are stretched are saying they can't cover certain healthcare provisions anymore. That's not because of lockdown.
People are also avoiding hopsitals because they don't wanna be a 'burden' or don't wanna contract corona, so paramedics are seeing an increase in 'death on arrival' type jobs.
So presumably hospitals will be more stretched with a lifting of the lockdown, so will have even less bandwidth to deal with other illnesses.
Furthermore, an increase in infections makes it more likely people with existing illnesses who need those to be treated will get corona and be seriously ill.
So, why,does lifting lockdown improve the situation for other illnesses?0 -
I see what you mean - if there aren't antibody tests, or if those who were aymptomatic don't generate antibodies, would you learn anything?rjsterry said:
If as has been suggested there are a large number of asymptomatic infectious carriers then I'm not sure it follows that a sample of 1000 people in London who thought they might have had it would tell you how many really had had it. That would just tell you the symptomatic prevalence. It's also a big assumption and almost certainly wrong that the disease is evenly distributed throughout the country so sampling would need to be done in a wide variety of places to build up a 'heat map'.First.Aspect said:https://www.msn.com/en-gb/health/medical/damage-done-by-lockdown-could-outweigh-that-of-coronavirus-warns-professor/ar-BB12UZvV?ocid=spartanntp
This issue is like nothing else. I honestly can't judge now whether this is an outlier opinion or a serious and viable academic analysis. The back projection of 3 weeks makes sense to me, and does the random testing approach.
Certainly one of the growing number of voices raising concerns about the collateral death toll. I think as those emerge they will be quite shocking.
Thoughts?
Otherwise I agree that we are just guessing where to balance the harms of lockdown/not-lockdown at the moment. Even the government's 5 tests seem to recognise this.
Don't know.
The government's five tests strike me as a bit of a panic - I said last week that they've got 3 weeks to get their act together on whatever testing they need to do to pass their tests. Direction of travel does seem to be that we will be in lockdown longer than necessary because they will still be in a flap.0 -
Funny.tailwindhome said:
Has there been nuanced discussion about testing?First.Aspect said:engage with any nuanced discussion about testing
0 -
All I've seen is 'you can't trace everyone' and 'it's not a silver bullet'First.Aspect said:
Funny.tailwindhome said:
Has there been nuanced discussion about testing?First.Aspect said:engage with any nuanced discussion about testing
“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0
-
All the experts (we've had enough of them) who are concerned that people are currently dissuaded from doing all of the things they are free to do, and who are concerned that this will lead to increased death rates, they are all wrong are they?rick_chasey said:
Yeah sure so explain it to the thick then.First.Aspect said:
I think the point is trying to balance policy so that corona victims aren't the only people in hospitals Rick.rick_chasey said:
I totally get this but I don't understand the logic that lifting lockdown will somehow stop this.TheBigBean said:https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-52361519
The Office for National Statistics data showed there were 18,500 fatalities in the week up to 10 April - around 10,000 deaths a week would be expected.
More than 6,200 were linked to coronavirus, a sixth of which were outside of hospital.
But deaths from other causes also increased, suggesting the lockdown may be having an indirect impact on health.
If hospitals are full of corona victims how are they gonna support other people?
The reason people are branding you extreme is because you are. You simply won't engage with any nuanced discussion about testing, for example. You are also steadfastly ignoring comments/questions and moving on to the next new one you feel you can actually rebut.
I see it like this, so tell me where I am wrong.
Lifting lockdown = more infections = more people with corona needing care, right?
The lockdown doesn't forbid people to get healthcare.
Instead, hopsitals that are stretched are saying they can't cover certain healthcare provisions anymore. That's not because of lockdown.
People are also avoiding hopsitals because they don't wanna be a 'burden' or don't wanna contract corona, so paramedics are seeing an increase in 'death on arrival' type jobs.
So presumably hospitals will be more stretched with a lifting of the lockdown, so will have even less bandwidth to deal with other illnesses.
Furthermore, an increase in infections makes it more likely people with existing illnesses who need those to be treated will get corona and be seriously ill.
So, why,does lifting lockdown improve the situation for other illnesses?
You do realise that a lot of "non-urgent" NHS services are actually closed, right? Scotland isn't doing routine cancer screening right now. Also I am picking up reports of things like sepsis on the rise, people not reporting heart attacks and strokes...
Latest data seem to show that currently increased death rates are about 2:1 Covid-related. But as the Covid death rate drops, that will cross over.
Only if you refuse to believe the basic concept that lockdown is causing other types of deaths to increase, thereby ignoring the "experts", does it follow that lifting lockdown at that stage is a bad idea.
Personally, I feel that that fixates on one thing and is an extreme position.0 -
What would Brian Boitano do?tailwindhome said:So, what's the plan?
0 -
Argh, the hospitals are stopping non-urgent stuff *BECAUSE OF THE STRAIN OF CORONA ON THE HEALTHCARE SYSTEM*.
*MORE CORONA CASES WILL MEAN EVEN MORE STRAIN ON HEALTHCARE*.
*PEOPLE AREN'T REPORTING THINGS BECAUSE THEY DON'T WANT TO BE A BURDEN OR ARE WORRIED ABOUT GETTING CORONA*
less corona cases = more hospital ability to handle other illnesses.1 -
“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
Looks bad.tailwindhome said:Another view, again from @AlistairHaimes
0 -
No need to get shouty, you will damage your keyboard and that's a work computer you are using.rick_chasey said:Argh, the hospitals are stopping non-urgent stuff *BECAUSE OF THE STRAIN OF CORONA ON THE HEALTHCARE SYSTEM*.
*MORE CORONA CASES WILL MEAN EVEN MORE STRAIN ON HEALTHCARE*.
We aren't at capacity, and staff at A&E and other services are twiddling their thumbs. So the policy has to be to inflict the least overall damage while, yes, avoiding overloading the care system with corona patients. That isn't achieved by locking down in perpetuity though. Nor is it achieved by going back to normal.
I think someone said that if you have a straightforward answer to a complicated question, you haven't understood.0 -
I'm am not comeing up with an answer. I am making the point that the apparent no lockdown = fewer excess non-corona deaths is a misnomer, for reasons above.First.Aspect said:
No need to get shouty, you will damage your keyboard and that's a work computer you are using.rick_chasey said:Argh, the hospitals are stopping non-urgent stuff *BECAUSE OF THE STRAIN OF CORONA ON THE HEALTHCARE SYSTEM*.
*MORE CORONA CASES WILL MEAN EVEN MORE STRAIN ON HEALTHCARE*.
We aren't at capacity, and staff at A&E and other services are twiddling their thumbs. So the policy has to be to inflict the least overall damage while, yes, avoiding overloading the care system with corona patients. That isn't achieved by locking down in perpetuity though. Nor is it achieved by going back to normal.
I think someone said that if you have a straightforward answer to a complicated question, you haven't understood.
To be crystal clear, people are avoiding hospital because of the virus, not because of lockdown.
The hospitals have stopped all non-essential treatment because they want to minimise the risk of people going into hospital either with corona or getting it while they are there.
I have family members who are skipping non-essential examinations of various organs because they are over 70 and want to avoid getting corona. That's nada to do with the lockdown as the drs have said if they want to come in they can.
0 -
Jeremy.89 said:
Start only treating corona patients in the pop up hospitals?kingstongraham said:
Even if we partially open up and go for herd immunity as quickly as possible without overwhelming the hospitals (however that could be done) - How do we protect the vulnerable? How do we get cancer patients their treatment restarted safely?rick_chasey said:
Hospitals would be overwhelmed in short order.kingstongraham said:Say we opened up again and went for herd immunity as quickly as possible. How do we protect the vulnerable? How do we get cancer patients their treatment restarted safely?
Is Jeremy's comment too positive to comment on?0 -
Non-urgent treatment hasn't been cancelled because of the lockdown: it's because the hospitals don't have the capacity to do both that and treat the additional Covid-19 patients. There is a a secondary issue of lots of people coming in and out of a building where you are trying to control an infectious disease. As RC pointed out, this gets worse if infection rates in the general population go up, not better.First.Aspect said:
All the experts (we've had enough of them) who are concerned that people are currently dissuaded from doing all of the things they are free to do, and who are concerned that this will lead to increased death rates, they are all wrong are they?rick_chasey said:
Yeah sure so explain it to the thick then.First.Aspect said:
I think the point is trying to balance policy so that corona victims aren't the only people in hospitals Rick.rick_chasey said:
I totally get this but I don't understand the logic that lifting lockdown will somehow stop this.TheBigBean said:https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-52361519
The Office for National Statistics data showed there were 18,500 fatalities in the week up to 10 April - around 10,000 deaths a week would be expected.
More than 6,200 were linked to coronavirus, a sixth of which were outside of hospital.
But deaths from other causes also increased, suggesting the lockdown may be having an indirect impact on health.
If hospitals are full of corona victims how are they gonna support other people?
The reason people are branding you extreme is because you are. You simply won't engage with any nuanced discussion about testing, for example. You are also steadfastly ignoring comments/questions and moving on to the next new one you feel you can actually rebut.
I see it like this, so tell me where I am wrong.
Lifting lockdown = more infections = more people with corona needing care, right?
The lockdown doesn't forbid people to get healthcare.
Instead, hopsitals that are stretched are saying they can't cover certain healthcare provisions anymore. That's not because of lockdown.
People are also avoiding hopsitals because they don't wanna be a 'burden' or don't wanna contract corona, so paramedics are seeing an increase in 'death on arrival' type jobs.
So presumably hospitals will be more stretched with a lifting of the lockdown, so will have even less bandwidth to deal with other illnesses.
Furthermore, an increase in infections makes it more likely people with existing illnesses who need those to be treated will get corona and be seriously ill.
So, why,does lifting lockdown improve the situation for other illnesses?
You do realise that a lot of "non-urgent" NHS services are actually closed, right? Scotland isn't doing routine cancer screening right now. Also I am picking up reports of things like sepsis on the rise, people not reporting heart attacks and strokes...
Latest data seem to show that currently increased death rates are about 2:1 Covid-related. But as the Covid death rate drops, that will cross over.
Only if you refuse to believe the basic concept that lockdown is causing other types of deaths to increase, thereby ignoring the "experts", does it follow that lifting lockdown at that stage is a bad idea.
Personally, I feel that that fixates on one thing and is an extreme position.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Need a lot more pop up hospitals. If you've been picked up in an ambulance and need taking to hospital with coronavirus in Kingston you'd currently need to get carted across London to Excel. If you are in hospital for something unrelated and it turns out you have the virus, you'd need to be moved.focuszing723 said:Jeremy.89 said:
Start only treating corona patients in the pop up hospitals?kingstongraham said:
Even if we partially open up and go for herd immunity as quickly as possible without overwhelming the hospitals (however that could be done) - How do we protect the vulnerable? How do we get cancer patients their treatment restarted safely?rick_chasey said:
Hospitals would be overwhelmed in short order.kingstongraham said:Say we opened up again and went for herd immunity as quickly as possible. How do we protect the vulnerable? How do we get cancer patients their treatment restarted safely?
Is Jeremy's comment too positive to comment on?
Not saying it's outside the bounds of possibility, but needs a parallel system of hospitals and staff.0 -
Once you accept the premise, your logic is sound. The experts disagree with you on the premise, though, because it does't take normal human behaviour into account.rick_chasey said:
I'm am not comeing up with an answer. I am making the point that the apparent no lockdown = fewer excess non-corona deaths is a misnomer, for reasons above.First.Aspect said:
No need to get shouty, you will damage your keyboard and that's a work computer you are using.rick_chasey said:Argh, the hospitals are stopping non-urgent stuff *BECAUSE OF THE STRAIN OF CORONA ON THE HEALTHCARE SYSTEM*.
*MORE CORONA CASES WILL MEAN EVEN MORE STRAIN ON HEALTHCARE*.
We aren't at capacity, and staff at A&E and other services are twiddling their thumbs. So the policy has to be to inflict the least overall damage while, yes, avoiding overloading the care system with corona patients. That isn't achieved by locking down in perpetuity though. Nor is it achieved by going back to normal.
I think someone said that if you have a straightforward answer to a complicated question, you haven't understood.
To be crystal clear, people are avoiding hospital because of the virus, not because of lockdown.
The hospitals have stopped all non-essential treatment because they want to minimise the risk of people going into hospital either with corona or getting it while they are there.
I have family members who are skipping non-essential examinations of various organs because they are over 70 and want to avoid getting corona. That's nada to do with the lockdown as the drs have said if they want to come in they can.
Regardless of the actual risk, the perceived risk must change.0 -
I said the same thing a few pages ago. Its the only reason I can think of why they have made as many of the nightingale hospitals, even though the main hospitals are within capacity.focuszing723 said:Jeremy.89 said:
Start only treating corona patients in the pop up hospitals?kingstongraham said:
Even if we partially open up and go for herd immunity as quickly as possible without overwhelming the hospitals (however that could be done) - How do we protect the vulnerable? How do we get cancer patients their treatment restarted safely?rick_chasey said:
Hospitals would be overwhelmed in short order.kingstongraham said:Say we opened up again and went for herd immunity as quickly as possible. How do we protect the vulnerable? How do we get cancer patients their treatment restarted safely?
Is Jeremy's comment too positive to comment on?0 -
I'm not sure the first issue is completely true. My GP only does telephone appointments. I have had a telephone out patient appointment. These people are still working just not face to face due to the risk.rjsterry said:
Non-urgent treatment hasn't been cancelled because of the lockdown: it's because the hospitals don't have the capacity to do both that and treat the additional Covid-19 patients. There is a a secondary issue of lots of people coming in and out of a building where you are trying to control an infectious disease. As RC pointed out, this gets worse if infection rates in the general population go up, not better.First.Aspect said:
All the experts (we've had enough of them) who are concerned that people are currently dissuaded from doing all of the things they are free to do, and who are concerned that this will lead to increased death rates, they are all wrong are they?rick_chasey said:
Yeah sure so explain it to the thick then.First.Aspect said:
I think the point is trying to balance policy so that corona victims aren't the only people in hospitals Rick.rick_chasey said:
I totally get this but I don't understand the logic that lifting lockdown will somehow stop this.TheBigBean said:https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-52361519
The Office for National Statistics data showed there were 18,500 fatalities in the week up to 10 April - around 10,000 deaths a week would be expected.
More than 6,200 were linked to coronavirus, a sixth of which were outside of hospital.
But deaths from other causes also increased, suggesting the lockdown may be having an indirect impact on health.
If hospitals are full of corona victims how are they gonna support other people?
The reason people are branding you extreme is because you are. You simply won't engage with any nuanced discussion about testing, for example. You are also steadfastly ignoring comments/questions and moving on to the next new one you feel you can actually rebut.
I see it like this, so tell me where I am wrong.
Lifting lockdown = more infections = more people with corona needing care, right?
The lockdown doesn't forbid people to get healthcare.
Instead, hopsitals that are stretched are saying they can't cover certain healthcare provisions anymore. That's not because of lockdown.
People are also avoiding hopsitals because they don't wanna be a 'burden' or don't wanna contract corona, so paramedics are seeing an increase in 'death on arrival' type jobs.
So presumably hospitals will be more stretched with a lifting of the lockdown, so will have even less bandwidth to deal with other illnesses.
Furthermore, an increase in infections makes it more likely people with existing illnesses who need those to be treated will get corona and be seriously ill.
So, why,does lifting lockdown improve the situation for other illnesses?
You do realise that a lot of "non-urgent" NHS services are actually closed, right? Scotland isn't doing routine cancer screening right now. Also I am picking up reports of things like sepsis on the rise, people not reporting heart attacks and strokes...
Latest data seem to show that currently increased death rates are about 2:1 Covid-related. But as the Covid death rate drops, that will cross over.
Only if you refuse to believe the basic concept that lockdown is causing other types of deaths to increase, thereby ignoring the "experts", does it follow that lifting lockdown at that stage is a bad idea.
Personally, I feel that that fixates on one thing and is an extreme position.
0 -
I agree, except that again, you base your view on capacity, which has not been exceeded. Re your other point. see previous comment about separation of covid and non covid.rjsterry said:
Non-urgent treatment hasn't been cancelled because of the lockdown: it's because the hospitals don't have the capacity to do both that and treat the additional Covid-19 patients. There is a a secondary issue of lots of people coming in and out of a building where you are trying to control an infectious disease. As RC pointed out, this gets worse if infection rates in the general population go up, not better.First.Aspect said:
All the experts (we've had enough of them) who are concerned that people are currently dissuaded from doing all of the things they are free to do, and who are concerned that this will lead to increased death rates, they are all wrong are they?rick_chasey said:
Yeah sure so explain it to the thick then.First.Aspect said:
I think the point is trying to balance policy so that corona victims aren't the only people in hospitals Rick.rick_chasey said:
I totally get this but I don't understand the logic that lifting lockdown will somehow stop this.TheBigBean said:https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-52361519
The Office for National Statistics data showed there were 18,500 fatalities in the week up to 10 April - around 10,000 deaths a week would be expected.
More than 6,200 were linked to coronavirus, a sixth of which were outside of hospital.
But deaths from other causes also increased, suggesting the lockdown may be having an indirect impact on health.
If hospitals are full of corona victims how are they gonna support other people?
The reason people are branding you extreme is because you are. You simply won't engage with any nuanced discussion about testing, for example. You are also steadfastly ignoring comments/questions and moving on to the next new one you feel you can actually rebut.
I see it like this, so tell me where I am wrong.
Lifting lockdown = more infections = more people with corona needing care, right?
The lockdown doesn't forbid people to get healthcare.
Instead, hopsitals that are stretched are saying they can't cover certain healthcare provisions anymore. That's not because of lockdown.
People are also avoiding hopsitals because they don't wanna be a 'burden' or don't wanna contract corona, so paramedics are seeing an increase in 'death on arrival' type jobs.
So presumably hospitals will be more stretched with a lifting of the lockdown, so will have even less bandwidth to deal with other illnesses.
Furthermore, an increase in infections makes it more likely people with existing illnesses who need those to be treated will get corona and be seriously ill.
So, why,does lifting lockdown improve the situation for other illnesses?
You do realise that a lot of "non-urgent" NHS services are actually closed, right? Scotland isn't doing routine cancer screening right now. Also I am picking up reports of things like sepsis on the rise, people not reporting heart attacks and strokes...
Latest data seem to show that currently increased death rates are about 2:1 Covid-related. But as the Covid death rate drops, that will cross over.
Only if you refuse to believe the basic concept that lockdown is causing other types of deaths to increase, thereby ignoring the "experts", does it follow that lifting lockdown at that stage is a bad idea.
Personally, I feel that that fixates on one thing and is an extreme position.
I think we agree on the need for a lockdown in the first place, but the decision on when and how to start to lift it isn't (or shouldn't be) just based on one cause of death figure that is a consequence of the lockdown policy.
Don't get me wrong, I don't have a solution and I wouldn't be one of those people in pickups in Michigan protesting on the streets.
I just detest binary argumentation (not a dig at you).
0 -
Yes fair point.First.Aspect said:
I said the same thing a few pages ago. Its the only reason I can think of why they have made as many of the nightingale hospitals, even though the main hospitals are within capacity.focuszing723 said:Jeremy.89 said:
Start only treating corona patients in the pop up hospitals?kingstongraham said:
Even if we partially open up and go for herd immunity as quickly as possible without overwhelming the hospitals (however that could be done) - How do we protect the vulnerable? How do we get cancer patients their treatment restarted safely?rick_chasey said:
Hospitals would be overwhelmed in short order.kingstongraham said:Say we opened up again and went for herd immunity as quickly as possible. How do we protect the vulnerable? How do we get cancer patients their treatment restarted safely?
Is Jeremy's comment too positive to comment on?0 -
Anything that reduces the risk of transmission has to be a positive thing.First.Aspect said:
I said the same thing a few pages ago. Its the only reason I can think of why they have made as many of the nightingale hospitals, even though the main hospitals are within capacity.focuszing723 said:Jeremy.89 said:
Start only treating corona patients in the pop up hospitals?kingstongraham said:
Even if we partially open up and go for herd immunity as quickly as possible without overwhelming the hospitals (however that could be done) - How do we protect the vulnerable? How do we get cancer patients their treatment restarted safely?rick_chasey said:
Hospitals would be overwhelmed in short order.kingstongraham said:Say we opened up again and went for herd immunity as quickly as possible. How do we protect the vulnerable? How do we get cancer patients their treatment restarted safely?
Is Jeremy's comment too positive to comment on?
And it is really good that they are getting ready for the next potential peak.0 -
So contrary to the "Staying home saves the NHS and saves lives" vibe the gov't is pushing, right?First.Aspect said:
Once you accept the premise, your logic is sound. The experts disagree with you on the premise, though, because it does't take normal human behaviour into account.rick_chasey said:
I'm am not comeing up with an answer. I am making the point that the apparent no lockdown = fewer excess non-corona deaths is a misnomer, for reasons above.First.Aspect said:
No need to get shouty, you will damage your keyboard and that's a work computer you are using.rick_chasey said:Argh, the hospitals are stopping non-urgent stuff *BECAUSE OF THE STRAIN OF CORONA ON THE HEALTHCARE SYSTEM*.
*MORE CORONA CASES WILL MEAN EVEN MORE STRAIN ON HEALTHCARE*.
We aren't at capacity, and staff at A&E and other services are twiddling their thumbs. So the policy has to be to inflict the least overall damage while, yes, avoiding overloading the care system with corona patients. That isn't achieved by locking down in perpetuity though. Nor is it achieved by going back to normal.
I think someone said that if you have a straightforward answer to a complicated question, you haven't understood.
To be crystal clear, people are avoiding hospital because of the virus, not because of lockdown.
The hospitals have stopped all non-essential treatment because they want to minimise the risk of people going into hospital either with corona or getting it while they are there.
I have family members who are skipping non-essential examinations of various organs because they are over 70 and want to avoid getting corona. That's nada to do with the lockdown as the drs have said if they want to come in they can.
Regardless of the actual risk, the perceived risk must change.
0 -
One good thing though at-least the roads couldn't be quieter. Yes it would need some planning, but I think it's a great idea to keep infection contained.kingstongraham said:
Need a lot more pop up hospitals. If you've been picked up in an ambulance and need taking to hospital with coronavirus in Kingston you'd currently need to get carted across London to Excel. If you are in hospital for something unrelated and it turns out you have the virus, you'd need to be moved.focuszing723 said:Jeremy.89 said:
Start only treating corona patients in the pop up hospitals?kingstongraham said:
Even if we partially open up and go for herd immunity as quickly as possible without overwhelming the hospitals (however that could be done) - How do we protect the vulnerable? How do we get cancer patients their treatment restarted safely?rick_chasey said:
Hospitals would be overwhelmed in short order.kingstongraham said:Say we opened up again and went for herd immunity as quickly as possible. How do we protect the vulnerable? How do we get cancer patients their treatment restarted safely?
Is Jeremy's comment too positive to comment on?
Not saying it's outside the bounds of possibility, but needs a parallel system of hospitals and staff.0 -
Three weeks ago there was a fair amount of uncertainty. I'd be happy to assume the nightingale hospitals were a plan for the worst hope for the best type thing. Rather than a slightly devious plan to introduce a ramping up of the infection rate.First.Aspect said:
I said the same thing a few pages ago. Its the only reason I can think of why they have made as many of the nightingale hospitals, even though the main hospitals are within capacity.focuszing723 said:Jeremy.89 said:
Start only treating corona patients in the pop up hospitals?kingstongraham said:
Even if we partially open up and go for herd immunity as quickly as possible without overwhelming the hospitals (however that could be done) - How do we protect the vulnerable? How do we get cancer patients their treatment restarted safely?rick_chasey said:
Hospitals would be overwhelmed in short order.kingstongraham said:Say we opened up again and went for herd immunity as quickly as possible. How do we protect the vulnerable? How do we get cancer patients their treatment restarted safely?
Is Jeremy's comment too positive to comment on?
0 -
Yet to hear a plan for reducing the spread of the infection after a lock down is lifted that doesn't involve testing and tracing.
“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
Do you think tracing is realistic? Infection rates would have to be very low.tailwindhome said:Yet to hear a plan for reducing the spread of the infection after a lock down is lifted that doesn't involve testing and tracing.
I'm all in favour of people doing whatever sampling rate of testing is deemed necessary to extrapolate the numbers across the country and be ready to take action if the numbers are heading the wrong way (whatever that rate may be) but can't see them starting tracing.- Genesis Croix de Fer
- Dolan Tuono0 -
I can't either, because they aren't ambitious enough.pangolin said:
Do you think tracing is realistic? Infection rates would have to be very low.tailwindhome said:Yet to hear a plan for reducing the spread of the infection after a lock down is lifted that doesn't involve testing and tracing.
I'm all in favour of people doing whatever sampling rate of testing is deemed necessary to extrapolate the numbers across the country and be ready to take action if the numbers are heading the wrong way (whatever that rate may be) but can't see them starting tracing.0
