The big Coronavirus thread
Comments
-
This is a stupid post Rick and you damn well know it. We are talking about the next phase.rick_chasey said:
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 -
Me either. Just not sure it is a viable strategy here. Hence all the questions about what's the plan chaps, I guess.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.
0 -
If the second peak is higher than the first one, then something has gone very badly wrong.kingstongraham said:
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 -
I wouldn't rule it out, depending on what the plan for the next steps turns out to be.First.Aspect said:
If the second peak is higher than the first one, then something has gone very badly wrong.kingstongraham said:
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 -
Went to the supermarket this morning - why are there so many old people there?0
-
I'm not sure it's about ambition so much as realism. I could be wrong.kingstongraham said:
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.- Genesis Croix de Fer
- Dolan Tuono0 -
I raised this same issue 3 weeks ago and got told something about cyclists running red lights.kingstongraham said:Went to the supermarket this morning - why are there so many old people there?
1 -
Mindset needs to shift.pangolin said:
I'm not sure it's about ambition so much as realism. I could be wrong.kingstongraham said:
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.
Another cheery note: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/04/21/world/coronavirus-missing-deaths.html?action=click&module=Top Stories&pgtype=Homepage0 -
This proves you still don't understand this situationtailwindhome 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.
0 -
As a result around half of non-ICU beds are empty and there was concern expressed by NHS heads that people are not attending hospital when they should be (Welsh figures but I suspect similar in many parts of England). Don't you think the non-attendance due to fear would be reduced if restrictions get eased as it would give a message that it's actually not as dangerous out there as it was?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*.
*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.0 -
I would say if you think you do understand this situation, you may have a touch of Dunning Kruger.coopster_the_1st said:
This proves you still don't understand this situationtailwindhome 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.
0 -
Meh, I posted in the irony thread yesterday that my wife had to go out last night and enter a hospital simply to pick up a prescription for medication for one of the people she cares for that was lost by NHS staff during an overnight stay in hospital.rick_chasey said:
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 -
We've discussed manual tracing a bit on here and the challenges that would face. We've also discussed the limitations of tech based tracing, both GPS and Bluetooth.kingstongraham said:
Mindset needs to shift.pangolin said:
I'm not sure it's about ambition so much as realism. I could be wrong.kingstongraham said:
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.
Another cheery note: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/04/21/world/coronavirus-missing-deaths.html?action=click&module=Top Stories&pgtype=Homepage
If the response is 'be more ambitious' or 'change your mindset'... well that's not really much of a discussion any more is it.
Someone else mentioned this thread is getting a bit like groundhog day, tend to agree.- Genesis Croix de Fer
- Dolan Tuono0 -
I understand that once you are over the infection you are one less transmission option for the virus and the more people you get to this stage the better.kingstongraham said:
I would say if you think you do understand this situation, you may have a touch of Dunning Kruger.coopster_the_1st said:
This proves you still don't understand this situationtailwindhome 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 also understand that the longer the above takes the worse the outcomes are for the 99.7+% of us and the longer the old and vulnerable have to stay locked down and shielded.0 -
It's only not been exceeded because they cancelled all the non-urgent stuff and converted operating theatres to extra ICU beds. I agree we need to monitor all the figures, not just the hospital C19 deaths, to be able to answer the question 'when is this doing more harm than good?'First.Aspect said:
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).1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
No my friend, I just don't agree with you.coopster_the_1st said:
This proves you still don't understand this situationtailwindhome 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.
“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
Same when I was out running the other day, loads of elderly couples out walking and almost always side by side so that people passing them had to come into very close proximity. The one occasion I've been to a supermarket since this started they seemed to be shopping in pairs and stopping outside for a chat to their mates.kingstongraham said:Went to the supermarket this morning - why are there so many old people there?
0 -
Is there categorical proof now that once you have caught Covid19 you are antibody immune?
The amount of strains mentioned now raises slight concern for me.0 -
coopster_the_1st said:
I understand that once you are over the infection you are one less transmission option for the virus and the more people you get to this stage the better.kingstongraham said:
I would say if you think you do understand this situation, you may have a touch of Dunning Kruger.coopster_the_1st said:
This proves you still don't understand this situationtailwindhome 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 also understand that the longer the above takes the worse the outcomes are for the 99.7+% of us and the longer the old and vulnerable have to stay locked down and shielded.
Not disagreeing but there's more stories coming out about potential reinfection such as https://edition.cnn.com/2020/04/17/health/south-korea-coronavirus-retesting-positive-intl-hnk/index.html
This particular article only refers to relatively low known reinfection rates but it does seem to be a growing concern amongst the experts.
You can fool some of the people all of the time. Concentrate on those people.0 -
Because they need to eat, online shopping delivery slots are still like hen's teeth and dropping a few tins of beans around once a fortnight doesn't really do the job.kingstongraham said:Went to the supermarket this morning - why are there so many old people there?
1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
I suspect that somewhere down the line an intrepid journalist will start questioning the money 'wasted' on creating temporary hospitals. It will probably be one the journalists currently questioning why the Government didn't prepare more.Jeremy.89 said:
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 -
Pross said:
Same when I was out running the other day, loads of elderly couples out walking and almost always side by side so that people passing them had to come into very close proximity. The one occasion I've been to a supermarket since this started they seemed to be shopping in pairs and stopping outside for a chat to their mates.kingstongraham said:Went to the supermarket this morning - why are there so many old people there?
I've seen the same, and my wife commented on it after she went to the supermarket yesterday (at about 2pm, so well outside the "oldies only" opening times). I find it bizarre that we have specific supermarket opening times for the oldies, to protect them no less, and bunches of them just ignore it and roll up whenever they like with what appears to be virtually zero regard for social distancing.0 -
I had read that the strains were pretty much identical, but where useful from a point of view of tracking how it had spread around the world.focuszing723 said:Is there categorical proof now that once you have caught Covid19 you are antibody immune?
The amount of strains mentioned now raises slight concern for me.
Dare I say that whilst the excessive deaths are extremely alarming, we we'll need to see what happens in the next few months to see how much was acceleration of the inevitable across the next few months.
0 -
The mindset change is that this is the only show in town for the foreseeable future, and we aren't going back to normal.pangolin said:
We've discussed manual tracing a bit on here and the challenges that would face. We've also discussed the limitations of tech based tracing, both GPS and Bluetooth.kingstongraham said:
Mindset needs to shift.pangolin said:
I'm not sure it's about ambition so much as realism. I could be wrong.kingstongraham said:
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.
Another cheery note: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/04/21/world/coronavirus-missing-deaths.html?action=click&module=Top Stories&pgtype=Homepage
If the response is 'be more ambitious' or 'change your mindset'... well that's not really much of a discussion any more is it.
Someone else mentioned this thread is getting a bit like groundhog day, tend to agree.
Tracing's still part of the only answer to reducing the spread. Manual tracing would require a lot of people, but so what? It would help to reduce the spread. It can only work if the number of infections has got to a low level to start with and is kept down.
0 -
Yes, good point. I'm thinking it's too early to tell yet.Jeremy.89 said:
I had read that the strains were pretty much identical, but where useful from a point of view of tracking how it had spread around the world.focuszing723 said:Is there categorical proof now that once you have caught Covid19 you are antibody immune?
The amount of strains mentioned now raises slight concern for me.
Dare I say that whilst the excessive deaths are extremely alarming, we we'll need to see what happens in the next few months to see how much was acceleration of the inevitable across the next few months.0 -
Large increase in deaths for those 50-79, so not only those in the 80+ age group.0
-
From where we are now it's not viable, we haven't the test capacity, wouldn't know where to point it if we had, and the outbreaks are too widespread.First.Aspect said:
Me either. Just not sure it is a viable strategy here. Hence all the questions about what's the plan chaps, I guess.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.
So we need to use the lock down period to reverse those barriers.
“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!1 -
This is the problem with unreliable tests. One false negative from a test and confidence is lost and you get people starting to justify this as reinfection. This then gets magnified by the media and now there is doubt in all minds. False negatives do huge amounts of damage.Longshot said:coopster_the_1st said:
I understand that once you are over the infection you are one less transmission option for the virus and the more people you get to this stage the better.kingstongraham said:
I would say if you think you do understand this situation, you may have a touch of Dunning Kruger.coopster_the_1st said:
This proves you still don't understand this situationtailwindhome 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 also understand that the longer the above takes the worse the outcomes are for the 99.7+% of us and the longer the old and vulnerable have to stay locked down and shielded.
Not disagreeing but there's more stories coming out about potential reinfection such as https://edition.cnn.com/2020/04/17/health/south-korea-coronavirus-retesting-positive-intl-hnk/index.html
This particular article only refers to relatively low known reinfection rates but it does seem to be a growing concern amongst the experts.
I have read a situation where as person has all the C19 symptoms (including chest x-ray) but has tested negative for a second time, the second test being some 14 days later while the person was still fighting the disease.
There is 100% confidence being applied to the 'has-it' test. With the number of tests taking place even a 0.1% false negative rate(as simple as a rushed swabbing) creates huge issues as you have highlighted.0 -
Why would you care?coopster_the_1st said:
This is the problem with unreliable tests. One false negative from a test and confidence is lost and you get people starting to justify this as reinfection. This then gets magnified by the media and now there is doubt in all minds. False negatives do huge amounts of damage.Longshot said:coopster_the_1st said:
I understand that once you are over the infection you are one less transmission option for the virus and the more people you get to this stage the better.kingstongraham said:
I would say if you think you do understand this situation, you may have a touch of Dunning Kruger.coopster_the_1st said:
This proves you still don't understand this situationtailwindhome 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 also understand that the longer the above takes the worse the outcomes are for the 99.7+% of us and the longer the old and vulnerable have to stay locked down and shielded.
Not disagreeing but there's more stories coming out about potential reinfection such as https://edition.cnn.com/2020/04/17/health/south-korea-coronavirus-retesting-positive-intl-hnk/index.html
This particular article only refers to relatively low known reinfection rates but it does seem to be a growing concern amongst the experts.
I have read a situation where as person has all the C19 symptoms (including chest x-ray) but has tested negative for a second time, the second test being some 14 days later while the person was still fighting the disease.
There is 100% confidence being applied to the 'has-it' test. With the number of tests taking place even a 0.1% false negative rate(as simple as a rushed swabbing) creates huge issues as you have highlighted.0 -
Is it time for a new discussion? Controlled infection.0
