Main Coronavirus / Covid-19 Discussion Thread

[dazzer6666]

Well I can't believe that's ethically acceptable, or guidance from the government, so my gut feeling is that the management you're referring to should be questioned.

It is being questioned.....by the nurses....they are furious.

 

[Hugo Rune]

It seems an extremely risky game the UK are playing.

I think it’s too late for the ‘Farage’ approach now but being an Island nation does give you an advantage. Will the following method be more successful than ours:

“New Zealand imposes 14-day quarantine on anyone entering the country from Sunday”

 

[Notters]

Can I ask a question which may have been answered already. Italy's healthcare system was overwhelmed very quickly, they have more intensive care beds than us (albeit with an older population and other societal differences), surely we'd get to breaking point just as quickly as them and then we have all the associated problems that [MENTION=6886]Bozza[/MENTION] and others have already outlined (risk to non covid-19 patients who need emergency surgery for example).

It seems an extremely risky game the UK are playing.

I think that's going to happen regardless. But we have had a few weeks to prepare and cancel non urgent surgeries etc

 

[pb21]

I think the approach outlined in the twitter thread makes sense; obviously a very fine balance though.

What I don't get though is why the Government now, at this moment, aren't doing more to safeguard at risk groups, while the low risk groups carry on, get and then become immune to the virus.

It seems that it is the at risk groups who will place the greatest strain on hospitals and the NHS.

 

[Creaky]

I think the approach outlined in the twitter thread makes sense; obviously a very fine balance though.

What I don't get though is why the Government now, at this moment, aren't doing more to safeguard at risk groups, while the low risk groups carry on, get and then become immune to the virus.

It seems that it is the at risk groups who will place the greatest strain on hospitals and the NHS.

What can they do?

Sure, those in homes, hospitals etc. can be “protected” by, for example, reducing contacts but what about the vast majority of “at risk” individuals who are just trying to live their life as normally as possible.

 

[Stat Brother]

Yes, exactly. I fear this will be a marathon not the sprint most of us assumed it would be.

Based on all my own scientific research I still firmly believe this is a sprint and in the whole grand scheme of things not even an important one.


I also believe it's a sprint relay.

We have now put a bazillion pound coin into the Whack-a-Mole game and from now on humanity will have to #**** one of these, ever increasingly virulent virus', every couple of years.


Oh how we'll look back and laugh at panic buying toilet roll, when the 'and finally' item on the news is:-

'DesperadosVirus 83 - sponsored by MacCathy and Stone - has been linked to 1,945 worldwide deaths, as yet there is no known cure but scientist say they are working hard, in the meantime you all know how to stay safe'.





Oh and here's a Camberwick Green/Starsky & Hutch mash up (as I think the kidz call it)

[tweet]1238815259445657603[/tweet]

 

[Eeyore]

I think the approach outlined in the twitter thread makes sense; obviously a very fine balance though.

What I don't get though is why the Government now, at this moment, aren't doing more to safeguard at risk groups, while the low risk groups carry on, get and then become immune to the virus.

It seems that it is the at risk groups who will place the greatest strain on hospitals and the NHS.

That's my question. The advisers are saying that it may well return 'year on year' so most healthier folk need to get it to build up immunity.

It explains the general policy as is running at present. Carry on, it's coming anyway. But some, a small number of us, won't survive.I'd expect a new strategy for folk of a certain age and disposition soon.

The virus numbers seem to be moving to ascent now with cases doubling each day. A lot of us will get ill it seems. But older folk, it's a worry.

 

[Notters]

What can they do?

Sure, those in homes, hospitals etc. can be “protected” by, for example, reducing contacts but what about the vast majority of “at risk” individuals who are just trying to live their life as normally as possible.

Stopping all the over 80s going to Morrisons on Saturday morning might help.

 

[dazzer6666]

Have you been to an NHS hospital lately?

There is no spare capacity for this virus

Exactly- hence why anyone that can be discharged (almost regardless of the sense of doing so under normal circumstances) is being discharged. Essentially, the old/frail occupying hospital beds are being cleared out to make space to treat serious Corona cases amongst the otherwise healthy.

 

[Eeyore]

Stopping all the over 80s going to Morrisons on Saturday morning might help.

There needs to be an active nationwide strategy here. If things continue as they are then all of us need to be involved.

The one good thing that may come out is a new social conscience. We'll know who are invisible neighbours are and we'll try to help.

 

[Tom Hark Preston Park]

Based on all my own scientific research I still firmly believe this is a sprint and in the whole grand scheme of things not even an important one.


I also believe it's a sprint relay.

We have now put a bazillion pound coin into the Whack-a-Mole game and from now on humanity will have to #**** one of these, ever increasingly virulent virus', every couple of years.


Oh how we'll look back and laugh at panic buying toilet roll, when the 'and finally' item on the news is:-

'DesperadosVirus 83 - sponsored by MacCathy and Stone - has been linked to 1,945 worldwide deaths, as yet there is no known cure but scientist say they are working hard, in the meantime you all know how to stay safe'.

Mate, after your near-miraculous escape from a crazed NSC lynch mob t'other day, saved only by mods locking THAT thread, thought you might have the humility to lie low for a couple of days before posting yet more gibberish. But heigh-ho, each to their own

 

[pb21]

What can they do?

Sure, those in homes, hospitals etc. can be “protected” by, for example, reducing contacts but what about the vast majority of “at risk” individuals who are just trying to live their life as normally as possible.

At the very least the Government could issue a list of recommendations that they strongly recommend are adhered to.

For example if you are in an at risk group don't go out unless you really have to.

 

[Stat Brother]

Mate, after your near-miraculous escape from a crazed NSC lynch mob t'other day, saved only by mods locking THAT thread, thought you might have the humility to lie low for a couple of days before posting yet more gibberish. But heigh-ho, each to their own

'We' have been dosing ourselves up on antibiotics.
Pumping god knows what into our food, esp meat.
Bulldozing great swathes of the planets ecosystem.
Belching out millions of tonnes of harmful chemicals.
All the while living virtually on top of each other.
While making the planet tiny through transportation

I don't believe it's any surprise 'we' are now very susceptible to this virus and I'd be amazed if anyone thinks this a one off.


Although I do accept my coping mechanism (not funny) comedy isn't to everybody's taste, I will endeavor to tone it down a bit.

 

[studio150]

Spain following Italy and going into complete lockdown

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Home to what?. Elderly care needs to be addressed along with mental health as most end up in the wrong institutions which is bad for them.

Care homes refuse to take them. My mother was in the Sussex County last summer following a fall. The care home where she had the fall refused to take her back because she wasn't mobile.
Three other care homes refused to take her and eventually she was found a place in Hailsham. She is nearly 92, has mobility problems and dementia, so needed a nursing home.

 

[Notters]

There needs to be an active nationwide strategy here. If things continue as they are then all of us need to be involved.

The one good thing that may come out is a new social conscience. We'll know who are invisible neighbours are and we'll try to help.

Well said. Hopefully some good can come from all this.

 

[WATFORD zero]

It’s an interesting approach and sounds quite plausible as to what we might try to be doing. However, what’s not entirely clear is exactly who is at greater risk and should therefore be bunkering down for their own safety.

I get that it’s people over, say, the age of 65 and those with underlying health conditions - but which ones. I’m a physically fit and active 34 year old bloke, normal BMI. So no problem right? But then I do have a congenital aortic heart valve abnormality which means that a small amount of blood leaks backward on each bear. It means a little more load for my heart, but isn’t something I notice day-to-day - it’s just something that might require treatment in my older years. Is it a Coronavirus risk though, I don’t know for sure.

I’m working on the assumption I’m low risk like anyone else my age, but I’m conscious that if I’ve got that wrong the repercussions could be big for me and my family. I’m sure there are many examples out there like this. How many asthmatics do you know who are generally incredibly fit and healthy? You could probably include many athletes in that.

I get this is something we’re still learning about medically and scientifically, but some official guidance would be helpful to many people.

I am saying this with no medical knowledge whatsoever, but as someone just about to turn 60 who keeps reasonable fit (playing football twice a week). I wouldn't see you or myself, as being in the 'vulnerable' categories.

I have had (and still have) a number of family, friends and acquaintances who are all 65,75 and 80+ who are quite frail and have underlying health issues. These are the people who I would consider to be 'high risk'.

My father died last summer aged 90. For at least 5 years previous, he was type 1 diabetic, with heart problems which meant that he would be exhausted by any type of exertion (even a fairly short walk). The only reason he lasted as long as he did was due to scientific developments of the last 20 years. At any time, in that last five years I believe Flu, a heavy cold or any other significant infection would have done for him. (I'm not even sure he would have survived a strong gust of wind).

As I mentioned in an earlier post, due to medical breakthroughs over the last few years there are now a large number of people in that category, and I believe these are the people who are at very high risk from Coronavirus.

Having said that, one of my closest friends in the best of health, got a brain tumour, got given 6 months and died 6 months later aged 50. You never know what's around the corner but, in your situation, I wouldn't be unduly worried

 

[Tom Hark Preston Park]

Hugely encouraging to see politicians everywhere - apart from here obviously - taking the hard decisions. Advising pensioners over 70 not to go on cruises and advising schoolkids not to go on school trips overseas is like taking a water pistol to a bushfire. Lucky for us, our sporting and cultural bodies are showing far more in the way of leadership than our government, who are now just reduced to playing catch-up. Pathetic beyond words

 

[Guinness Boy]

Exactly- hence why anyone that can be discharged (almost regardless of the sense of doing so under normal circumstances) is being discharged. Essentially, the old/frail occupying hospital beds are being cleared out to make space to treat serious Corona cases amongst the otherwise healthy.

The thing is, if what you say is correct (and I'm sure it is) they are essentially clearing out "bed blockers" who are elderly with underlying health conditions. Exactly the same people are then the most likely to come back in only MUCH more sick. Any who survive will then be discharged to **** knows where again. I can understand why the nurses are absolutely furious but the real scandal here is lack of social care and the privatising of care homes. If these people were discharged into relatively safe homes where they could be relatively isolated and get the care they need then it would make sense. But, of course, they are not.

 

[SK1NT]

I really don't think so. My analogy may not be easy to understand, but I think it's what the government are trying to do. As does someone who knows more than me about this - and he even talks about a tap!

[tweet]1238518371651649538[/tweet]

1. The govt strategy on #Coronavirus is more refined than those used in other countries and potentially very effective. But it is also riskier and based on a number of assumptions. They need to be correct, and the measures they introduce need to work when they are supposed to.

2. This all assumes I'm correct in what I think the govt are doing and why. I could be wrong - and wouldn't be surprised. But it looks to me like. . .

3. A UK starting assumption is that a high number of the population will inevitably get infected whatever is done – up to 80%. As you can’t stop it, so it is best to manage it.

There are limited health resources so the aim is to manage the flow of the seriously ill to these.

4. The Italian model the aims to stop infection. The UKs wants infection BUT of particular categories of people. The aim of the UK is to have as many lower risk people infected as possible. Immune people cannot infect others; the more there are the lower the risk of infection

5. That's herd immunity.
Based on this idea, at the moment the govt wants people to get infected, up until hospitals begin to reach capacity. At that they want to reduce, but not stop infection rate. Ideally they balance it so the numbers entering hospital = the number leaving.

6. That balance is the big risk.

All the time people are being treated, other mildly ill people are recovering and the population grows a higher percent of immune people who can’t infect. They can also return to work and keep things going normally - and go to the pubs.

7.The risk is being able to accurately manage infection flow relative to health case resources. Data on infection rates needs to be accurate, the measures they introduce need to work and at the time they want them to and to the degree they want, or the system is overwhelmed.

8. Schools: Kids generally won’t get very ill, so the govt can use them as a tool to infect others when you want to increase infection. When you need to slow infection, that tap can be turned off – at that point they close the schools. Politically risky for them to say this.

9. The same for large scale events - stop them when you want to slow infection rates; turn another tap off. This means schools etc are closed for a shorter period and disruption generally is therefore for a shorter period, AND with a growing immune population. This is sustainable

10. After a while most of the population is immune, the seriously ill have all received treatment and the country is resistant. The more vulnerable are then less at risk. This is the end state the govt is aiming for and could achieve.

11. BUT a key issue during this process is protection of those for whom the virus is fatal. It's not clear the full measures there are to protect those people. It assumes they can measure infection, that their behavioural expectations are met - people do what they think they will

12. The Italian (and others) strategy is to stop as much infection as possible - or all infection. This is appealing, but then what? The restrictions are not sustainable for months. So the will need to be relaxed. But that will lead to reemergence of infections.

13. Then rates will then start to climb again. So they will have to reintroduce the restrictions each time infection rates rise. That is not a sustainable model and takes much longer to achieve the goal of a largely immune population with low risk of infection of the vulnerable

14. As the government tries to achieve equilibrium between hospitalisations and infections, more interventions will appear. It's perhaps why there are at the moment few public information films on staying at home. They are treading a tight path, but possibly a sensible one.

15. This is probably the best strategy, but they should explain it more clearly. It relies on a lot of assumptions, so it would be good to know what they are - especially behavioural. Most encouraging, it's way too clever for #BorisJohnson to have had any role in developing.

I think that this is spot on as to what the government are doing. Two things:

1) If they want a herd mentality approach and for the majority of us to get it, why ban all mass gatherings and sporting events. I understand that they want to drip feed the virus slowly to save the hospitals etc but surely we need a few more people to get it initially otherwise this thing could go on for months.

2) No matter how you interpret the government plan there is no getting away from the fact that they are hanging the elderly and people with underlying health issues out to dry