(10-14-2020, 08:20 AM)Protheroe Wrote:

(10-14-2020, 08:02 AM)strawman Wrote: Wrong tense - was doing little else but Covid, and that was wrong, most 'covid' hospitals have now been split into covid and covid safe - in supposedly one of the worst hospitals in the country. I have had 2 consultant appointments, on time and admittedly by phone (although tests were arranged at  a covid safe hospital) and my scan was also on time.

However if we go back to the virus spreading in the way it was and hospital admissions rising as they are now, then staff will have to be taken away from general testing and duties again and have to care for those that are dying or in ICU long term.

Therein lies the catch - allow more normality - hospital admissions rise, staff are redeployed from their normal duties to care for ICU patients even if they are dying and less younger and at less risk patients for covid are again delayed.

If you want to protect younger patients and allow them to get their tests etc on time then you need to protect those at risk so they require less care even if they are dying.

And if you think that basically imprisoning sections of the population at risk i(the old, diabetic, overweight) is the answer, then I suspect that will be as successful as trying to keep others from partying, protesting, going to beach etc

I need to go to a meeting in Birmingham now, but when I have a moment I'll post some stats, evidence and thoughts about what we're doing to ourselves. This is very close to home for me.

I'll leave you with the first stat: Average UK life expectancy 81.2 years - Average age of Covid death 82.4 years.

---

(10-14-2020, 08:04 AM)Derek Hardballs Wrote: tread a middle ground of suppressing the virus and trying to keep the economy/ education operating.

You wouldn't know the middle ground if it was in front of your nose Dekka. You're just a Lockdown Junkie.

(10-14-2020, 08:04 AM)Derek Hardballs Wrote: Interesting stats from 2018 with regards to capacity within the NHS to cope just with an above average flu season. The problem with regards to capacity is not simply down to Covid it’s down to a lack of staff. Now I wonder why that is? It also puts into perspective why the NHS is having to be cautious with regards to capacity this year. Bear in mind NHS professionals have already said their staff are exhausted due to the pandemic response.

Capacity

---

(10-14-2020, 08:02 AM)strawman Wrote:

(10-14-2020, 07:29 AM)Protheroe Wrote:

(10-13-2020, 07:29 PM)strawman Wrote: Even if you think the deaths are a price worth paying, before they die they will require hospital treatment, unless of course you are suggesting 111 asks if they are in a risk group and just say tough  -  the more in hospital the less resource for other medical requirements.

The Nightingales turned away patients because to man them requires staff to be taken from other hospitals.

The whole point is that the NHS resources can only cope with a certain level of patients, so if you have more older or even younger at risk patients in hospital then that resource will be even less available for other medical requirements

The whole point is the NHS is doing little else but Covid which will result in many more wholly premature deaths of younger people in the future from late / undiagnosed conditions. It may sound stark, it may sound heartless but that is the opportunity cost we've arrived at due to the dumb decisions of the last 7 months

Wrong tense - was doing little else but Covid, and that was wrong, most 'covid' hospitals have now been split into covid and covid safe - in supposedly one of the worst hospitals in the country. I have had 2 consultant appointments, on time and admittedly by phone (although tests were arranged at  a covid safe hospital) and my scan was also on time.

However if we go back to the virus spreading in the way it was and hospital admissions rising as they are now, then staff will have to be taken away from general testing and duties again and have to care for those that are dying or in ICU long term.

Therein lies the catch - allow more normality - hospital admissions rise, staff are redeployed from their normal duties to care for ICU patients even if they are dying and less younger and at less risk patients for covid are again delayed.

If you want to protect younger patients and allow them to get their tests etc on time then you need to protect those at risk so they require less care even if they are dying.

And if you think that basically imprisoning sections of the population at risk i(the old, diabetic, overweight) is the answer, then I suspect that will be as successful as trying to keep others from partying, protesting, going to beach etc

The new norm where we are completely agreeing on something SM  Your points are spot on (tried to +1) your post but seems like I’m banned from doing so or it isn’t working). I have tried to explain this to those wanting to go back to normal (not sure that will ever work in a pandemic with a new virus) but alas it doesn’t show any critical thinking apparently. You can’t separate society into neat little boxes we are all interconnected and as a result solutions will have to tread a middle ground of suppressing the virus and trying to keep the economy / education operating.

(10-14-2020, 08:04 AM)Derek Hardballs Wrote: Interesting stats from 2018 with regards to capacity within the NHS to cope just with an above average flu season. The problem with regards to capacity is not simply down to Covid it’s down to a lack of staff. Now I wonder why that is? It also puts into perspective why the NHS is having to be cautious with regards to capacity this year. Bear in mind NHS professionals have already said their staff are exhausted due to the pandemic response.

Capacity

---

(10-14-2020, 08:02 AM)strawman Wrote:

(10-14-2020, 07:29 AM)Protheroe Wrote:

(10-13-2020, 07:29 PM)strawman Wrote: Even if you think the deaths are a price worth paying, before they die they will require hospital treatment, unless of course you are suggesting 111 asks if they are in a risk group and just say tough  -  the more in hospital the less resource for other medical requirements.

The Nightingales turned away patients because to man them requires staff to be taken from other hospitals.

The whole point is that the NHS resources can only cope with a certain level of patients, so if you have more older or even younger at risk patients in hospital then that resource will be even less available for other medical requirements

The whole point is the NHS is doing little else but Covid which will result in many more wholly premature deaths of younger people in the future from late / undiagnosed conditions. It may sound stark, it may sound heartless but that is the opportunity cost we've arrived at due to the dumb decisions of the last 7 months

Wrong tense - was doing little else but Covid, and that was wrong, most 'covid' hospitals have now been split into covid and covid safe - in supposedly one of the worst hospitals in the country. I have had 2 consultant appointments, on time and admittedly by phone (although tests were arranged at  a covid safe hospital) and my scan was also on time.

However if we go back to the virus spreading in the way it was and hospital admissions rising as they are now, then staff will have to be taken away from general testing and duties again and have to care for those that are dying or in ICU long term.

Therein lies the catch - allow more normality - hospital admissions rise, staff are redeployed from their normal duties to care for ICU patients even if they are dying and less younger and at less risk patients for covid are again delayed.

If you want to protect younger patients and allow them to get their tests etc on time then you need to protect those at risk so they require less care even if they are dying.

And if you think that basically imprisoning sections of the population at risk i(the old, diabetic, overweight) is the answer, then I suspect that will be as successful as trying to keep others from partying, protesting, going to beach etc

The new norm where we are completely agreeing on something SM  Your points are spot on (tried to +1) your post but seems like I’m banned from doing so or it isn’t working). I have tried to explain this to those wanting to go back to normal (not sure that will ever work in a pandemic with a new virus) but alas it doesn’t show any critical thinking apparently. You can’t separate society into neat little boxes we are all interconnected and as a result solutions will have to tread a middle ground of suppressing the virus and trying to keep the economy / education operating.

(10-13-2020, 07:32 PM)Derek Hardballs Wrote:

(10-13-2020, 06:55 PM)Tom Joad Wrote: I don't come on the politics bored often and now I have I'm regretting it. My blood pressure is in turmoil about the £12B Track and Trace fiasco. Dido bloody Dataloss. Contracts awarded without tendering. Serco, P14Medical, Deloitte (What do they know about PPE, other than they got the contract to acquire it)?  Most people were prepared to give Boris a chance based on the fact, no one had really faced a pandemic anytime recently, (Also based on the fact he wasn't Jeremy Corbyn). Mistakes were forgiven, originally. But continued mistakes aren't forgivable and corruption never really should be.
Back to the thread though. I don't know any more than anyone else on here just how deadly this virus is but I do recognise the facts that hospitals are filling up rapidly and ICU occupancy levels are creeping up again. At the start of this, The W.H.O. said "Test, test, test" yet we still don't appear to have any real consistent system in place. I'm absolutely gutted at this new semi lockdown but I also realise doing nothing wasn't really one of the options.

You won’t believe it but some on here were very comfortable with Serco getting the contract indeed it was the best solution. £12bn later the Track and Trace system has contacted 750,000 which is what £16,000 per person? Great value for money, accountable and transparent.

I believe the government are now considering relying on the experts in local public health to help.

(10-14-2020, 10:01 AM)The liquidator Wrote:

(10-13-2020, 07:32 PM)Derek Hardballs Wrote:

(10-13-2020, 06:55 PM)Tom Joad Wrote: I don't come on the politics bored often and now I have I'm regretting it. My blood pressure is in turmoil about the £12B Track and Trace fiasco. Dido bloody Dataloss. Contracts awarded without tendering. Serco, P14Medical, Deloitte (What do they know about PPE, other than they got the contract to acquire it)?  Most people were prepared to give Boris a chance based on the fact, no one had really faced a pandemic anytime recently, (Also based on the fact he wasn't Jeremy Corbyn). Mistakes were forgiven, originally. But continued mistakes aren't forgivable and corruption never really should be.
Back to the thread though. I don't know any more than anyone else on here just how deadly this virus is but I do recognise the facts that hospitals are filling up rapidly and ICU occupancy levels are creeping up again. At the start of this, The W.H.O. said "Test, test, test" yet we still don't appear to have any real consistent system in place. I'm absolutely gutted at this new semi lockdown but I also realise doing nothing wasn't really one of the options.

You won’t believe it but some on here were very comfortable with Serco getting the contract indeed it was the best solution. £12bn later the Track and Trace system has contacted 750,000 which is what £16,000 per person? Great value for money, accountable and transparent.

I believe the government are now considering relying on the experts in local public health to help.

Whatever it cost Derek we will be paying for it until we die..... £1.600 or 12 billion covid has totally crushed the economy and its nobody s fault..... Every country is in the same boat I expect..

(10-14-2020, 11:26 AM)baggy1 Wrote: You do realise that in that link Labour are saying that the current situation isn't working and has suggested an alternative. The full lockdown (over half term) is proposed to get the requirements to deal with the virus in place.

---

My point is that they are right to say it isn't working but to then move to a national lockdown would actually be the worst course of action not the best. Thus right intention appalling solution.


On a separate note I have been randomly selected to take part in one of the COVID-19 antibody testing research programmes today to see if I have been infected. That should be interesting as, if I have, then I would say that there is a high level of infection around based on I have been working from home, rarely going out over the last few months.

Is that the one out of Oxford? Should be interesting

(10-14-2020, 11:23 AM)billybassett Wrote: Yep useless and Starmer just joined them.

I mean they published https://labour.org.uk/press/labour-analysis-reveals-19-out-of-20-english-areas-under-restrictions-have-experienced-increased-infection-rates/

and now he calls for a national lockdown. I mean how poor a decision making process is that.