FabSwingers.com > Forums > Virus > Highest amount of hospital admissions
Highest amount of hospital admissions
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
 | |||
| |||
| |||
"I'll start getting more concerned if the death rate starts to climb. " Same  | |||
| |||
"Now. Infection cases are doubling every week. That's what happened at the start of lockdown. " Yes and it's not the increased testing either | |||
| |||
"Sorry I’m concerned and feel the easing of lock down was a totally economically driven experiment ..... I am in the camp of when we get it not if now. " . Sort of agree but not an experiment, done out of absolute neccessity. | |||
| |||
| |||
"Just wondering; did the lockdown simply buy more time and did it simply delay an inevitable spread. Has hiding behind the sofa for six months actually achieved much. Anyone ??? " Basically this. SARS-CoV-2 has all the hallmarks of an endemic virus that will not go away, die out or disappear. Even vaccination will only suppress rather than clear completely. The view that the virus is already endemic and lockdowns unlikely to work have been expressed in the media by scientists: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/sep/05/covid-19-could-be-endemic-in-deprived-parts-of-england | |||
"Just wondering; did the lockdown simply buy more time and did it simply delay an inevitable spread. Has hiding behind the sofa for six months actually achieved much. Anyone ??? " I think it was just to delay it long enough for them to get PPE and prepare hospitals etc. Unfortunately some people seem to think it's all over and that's why it's spreading again. I think some people will only be happy when the UK death total hits 100,000. | |||
"Just wondering; did the lockdown simply buy more time and did it simply delay an inevitable spread. Has hiding behind the sofa for six months actually achieved much. Anyone ??? " thats always been my thought about lockdown.just delaying the inevitable.well unless we get a vacvine and im still not compleatly sure thats gona happen | |||
"Just wondering; did the lockdown simply buy more time and did it simply delay an inevitable spread. Has hiding behind the sofa for six months actually achieved much. Anyone ??? " That was the whole point of lockdown, to slow the spread so the NHS wasn't overwhelmed. It was always going to come down to herd immunity either from a vaccine or naturally built immunity. | |||
| |||
"Since July 13th. Deaths still low but obviously the way of counting deaths has changed since back then. I'm finding it hard to be optimistic about all of today's figures,so at what point, do figures become concerning to you?" Originally the increase in positive tests was mostly due to a huge increase in the number of tests. But for the last 4 weeks the country has been at "peak test" processing samples consistently at the maximum rate so the upwards trend on positive results over the last week or so is genuinely indicative of an increase in infection rate... which is very concerning. The number of cases in schools is also worrying, we've only be open a week and there are already many cases scattered around England. Cal | |||
"Just wondering; did the lockdown simply buy more time and did it simply delay an inevitable spread. Has hiding behind the sofa for six months actually achieved much. Anyone ??? " No it has not. I said it at the start and I've been saying it ever since - lockdown is not going to solve this. As an emergency measure for a few weeks while we adjust service provision, fine & sensible. As a long term strategy, useless. What've we done with the time it bought us.... bugger all. | |||
"The government seem determined to avoid another national lockdown, but I think the spread is now out of control without one. Partial and localised lockdowns are proving rather ineffective at preventing the spread of the virus and I think another nationwide lockdown is inevitable if they actually want to get infections back under control. It's Hobson's choice really, save the economy or hold Covid at bay. I don't think we can do both and that does worry me somewhat." | |||
"Just wondering; did the lockdown simply buy more time and did it simply delay an inevitable spread. Has hiding behind the sofa for six months actually achieved much. Anyone ??? No it has not. I said it at the start and I've been saying it ever since - lockdown is not going to solve this. As an emergency measure for a few weeks while we adjust service provision, fine & sensible. As a long term strategy, useless. What've we done with the time it bought us.... bugger all." Precisely It bought us time to learn to live with the virus and protect the vulnerable The problem is a load of morons now decide the virus isn't a threat any more and can't seem to get it into their heads that deaths dropped because of restrictions and remove the restrictions and deaths will increase. Simple stuff pity many people are too | |||
"Just wondering; did the lockdown simply buy more time and did it simply delay an inevitable spread. Has hiding behind the sofa for six months actually achieved much. Anyone ??? No it has not. I said it at the start and I've been saying it ever since - lockdown is not going to solve this. As an emergency measure for a few weeks while we adjust service provision, fine & sensible. As a long term strategy, useless. What've we done with the time it bought us.... bugger all." Lockdown has bought us a lot, doctors now know far more about how to treat their patients, what therapies work what therapies don't work, who is high risk who is low risk. Yes the virus is still out there and is still a threat but a lot more is knon about it | |||
"Just wondering; did the lockdown simply buy more time and did it simply delay an inevitable spread. Has hiding behind the sofa for six months actually achieved much. Anyone ??? Basically this. SARS-CoV-2 has all the hallmarks of an endemic virus that will not go away, die out or disappear. Even vaccination will only suppress rather than clear completely. The view that the virus is already endemic and lockdowns unlikely to work have been expressed in the media by scientists: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/sep/05/covid-19-could-be-endemic-in-deprived-parts-of-england" Exactly where I am with all this. My fear now is things I enjoyed doing before lockdown May now be a thing of the past. Simple things like dancing at a gig. Or karaoke. | |||
| |||
"For me when schools start closing due to lack of staff .... nothing will change until then. " This has happened to my daughters school today. One positive test in her bubble (no idea if staff or child) and the whole school has closed until 22/9 as they don’t have enough staff. It is a small primary. We are laid back about covid, but she is all over the place with confusion...friends, school, home. All this change is so hard for the kids to deal with  And I’m just fucked off with covid. The world bank have said its here until 2025. | |||
" What've we done with the time it bought us.... bugger all. Precisely It bought us time to learn to live with the virus and protect the vulnerable The problem is a load of morons now decide the virus isn't a threat any more and can't seem to get it into their heads that deaths dropped because of restrictions and remove the restrictions and deaths will increase. Simple stuff pity many people are too" I beg to differ with your assertion that we should live under restrictions forever. We can't & shouldn't. People wanting to actually live their lives are not 'morons'. Nor are they selfish, self-centered, callous or any of the other insults commonly thrown at them. This is now an endemic virus. The chance to eradicate it has long since passed. We have to accept that & we have to start accepting that it will continue to kill people - that is what viruses do. Those at greatest risk need to take whatever precautions they feel are necessary and compatible with their personal lifestyle. Those who feel the need to shield should be supported. Those who want to live normally should be allowed to do so. Ultimately, I suspect most will end up somewhere in the middle - socializing less or in smaller groups/less crowded places. There is nothing wrong with living, loving, socialising and enjoying life - can we please stop actimg like some kind of puritanical witch-hunting party? | |||
| |||
" What've we done with the time it bought us.... bugger all. Precisely It bought us time to learn to live with the virus and protect the vulnerable The problem is a load of morons now decide the virus isn't a threat any more and can't seem to get it into their heads that deaths dropped because of restrictions and remove the restrictions and deaths will increase. Simple stuff pity many people are too I beg to differ with your assertion that we should live under restrictions forever. We can't & shouldn't. People wanting to actually live their lives are not 'morons'. Nor are they selfish, self-centered, callous or any of the other insults commonly thrown at them. This is now an endemic virus. The chance to eradicate it has long since passed. We have to accept that & we have to start accepting that it will continue to kill people - that is what viruses do. Those at greatest risk need to take whatever precautions they feel are necessary and compatible with their personal lifestyle. Those who feel the need to shield should be supported. Those who want to live normally should be allowed to do so. Ultimately, I suspect most will end up somewhere in the middle - socializing less or in smaller groups/less crowded places. There is nothing wrong with living, loving, socialising and enjoying life - can we please stop actimg like some kind of puritanical witch-hunting party?" I agree with this wholeheartedly. The majority of the population cannot be expected to live ‘half lives’ forever. The way it’s going the only thing we’ll be allowed to do with other people is work. If the virus is going to be with us for 5 years or more - how much will it affect mental health and well-being if we effectively become worker drones with no other life/purpose? At some point everyone will need to do a personal risk assessment and act accordingly! | |||
" What've we done with the time it bought us.... bugger all. Precisely It bought us time to learn to live with the virus and protect the vulnerable The problem is a load of morons now decide the virus isn't a threat any more and can't seem to get it into their heads that deaths dropped because of restrictions and remove the restrictions and deaths will increase. Simple stuff pity many people are too I beg to differ with your assertion that we should live under restrictions forever. We can't & shouldn't. People wanting to actually live their lives are not 'morons'. Nor are they selfish, self-centered, callous or any of the other insults commonly thrown at them. This is now an endemic virus. The chance to eradicate it has long since passed. We have to accept that & we have to start accepting that it will continue to kill people - that is what viruses do. Those at greatest risk need to take whatever precautions they feel are necessary and compatible with their personal lifestyle. Those who feel the need to shield should be supported. Those who want to live normally should be allowed to do so. Ultimately, I suspect most will end up somewhere in the middle - socializing less or in smaller groups/less crowded places. There is nothing wrong with living, loving, socialising and enjoying life - can we please stop actimg like some kind of puritanical witch-hunting party? I agree with this wholeheartedly. The majority of the population cannot be expected to live ‘half lives’ forever. The way it’s going the only thing we’ll be allowed to do with other people is work. If the virus is going to be with us for 5 years or more - how much will it affect mental health and well-being if we effectively become worker drones with no other life/purpose? At some point everyone will need to do a personal risk assessment and act accordingly! " forever and 5 years are very different time spans whats the average life expectancy? we haven’t even been living with this for a year yet ... thats the tiny portion of peoples lives they have had restricted so far and even that restriction has been followed half heartedly ... just suck it up for a little while and when it actually looks to be lasting for 5 years+ maybe we can have the debate again | |||
"The economy is not the only thing to be considered in the Lockdown easings...there is people's mental health also, a lot of people are suffering significantly even with the easing that's come in. In years to come more people will die because of lockdown, than died of the virus itself. Governments are condemning cancer suffers ect to an early grave.." | |||
"Just wondering; did the lockdown simply buy more time and did it simply delay an inevitable spread. Has hiding behind the sofa for six months actually achieved much. Anyone ??? That was the whole point of lockdown, to slow the spread so the NHS wasn't overwhelmed. It was always going to come down to herd immunity either from a vaccine or naturally built immunity. " That is spot on!
Most people completely misunderstand what the government has been trying to achieve. There's no need to panic, this is all part of their plan.
We were always going to have stricter rules in place coming upto winter. As this is the time of year that the NHS it begins to struggle with all the elderly flu admissions etc. The NHS is normally overwhelmed by this alone each year, so dealing with COVID patients on top of this will be a real challenge. That's why the Nightingale hospitals have been kept on standby.
The governments plan is to slow the rate of infection so that the NHS doesn't break. In my eyes the only people who will benefit from the vaccine when it's complete will be those that have to shield. As the vast majority of people will have naturally got immunity to it by then due to exposure to it.
J
| |||
" We were always going to have stricter rules in place coming upto winter. As this is the time of year that the NHS it begins to struggle with all the elderly flu admissions etc. The NHS is normally overwhelmed by this alone each year, so dealing with COVID patients on top of this will be a real challenge. That's why the Nightingale hospitals have been kept on standby. " Isn't it strange how we can find billions to pay for people to sit at home on their arses to 'protect the NHS' but we can't seem to find the money to actually build a health service that isn't on the brink of collapse constantly... A question of priorities.... | |||
"Now. Infection cases are doubling every week. That's what happened at the start of lockdown. " BEFORE the lockdown. I'm not sure but I think the numbers were doubling either every 2 to 3 days or 3 to 4... Let's say 3  | |||
" We were always going to have stricter rules in place coming upto winter. As this is the time of year that the NHS it begins to struggle with all the elderly flu admissions etc. The NHS is normally overwhelmed by this alone each year, so dealing with COVID patients on top of this will be a real challenge. That's why the Nightingale hospitals have been kept on standby. Isn't it strange how we can find billions to pay for people to sit at home on their arses to 'protect the NHS' but we can't seem to find the money to actually build a health service that isn't on the brink of collapse constantly... A question of priorities.... " It takes 5+ years to train a doctor and 3+ years to train a nurse so takes times. The NHS has had it funding squeezed for at least 10 years. These things take time to fix, no amount of money can do that. | |||
" We were always going to have stricter rules in place coming upto winter. As this is the time of year that the NHS it begins to struggle with all the elderly flu admissions etc. The NHS is normally overwhelmed by this alone each year, so dealing with COVID patients on top of this will be a real challenge. That's why the Nightingale hospitals have been kept on standby. Isn't it strange how we can find billions to pay for people to sit at home on their arses to 'protect the NHS' but we can't seem to find the money to actually build a health service that isn't on the brink of collapse constantly... A question of priorities.... It takes 5+ years to train a doctor and 3+ years to train a nurse so takes times. The NHS has had it funding squeezed for at least 10 years. These things take time to fix, no amount of money can do that." In Europe, nurses are trained over four years with the same amount of placement hours as the uk's three years. They graduate fully prepared, our nurses do not. They still have to train to take blood, do IV procedures. But academically cram four years into three. The attrition rate is extremely poor. Perhaps if student nurses could breathe a bit, and do it over four years, then the attrition rate may improve. The old diploma was three years, is the govt trying to pretend the degree is no more difficult it should have no more time? | |||
| |||
" It takes 5+ years to train a doctor and 3+ years to train a nurse so takes times. The NHS has had it funding squeezed for at least 10 years. These things take time to fix, no amount of money can do that." Yes, Covid has shone a bright light into corners that successive governments would much rather have left extremely dark indeed. I'm not suggesting there's an instant fix for the state of the NHS today - clearly there isn't. I am suggesting it should never have gotten into that state in the first place - if we can find the money for all these schemes now we most certainly should have been able to find it 10 or 15 years ago and use it to fund the NHS properly. Perhaps then there would never have been a need for any lockdowns..... | |||
"They're practising herd immunity now without saying it. It'll be convenient excuse for the 'powers that be' especially when flu season is around the corner. " . In agreement.... When should we be worried??? We should have been worried all along but there's a percentage of the population who have never taken any of this seriously and who are still waiting for life to get back to "normal" | |||
"Even if only one person a day was dying from covid I would still choose to wear a mask. Why I am wearing a mask when required- ?? I am educated enough to know that I could be asymptomatic and still give you the virus. ?? No, I don’t “live in fear” of the virus; I just want to be part of the solution, not the problem. ?? I don’t feel like the “government is controlling me” any more than when I wear a seat belt, don't drive d*unk, obey the speed limit, or stop at a red light. ?? The world doesn’t revolve around me. It’s not all about me and my comfort. ?? If we all could follow these simple steps, the virus could be under control, and businesses back open. ?? Wearing a mask doesn’t make me weak, scared, stupid, or even “controlled.” It makes me considerate. ?? When you think about how you look, how uncomfortable it is, or what others think of you, just imagine someone close to you - a child, a father, a mother, aunt, uncle, or grandparent - choking on a respirator, alone without you or any family member allowed at your bedside. Wearing a mask is not political. It’s public health!" | |||
"Even if only one person a day was dying from covid I would still choose to wear a mask. Why I am wearing a mask when required- ?? I am educated enough to know that I could be asymptomatic and still give you the virus. ?? No, I don’t “live in fear” of the virus; I just want to be part of the solution, not the problem. ?? I don’t feel like the “government is controlling me” any more than when I wear a seat belt, don't drive d*unk, obey the speed limit, or stop at a red light. ?? The world doesn’t revolve around me. It’s not all about me and my comfort. ?? If we all could follow these simple steps, the virus could be under control, and businesses back open. ?? Wearing a mask doesn’t make me weak, scared, stupid, or even “controlled.” It makes me considerate. ?? When you think about how you look, how uncomfortable it is, or what others think of you, just imagine someone close to you - a child, a father, a mother, aunt, uncle, or grandparent - choking on a respirator, alone without you or any family member allowed at your bedside. Wearing a mask is not political. It’s public health!" Some very wise words there. I am struggling to understand the science behind some of the new nation restrictions, but it doesn't mean I'll not stick to them. Some of the figures are going to be all over the place as the way they are reported has changes, at the start they were mainly only testing sick people so now I'd like to know what percentage of people taking test have tested positive. The death rates are a lot lower as the hospitals are currently coping with the numbers of patients and the way they are treated has improved as we now know more about covid. | |||
" We were always going to have stricter rules in place coming upto winter. As this is the time of year that the NHS it begins to struggle with all the elderly flu admissions etc. The NHS is normally overwhelmed by this alone each year, so dealing with COVID patients on top of this will be a real challenge. That's why the Nightingale hospitals have been kept on standby. Isn't it strange how we can find billions to pay for people to sit at home on their arses to 'protect the NHS' but we can't seem to find the money to actually build a health service that isn't on the brink of collapse constantly... A question of priorities.... It takes 5+ years to train a doctor and 3+ years to train a nurse so takes times. The NHS has had it funding squeezed for at least 10 years. These things take time to fix, no amount of money can do that." If its had its budget squeezed for more than 10 years. You'd expect less to have been spent on the NHS right? 2008 110 bn 2010 118bn 2019 140bn So that'll be 30bn more. | |||
"In agreement.... When should we be worried??? We should have been worried all along but there's a percentage of the population who have never taken any of this seriously and who are still waiting for life to get back to "normal" " I don't know if that was meant for me or not but I'll respond anyway as I'm probably one of the most vocal 'back to normal' voices on here! I have never, ever not taken Covid seriously. In fact, I probably take it far more seriously than most. I take it sufficiently seriously that I invest time & effort to do my own research from credible sources (no, not youtube, whackypedia or conspiracy nut sites!), form my own opinions and make educated, informed decisions about the risks I'm willing to expose myself and those around me to. I strongly support the use of masks in public places, it's simple common sense and there's ample science suggesting benefits along with almost none suggesting harms. I firmly believe we should protect the most vulnerable in our society. I've no time or patience for anti-vaxers, science deniers or similar fools who won't believe the evidence of their own eyes. I am also very firmly opposed to restrictive social measures in the long term as I can see no rational way in which they will solve the problem. The science is leaning very heavily toward Covid-19 being an endemic virus now with very little chance of eradication, so unless we're willing to accept such measures indefinitely there is no benefit to them. I believe in education. I believe in empowering people to make sensible choices by giving them the knowledge they need to make those choices. Most people are not fools. Most are not idiots. They don't want to get ill and they don't want to make their families ill but equally it's not realistic to expect people to remain socially isolated indefinitely. We need to focus our attention on teaching people how to understand their own personal risk profiles and those of the people around them rather than trying to legislate our way out of this mess. Bottom line : education, not legislation. | |||
"If its had its budget squeezed for more than 10 years. You'd expect less to have been spent on the NHS right? 2008 110 bn 2010 118bn 2019 140bn So that'll be 30bn more. " Erm... no, that’s not how it works. Every year things get more expensive, that’s inflation. Also new drugs and treatments are invented which generally are not cheap because they are so new. Also people are living longer, meaning every year we have more old people; and what do old people need? Yep, more healthcare. Add to that adult social care has had its budget slashed to the bone which means someone has to pick up the work that was once undertaken by those nice people who worked for the councils, guess who that is? Yep it’s those lovely people in the NHS. Then if we take into account that 10 years of no pay rises and increasing workload has lead to more and more staff quitting we can see that using locum agencies has cost the NHS an absolute fortune. But wait, we’re not finished there, due to fewer step down beds, places in care homes and staff in adult social care it means that a lot of people are spending more time in hospital, which costs more money, and also eats into the money Trusts are paid for procedures. ‘Bed blocking’ means there are fewer beds to use for elective patients, which means fewer elective operations are done, which means less income is generated. Theatres aren’t operating to maximum capacity due to staff shortages, which again means less income generated, and also longer waiting lists and more Trusts being fined for not meeting targets. All this lost income and fines mean Trusts are going into debt, which the government fines them for, increasing the debt, meaning Trusts can’t afford to maintain buildings and equipment, which means lower capacity, which in turn means less income! Oh and the absolutely huge vacancy levels in GP land means that more patients are now much sicker when getting to hospital, meaning their care is more complex and more expensive. The NHS is massively underfunded, and I can’t see another four years of the Tories making that any better. | |||
" If its had its budget squeezed for more than 10 years. You'd expect less to have been spent on the NHS right? 2008 110 bn 2010 118bn 2019 140bn So that'll be 30bn more. " Oh and you being slightly disingenuous with your figures. The 2009/10 budget was £118bn and the 2019/20 budget £140bn which is an increase of £22bn, not £30bn. If you look back to 1997/98 when Labour were elected after almost two decades of underfunding by the Conservatives, spending on the NHS was only £33bn, which increased to £118bn in 2010 when they were voted out. This had just about brought UK spending in healthcare broadly in line with the average (as a percentage of GDP) of the top 14 EU countries. | |||
| |||
"It's another strain of the flu... And our bodies will have to adapt to it just like sar and the swine flu " No, Covid is not 'another strain of the Flu'. Covid is a Coronavirus, completely distinct from Influenza virus which causes the Flu. Some of the symptoms are similar, but that's where the similarity ends. | |||
| |||
| |||
"The only reason numbers have increased are because lots more people are being tested. The death rates aren't increasing though." im afraid you are wrong at a point in time yes the absolute number was increasing because the number of tests was going up , if you compare number of tests now to april/ may , yes we are increased due to number of tests however we have been at maximum capacity daily testing for some time now so the same number of people are being tested every day and yet the numbers are still rising | |||
"If its had its budget squeezed for more than 10 years. You'd expect less to have been spent on the NHS right? 2008 110 bn 2010 118bn 2019 140bn So that'll be 30bn more. Erm... no, that’s not how it works. Every year things get more expensive, that’s inflation. Also new drugs and treatments are invented which generally are not cheap because they are so new. Also people are living longer, meaning every year we have more old people; and what do old people need? Yep, more healthcare. Add to that adult social care has had its budget slashed to the bone which means someone has to pick up the work that was once undertaken by those nice people who worked for the councils, guess who that is? Yep it’s those lovely people in the NHS. Then if we take into account that 10 years of no pay rises and increasing workload has lead to more and more staff quitting we can see that using locum agencies has cost the NHS an absolute fortune. But wait, we’re not finished there, due to fewer step down beds, places in care homes and staff in adult social care it means that a lot of people are spending more time in hospital, which costs more money, and also eats into the money Trusts are paid for procedures. ‘Bed blocking’ means there are fewer beds to use for elective patients, which means fewer elective operations are done, which means less income is generated. Theatres aren’t operating to maximum capacity due to staff shortages, which again means less income generated, and also longer waiting lists and more Trusts being fined for not meeting targets. All this lost income and fines mean Trusts are going into debt, which the government fines them for, increasing the debt, meaning Trusts can’t afford to maintain buildings and equipment, which means lower capacity, which in turn means less income! Oh and the absolutely huge vacancy levels in GP land means that more patients are now much sicker when getting to hospital, meaning their care is more complex and more expensive. The NHS is massively underfunded, and I can’t see another four years of the Tories making that any better." I don't see covid helping eather the treasury will be low on income from tourists and paye let alone all the other money spent and to quote any fingers is quite random to me even if on GDP in real terms do you know what it was per person in 2000 to 2020 if population is growing at 10% and funding goes up 9% and inflation ouch the penny dose not fit the slot it's the same for schools etc. But do we the tax payer want to pay????? | |||
"In agreement.... When should we be worried??? We should have been worried all along but there's a percentage of the population who have never taken any of this seriously and who are still waiting for life to get back to "normal" I don't know if that was meant for me or not but I'll respond anyway as I'm probably one of the most vocal 'back to normal' voices on here! I have never, ever not taken Covid seriously. In fact, I probably take it far more seriously than most. I take it sufficiently seriously that I invest time & effort to do my own research from credible sources (no, not youtube, whackypedia or conspiracy nut sites!), form my own opinions and make educated, informed decisions about the risks I'm willing to expose myself and those around me to. I strongly support the use of masks in public places, it's simple common sense and there's ample science suggesting benefits along with almost none suggesting harms. I firmly believe we should protect the most vulnerable in our society. I've no time or patience for anti-vaxers, science deniers or similar fools who won't believe the evidence of their own eyes. I am also very firmly opposed to restrictive social measures in the long term as I can see no rational way in which they will solve the problem. The science is leaning very heavily toward Covid-19 being an endemic virus now with very little chance of eradication, so unless we're willing to accept such measures indefinitely there is no benefit to them. I believe in education. I believe in empowering people to make sensible choices by giving them the knowledge they need to make those choices. Most people are not fools. Most are not idiots. They don't want to get ill and they don't want to make their families ill but equally it's not realistic to expect people to remain socially isolated indefinitely. We need to focus our attention on teaching people how to understand their own personal risk profiles and those of the people around them rather than trying to legislate our way out of this mess. Bottom line : education, not legislation." | |||
"The only reason numbers have increased are because lots more people are being tested. The death rates aren't increasing though." The only reason they're increasing is not due to an increase in tests. It's complex but several indications show that there are more people that are currently infected. There is random testing underway on a representative sample of the population each week. This is indicating growth in infection levels. We're currently doubling the numbers of people who are infected in just over 1 week. It's slower than the exponential growth of doubling every w days or so, that we saw at the height of the crisis but it's increasing. We need to enter the difficult autumn and winter phases with reductions and as small a volume of people infected as possible. We're in some ways fortunate that most of the increases are amongst younger people, who are healthy, by comparison to the rest of the population. They have less comorbidities, a stronger immune system than older people and other factors that should ensure that fewer of them get to hospital because of the virus. But they are all people who are much more actively connected to others, so are an opportunity for the virus to get passed on to others who wouldn't cope as well from it. | |||
"If its had its budget squeezed for more than 10 years. You'd expect less to have been spent on the NHS right? 2008 110 bn 2010 118bn 2019 140bn So that'll be 30bn more. Erm... no, that’s not how it works. Every year things get more expensive, that’s inflation. Also new drugs and treatments are invented which generally are not cheap because they are so new. Also people are living longer, meaning every year we have more old people; and what do old people need? Yep, more healthcare. Add to that adult social care has had its budget slashed to the bone which means someone has to pick up the work that was once undertaken by those nice people who worked for the councils, guess who that is? Yep it’s those lovely people in the NHS. Then if we take into account that 10 years of no pay rises and increasing workload has lead to more and more staff quitting we can see that using locum agencies has cost the NHS an absolute fortune. But wait, we’re not finished there, due to fewer step down beds, places in care homes and staff in adult social care it means that a lot of people are spending more time in hospital, which costs more money, and also eats into the money Trusts are paid for procedures. ‘Bed blocking’ means there are fewer beds to use for elective patients, which means fewer elective operations are done, which means less income is generated. Theatres aren’t operating to maximum capacity due to staff shortages, which again means less income generated, and also longer waiting lists and more Trusts being fined for not meeting targets. All this lost income and fines mean Trusts are going into debt, which the government fines them for, increasing the debt, meaning Trusts can’t afford to maintain buildings and equipment, which means lower capacity, which in turn means less income! Oh and the absolutely huge vacancy levels in GP land means that more patients are now much sicker when getting to hospital, meaning their care is more complex and more expensive. The NHS is massively underfunded, and I can’t see another four years of the Tories making that any better." But now you've turned it into a mass of political arguments. You stated that it had been squeezed for the last 10 years. I'm stating that it hasn't and the facts show it hasn't. The debate around how much is enough is a different debate entirely. Those nations with better health provision pay more for it. You can't have something for nothing....although the magic furlough money tree might prove that statement wrong. | |||
"If its had its budget squeezed for more than 10 years. You'd expect less to have been spent on the NHS right? 2008 110 bn 2010 118bn 2019 140bn So that'll be 30bn more. Erm... no, that’s not how it works. Every year things get more expensive, that’s inflation. Also new drugs and treatments are invented which generally are not cheap because they are so new. Also people are living longer, meaning every year we have more old people; and what do old people need? Yep, more healthcare. Add to that adult social care has had its budget slashed to the bone which means someone has to pick up the work that was once undertaken by those nice people who worked for the councils, guess who that is? Yep it’s those lovely people in the NHS. Then if we take into account that 10 years of no pay rises and increasing workload has lead to more and more staff quitting we can see that using locum agencies has cost the NHS an absolute fortune. But wait, we’re not finished there, due to fewer step down beds, places in care homes and staff in adult social care it means that a lot of people are spending more time in hospital, which costs more money, and also eats into the money Trusts are paid for procedures. ‘Bed blocking’ means there are fewer beds to use for elective patients, which means fewer elective operations are done, which means less income is generated. Theatres aren’t operating to maximum capacity due to staff shortages, which again means less income generated, and also longer waiting lists and more Trusts being fined for not meeting targets. All this lost income and fines mean Trusts are going into debt, which the government fines them for, increasing the debt, meaning Trusts can’t afford to maintain buildings and equipment, which means lower capacity, which in turn means less income! Oh and the absolutely huge vacancy levels in GP land means that more patients are now much sicker when getting to hospital, meaning their care is more complex and more expensive. The NHS is massively underfunded, and I can’t see another four years of the Tories making that any better. But now you've turned it into a mass of political arguments. You stated that it had been squeezed for the last 10 years. I'm stating that it hasn't and the facts show it hasn't. The debate around how much is enough is a different debate entirely. Those nations with better health provision pay more for it. You can't have something for nothing....although the magic furlough money tree might prove that statement wrong. " Those aren’t political arguments, they are factual. In the 12 years between 1998 and 2010 the government increased the NHS budget by £85bn, this was required because of the underfunding by the previous government. In the ten years since 2010 the budget has increased by £22bn. The NHS requires a minimum 4% budget increase per year (before inflation) just to stand still, if you want an NHS which is able to innovate and provide the latest cutting edge treatments then you need more. Currently the NHS is around 100,000 staff short of its full compliment, and these gaps are being filled by expensive agency staff. If your living costs are £100 per week and your wage is £100 per week then you are ok, you won’t be able to afford anything g but the bare minimum but you will survive. Bit of your living costs rise by 4% every week then after 10 weeks you will find that you are short of the minimum required to live by about £48. As your employer i magnanimously award you an 18% pay rise, so o have increased you wage over that period and definitely not squeezed it, so now you are only £30 a week shy of meeting your basic costs, not £48. Oh and remember the debt you have had to accrue during those 10 weeks in order to stay alive, it’s time to start paying that off. Now you may complain that you can’t afford to live but I’ve just given you an 18% pay rise, so I’m hardly squeezing your wage am I? | |||
" What've we done with the time it bought us.... bugger all. Precisely It bought us time to learn to live with the virus and protect the vulnerable The problem is a load of morons now decide the virus isn't a threat any more and can't seem to get it into their heads that deaths dropped because of restrictions and remove the restrictions and deaths will increase. Simple stuff pity many people are too I beg to differ with your assertion that we should live under restrictions forever. We can't & shouldn't. People wanting to actually live their lives are not 'morons'. Nor are they selfish, self-centered, callous or any of the other insults commonly thrown at them. This is now an endemic virus. The chance to eradicate it has long since passed. We have to accept that & we have to start accepting that it will continue to kill people - that is what viruses do. Those at greatest risk need to take whatever precautions they feel are necessary and compatible with their personal lifestyle. Those who feel the need to shield should be supported. Those who want to live normally should be allowed to do so. Ultimately, I suspect most will end up somewhere in the middle - socializing less or in smaller groups/less crowded places. There is nothing wrong with living, loving, socialising and enjoying life - can we please stop actimg like some kind of puritanical witch-hunting party?" | |||
" Those at greatest risk need to take whatever precautions they feel are necessary and compatible with their personal lifestyle. Those who feel the need to shield should be supported. Those who want to live normally should be allowed to do so. " Do you see how this turns those who need to shield i.e. the elderly, disabled and chronically ill,into second class citizens who are 'supported' to stay home so the rest of us can get on with our lives? | |||
" We were always going to have stricter rules in place coming upto winter. As this is the time of year that the NHS it begins to struggle with all the elderly flu admissions etc. The NHS is normally overwhelmed by this alone each year, so dealing with COVID patients on top of this will be a real challenge. That's why the Nightingale hospitals have been kept on standby. Isn't it strange how we can find billions to pay for people to sit at home on their arses to 'protect the NHS' but we can't seem to find the money to actually build a health service that isn't on the brink of collapse constantly... A question of priorities.... It takes 5+ years to train a doctor and 3+ years to train a nurse so takes times. The NHS has had it funding squeezed for at least 10 years. These things take time to fix, no amount of money can do that. If its had its budget squeezed for more than 10 years. You'd expect less to have been spent on the NHS right? 2008 110 bn 2010 118bn 2019 140bn So that'll be 30bn more. " Perhaps consider how the country has grown. Perhaps consider how research means we're saving more people and then have to manage their chronic diseases. Consider the value of the pound. Consider the wage bill. I'm sure there are other factors. | |||
" Those at greatest risk need to take whatever precautions they feel are necessary and compatible with their personal lifestyle. Those who feel the need to shield should be supported. Those who want to live normally should be allowed to do so. Do you see how this turns those who need to shield i.e. the elderly, disabled and chronically ill,into second class citizens who are 'supported' to stay home so the rest of us can get on with our lives?" Ignoring the second class citizen comment as that's purely an opinion, a provocative opinion, what is wrong with those who can, do and those who cannot, get supported? It's a temporary situation. Another way of looking at it is, those who can, should. This will help the economy. | |||
" Those at greatest risk need to take whatever precautions they feel are necessary and compatible with their personal lifestyle. Those who feel the need to shield should be supported. Those who want to live normally should be allowed to do so. Do you see how this turns those who need to shield i.e. the elderly, disabled and chronically ill,into second class citizens who are 'supported' to stay home so the rest of us can get on with our lives? Ignoring the second class citizen comment as that's purely an opinion, a provocative opinion, what is wrong with those who can, do and those who cannot, get supported? It's a temporary situation. Another way of looking at it is, those who can, should. This will help the economy. " I don’t think it is a provocative opinion. History has shown us that out of sight, out of mind us a very real phenomenon. Those of us who are able to ‘get back to normal’ will quickly become used to it, and once we are used to it then it will become very difficult to stop us behaving that way. It’s very easy to extend temporary measures for a little longer, then a little longer again. Soon we will find that society’s most vulnerable and those without a voice have been sacrificing for the benefit of the rest of us for years. Studies I to human behaviour shows that habits form quickly and we are loathe to give up what we have, it is our duty to make sure that the most vulnerable are supported to have the same rights as the rest of us, that is the measure of a society. | |||
"If its had its budget squeezed for more than 10 years. You'd expect less to have been spent on the NHS right? 2008 110 bn 2010 118bn 2019 140bn So that'll be 30bn more. Erm... no, that’s not how it works. Every year things get more expensive, that’s inflation. Also new drugs and treatments are invented which generally are not cheap because they are so new. Also people are living longer, meaning every year we have more old people; and what do old people need? Yep, more healthcare. Add to that adult social care has had its budget slashed to the bone which means someone has to pick up the work that was once undertaken by those nice people who worked for the councils, guess who that is? Yep it’s those lovely people in the NHS. Then if we take into account that 10 years of no pay rises and increasing workload has lead to more and more staff quitting we can see that using locum agencies has cost the NHS an absolute fortune. But wait, we’re not finished there, due to fewer step down beds, places in care homes and staff in adult social care it means that a lot of people are spending more time in hospital, which costs more money, and also eats into the money Trusts are paid for procedures. ‘Bed blocking’ means there are fewer beds to use for elective patients, which means fewer elective operations are done, which means less income is generated. Theatres aren’t operating to maximum capacity due to staff shortages, which again means less income generated, and also longer waiting lists and more Trusts being fined for not meeting targets. All this lost income and fines mean Trusts are going into debt, which the government fines them for, increasing the debt, meaning Trusts can’t afford to maintain buildings and equipment, which means lower capacity, which in turn means less income! Oh and the absolutely huge vacancy levels in GP land means that more patients are now much sicker when getting to hospital, meaning their care is more complex and more expensive. The NHS is massively underfunded, and I can’t see another four years of the Tories making that any better. I don't see covid helping eather the treasury will be low on income from tourists and paye let alone all the other money spent and to quote any fingers is quite random to me even if on GDP in real terms do you know what it was per person in 2000 to 2020 if population is growing at 10% and funding goes up 9% and inflation ouch the penny dose not fit the slot it's the same for schools etc. But do we the tax payer want to pay?????" Who else will pay ? The non tax payers ? Cut benefits ? | |||
| |||
" Those at greatest risk need to take whatever precautions they feel are necessary and compatible with their personal lifestyle. Those who feel the need to shield should be supported. Those who want to live normally should be allowed to do so. Do you see how this turns those who need to shield i.e. the elderly, disabled and chronically ill,into second class citizens who are 'supported' to stay home so the rest of us can get on with our lives? Ignoring the second class citizen comment as that's purely an opinion, a provocative opinion, what is wrong with those who can, do and those who cannot, get supported? It's a temporary situation. Another way of looking at it is, those who can, should. This will help the economy. " Because it goes from those who cannot, get supported to those who cannot be arsed, get supported. | |||
" It’s very easy to extend temporary measures for a little longer, then a little longer again. Soon we will find that society’s most vulnerable and those without a voice have been sacrificing for the benefit of the rest of us for years." Indeed, it is very easy to extend temporary measures for a little longer, and a little longer again. Soon we will find that we've all been sacrificing our personal freedoms for the benefit of a highly vocal minority for years... Your argument works both ways. | |||
"If its had its budget squeezed for more than 10 years. You'd expect less to have been spent on the NHS right? 2008 110 bn 2010 118bn 2019 140bn So that'll be 30bn more. Erm... no, that’s not how it works. Every year things get more expensive, that’s inflation. Also new drugs and treatments are invented which generally are not cheap because they are so new. Also people are living longer, meaning every year we have more old people; and what do old people need? Yep, more healthcare. Add to that adult social care has had its budget slashed to the bone which means someone has to pick up the work that was once undertaken by those nice people who worked for the councils, guess who that is? Yep it’s those lovely people in the NHS. Then if we take into account that 10 years of no pay rises and increasing workload has lead to more and more staff quitting we can see that using locum agencies has cost the NHS an absolute fortune. But wait, we’re not finished there, due to fewer step down beds, places in care homes and staff in adult social care it means that a lot of people are spending more time in hospital, which costs more money, and also eats into the money Trusts are paid for procedures. ‘Bed blocking’ means there are fewer beds to use for elective patients, which means fewer elective operations are done, which means less income is generated. Theatres aren’t operating to maximum capacity due to staff shortages, which again means less income generated, and also longer waiting lists and more Trusts being fined for not meeting targets. All this lost income and fines mean Trusts are going into debt, which the government fines them for, increasing the debt, meaning Trusts can’t afford to maintain buildings and equipment, which means lower capacity, which in turn means less income! Oh and the absolutely huge vacancy levels in GP land means that more patients are now much sicker when getting to hospital, meaning their care is more complex and more expensive. The NHS is massively underfunded, and I can’t see another four years of the Tories making that any better. I don't see covid helping eather the treasury will be low on income from tourists and paye let alone all the other money spent and to quote any fingers is quite random to me even if on GDP in real terms do you know what it was per person in 2000 to 2020 if population is growing at 10% and funding goes up 9% and inflation ouch the penny dose not fit the slot it's the same for schools etc. But do we the tax payer want to pay????? Who else will pay ? The non tax payers ? Cut benefits ?" Unless they're going to scrap the welfare budget in half, there will be no point looking there... and as 60% of the welfare budget is pensions and nobody will sanction reducing pensions. So the only way that the money could be recovered from benefits would be to scrap them all together. Cal | |||
"If its had its budget squeezed for more than 10 years. You'd expect less to have been spent on the NHS right? 2008 110 bn 2010 118bn 2019 140bn So that'll be 30bn more. Erm... no, that’s not how it works. Every year things get more expensive, that’s inflation. Also new drugs and treatments are invented which generally are not cheap because they are so new. Also people are living longer, meaning every year we have more old people; and what do old people need? Yep, more healthcare. Add to that adult social care has had its budget slashed to the bone which means someone has to pick up the work that was once undertaken by those nice people who worked for the councils, guess who that is? Yep it’s those lovely people in the NHS. Then if we take into account that 10 years of no pay rises and increasing workload has lead to more and more staff quitting we can see that using locum agencies has cost the NHS an absolute fortune. But wait, we’re not finished there, due to fewer step down beds, places in care homes and staff in adult social care it means that a lot of people are spending more time in hospital, which costs more money, and also eats into the money Trusts are paid for procedures. ‘Bed blocking’ means there are fewer beds to use for elective patients, which means fewer elective operations are done, which means less income is generated. Theatres aren’t operating to maximum capacity due to staff shortages, which again means less income generated, and also longer waiting lists and more Trusts being fined for not meeting targets. All this lost income and fines mean Trusts are going into debt, which the government fines them for, increasing the debt, meaning Trusts can’t afford to maintain buildings and equipment, which means lower capacity, which in turn means less income! Oh and the absolutely huge vacancy levels in GP land means that more patients are now much sicker when getting to hospital, meaning their care is more complex and more expensive. The NHS is massively underfunded, and I can’t see another four years of the Tories making that any better. I don't see covid helping eather the treasury will be low on income from tourists and paye let alone all the other money spent and to quote any fingers is quite random to me even if on GDP in real terms do you know what it was per person in 2000 to 2020 if population is growing at 10% and funding goes up 9% and inflation ouch the penny dose not fit the slot it's the same for schools etc. But do we the tax payer want to pay????? Who else will pay ? The non tax payers ? Cut benefits ? Unless they're going to scrap the welfare budget in half, there will be no point looking there... and as 60% of the welfare budget is pensions and nobody will sanction reducing pensions. So the only way that the money could be recovered from benefits would be to scrap them all together. Cal" *cut in half, not scrap in half* | |||
" Those at greatest risk need to take whatever precautions they feel are necessary and compatible with their personal lifestyle. Those who feel the need to shield should be supported. Those who want to live normally should be allowed to do so. Do you see how this turns those who need to shield i.e. the elderly, disabled and chronically ill,into second class citizens who are 'supported' to stay home so the rest of us can get on with our lives? Ignoring the second class citizen comment as that's purely an opinion, a provocative opinion, what is wrong with those who can, do and those who cannot, get supported? It's a temporary situation. Another way of looking at it is, those who can, should. This will help the economy. I don’t think it is a provocative opinion. History has shown us that out of sight, out of mind us a very real phenomenon. Those of us who are able to ‘get back to normal’ will quickly become used to it, and once we are used to it then it will become very difficult to stop us behaving that way. It’s very easy to extend temporary measures for a little longer, then a little longer again. Soon we will find that society’s most vulnerable and those without a voice have been sacrificing for the benefit of the rest of us for years. Studies I to human behaviour shows that habits form quickly and we are loathe to give up what we have, it is our duty to make sure that the most vulnerable are supported to have the same rights as the rest of us, that is the measure of a society."
However, we do need to get the economy moving and protect the vulnerable at the same time. Where's the solution? | |||
" Those at greatest risk need to take whatever precautions they feel are necessary and compatible with their personal lifestyle. Those who feel the need to shield should be supported. Those who want to live normally should be allowed to do so. Do you see how this turns those who need to shield i.e. the elderly, disabled and chronically ill,into second class citizens who are 'supported' to stay home so the rest of us can get on with our lives? Ignoring the second class citizen comment as that's purely an opinion, a provocative opinion, what is wrong with those who can, do and those who cannot, get supported? It's a temporary situation. Another way of looking at it is, those who can, should. This will help the economy. Because it goes from those who cannot, get supported to those who cannot be arsed, get supported." Every society has those - we could look at FDR's New Deal (I think I'm remembering correctly). | |||
"Since July 13th. Deaths still low but obviously the way of counting deaths has changed since back then. I'm finding it hard to be optimistic about all of today's figures,so at what point, do figures become concerning to you?" Maybe good to remember that the recovery rate is still 99.2 %,x | |||
"Just wondering; did the lockdown simply buy more time and did it simply delay an inevitable spread. Has hiding behind the sofa for six months actually achieved much. Anyone ??? " You may have a point | |||
| |||
"The figures doesnt really concern me, the media do hype it up abit as well." Imagine you're 76 yrs old. You suffer with diabetes and require an amputation due to peripheral neuropathy. Are you now scared? | |||
"Since July 13th. Deaths still low but obviously the way of counting deaths has changed since back then. I'm finding it hard to be optimistic about all of today's figures,so at what point, do figures become concerning to you?" Increased testing means increased detection And it’s younger people due to school return Chin up WHO state A symptomatic transmission is rare This will also reduce the mortality rate as more are tested It’s gone from pandemic to casedemic Weekly death toll for the at risk age groups lower than the first 12 weeks of the year, and the average Try not to panic, assess your risk and be sensible, it’s all any of us can do | |||
"The figures doesnt really concern me, the media do hype it up abit as well. Imagine you're 76 yrs old. You suffer with diabetes and require an amputation due to peripheral neuropathy. Are you now scared? " Yes I would be as it is an underlying condition that I knew I had. | |||
" That was the whole point of lockdown, to slow the spread so the NHS wasn't overwhelmed. It was always going to come down to herd immunity either from a vaccine or naturally built immunity. " I think this is very accurate | |||
" It’s very easy to extend temporary measures for a little longer, then a little longer again. Soon we will find that society’s most vulnerable and those without a voice have been sacrificing for the benefit of the rest of us for years. Indeed, it is very easy to extend temporary measures for a little longer, and a little longer again. Soon we will find that we've all been sacrificing our personal freedoms for the benefit of a highly vocal minority for years... Your argument works both ways." Which highly vocal minority? | |||
"Since July 13th. Deaths still low but obviously the way of counting deaths has changed since back then. I'm finding it hard to be optimistic about all of today's figures,so at what point, do figures become concerning to you?" Last week we noticed admissions starting to increase through our doors very slightly. Looking over the Chanel we can see France is suddenly ramping and their admissions are rising at a frightening speed, we’ve always been about 4 weeks behind them nationally and we’ve mirrored a lot of their approach. I’m properly concerned right now, we are heading towards a second rise at the worst possible time to be able to manage it... autumn and winter could very likely become horrific tbh x | |||
"Maybe good to remember that the recovery rate is still 99.2 %,x" I remember at the start of the pandemic the U.K. recovery rate was 74%, not surprising as we where treating an illness with no history or insight, we had to feel our the best approaches and treatments, we continue to do so. It’s a bit like in the 1800’s 50% of injured soldiers died of their wounds in battle... fast forward to 2020, 1 in 24 soldiers hit dies on average... a result of better immediate treatment. What this improved figure masks is the grey area between life and death. In the same way as the British Army creates number of limbless soldiers in every conflict it fights that it previously didn’t the NHS is saving a lot of lives which 6 months ago we couldn... But, they do not walk away fighting fit. There’s many with long term complications and issues which will affect their future life. Your use of the survival rate is pretty flippant, it completely misses the level of damage this virus is doing across all age groups. | |||
" Maybe good to remember that the recovery rate is still 99.2 %,x" Define "recovery".... because if your definition of recovery is "not death"... then i know a fair few people who are suffering from the long term effects of covid... I know a few where they say their lungs are not back to where it was.... and having had pneumonia in the past and taking a good 4-5 months before i started feeling back to somewhere near normal I can only imagine what these people are still going thru! | |||
"Since July 13th. Deaths still low but obviously the way of counting deaths has changed since back then. I'm finding it hard to be optimistic about all of today's figures,so at what point, do figures become concerning to you? Maybe good to remember that the recovery rate is still 99.2 %,x" Bit of an ignorant comment tbh, my sister had it and has long term health implications so yes she survived it but the 'recovery' is long term and may lead to a loss of employment.. Father in law also but as he is elderly is retired.. We don't yet know the levels of long term health issues for many who got through the initial part of the virus.. | |||
| |||
"Chatting with someone this evening who ferries folk around, to and from hospitals and he reckons that in the 3 main hospitals in my area of Kent (Ashford, Thanet and Canterbury) there are no Covid-19 patients on the wards." But what does it take for people even now after tens of thousands of deaths to take note? All wards in all three hospitals full of covid patients, many on ventilation? | |||
"Chatting with someone this evening who ferries folk around, to and from hospitals and he reckons that in the 3 main hospitals in my area of Kent (Ashford, Thanet and Canterbury) there are no Covid-19 patients on the wards." Which is a good thing, let’s hope it stays that way. | |||
"Chatting with someone this evening who ferries folk around, to and from hospitals and he reckons that in the 3 main hospitals in my area of Kent (Ashford, Thanet and Canterbury) there are no Covid-19 patients on the wards." Would he as an external driver, necessarily know the personal health details of every patient in the three hospitals? I'd hope not. | |||
"Since July 13th. Deaths still low but obviously the way of counting deaths has changed since back then. I'm finding it hard to be optimistic about all of today's figures,so at what point, do figures become concerning to you? Increased testing means increased detection And it’s younger people due to school return Chin up WHO state A symptomatic transmission is rare This will also reduce the mortality rate as more are tested It’s gone from pandemic to casedemic Weekly death toll for the at risk age groups lower than the first 12 weeks of the year, and the average Try not to panic, assess your risk and be sensible, it’s all any of us can do " If you watched Boris on Thurs, or rather Chris whitty with the stats, it's actually 17-21 year-old. | |||
"The figures doesnt really concern me, the media do hype it up abit as well. Imagine you're 76 yrs old. You suffer with diabetes and require an amputation due to peripheral neuropathy. Are you now scared? Yes I would be as it is an underlying condition that I knew I had." Even tho you believe it's hyped? | |||
"Chatting with someone this evening who ferries folk around, to and from hospitals and he reckons that in the 3 main hospitals in my area of Kent (Ashford, Thanet and Canterbury) there are no Covid-19 patients on the wards." And your point is? I can say the same for Manchester, we’ve had a very low covid count for a number of weeks now, locally we’ve seen a big rise in infection rates in the younger age groups and that seems to be spreading upwards now. Just a handful of people have in recent days started to come through to us but we know as we progress another 12 days these will increase as people’s illnesses fail to improve. We also have news that people are testing positive in the care system. Heaven forbid we look at our french neighbours who have always been 4-6 weeks ahead of us during this pandemic. We are looking around our sedate wards and shitting ourselves at what’s to come to be totally honest. | |||
"Just wondering; did the lockdown simply buy more time and did it simply delay an inevitable spread. Has hiding behind the sofa for six months actually achieved much. Anyone ??? " Yes given the NHS and government time to try to deal with things | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"Lets be fair - those spunky lazy teachers will be off work at the drop of a hat" Really? | |||
 | |||
| |||
"Has anyone noticed on the bbc news the death report under the figure it now says something like death for any reason afer testing positive in the last 28 days. So does that mean they are admitting that if someone gets run over after testing positive it is added to the corona death total ???" Or people that die from covid but more than 28 days after a positive test they don't get counted on the covid death toll. | |||
| |||
| |||
" Or people that die from covid but more than 28 days after a positive test they don't get counted on the covid death toll." In this case how do you know they have died of Covid ? | |||
"Has anyone noticed on the bbc news the death report under the figure it now says something like death for any reason afer testing positive in the last 28 days. So does that mean they are admitting that if someone gets run over after testing positive it is added to the corona death total ???" No. | |||
| |||
"Has anyone noticed on the bbc news the death report under the figure it now says something like death for any reason afer testing positive in the last 28 days. So does that mean they are admitting that if someone gets run over after testing positive it is added to the corona death total ???" No | |||
" Or people that die from covid but more than 28 days after a positive test they don't get counted on the covid death toll. In this case how do you know they have died of Covid ?" For example my cousin in his mid 40s who thankfully did not die. Was in hospital for 7 weeks with covid. Was on a ventilator for 5. If he had died he wouldn't be counted in the stats but he almost certainly should. His kidney, heart and lungs are all severely damaged and will almost certainly shorten his life. Someone who is young and fit could fight the virus for more than 28 days but still die. | |||
"About time we try the Swedish way. Protect the vulnerable and trust the rest to assess risk and act as they, not the state, see as appropriate. " Unfortunately a large part of our community choose not to behave responsibly... So no... We can't be trusted to wipe our own arses let alone be caring about other people in our communities. | |||
"About time we try the Swedish way. Protect the vulnerable and trust the rest to assess risk and act as they, not the state, see as appropriate. " Trust the rest ? Do you read the posts in this forum ? Some people cant be trusted full stop | |||
" Or people that die from covid but more than 28 days after a positive test they don't get counted on the covid death toll. In this case how do you know they have died of Covid ? For example my cousin in his mid 40s who thankfully did not die. Was in hospital for 7 weeks with covid. Was on a ventilator for 5. If he had died he wouldn't be counted in the stats but he almost certainly should. His kidney, heart and lungs are all severely damaged and will almost certainly shorten his life. Someone who is young and fit could fight the virus for more than 28 days but still die." I was under the impression they publish 3 lots of stats. Within 28 days, within 60 days and the remainder. | |||
"Lets be fair - those spunky lazy teachers will be off work at the drop of a hat" Come do my job for a day... a week... see how you feel then. Seriously such an appalling attitude. | |||
" Or people that die from covid but more than 28 days after a positive test they don't get counted on the covid death toll. In this case how do you know they have died of Covid ? For example my cousin in his mid 40s who thankfully did not die. Was in hospital for 7 weeks with covid. Was on a ventilator for 5. If he had died he wouldn't be counted in the stats but he almost certainly should. His kidney, heart and lungs are all severely damaged and will almost certainly shorten his life. Someone who is young and fit could fight the virus for more than 28 days but still die. I was under the impression they publish 3 lots of stats. Within 28 days, within 60 days and the remainder." Not aware of this but would interesting to compare. The stats i have seen are within 28 days, probable, i.e where covid is mentioned and total excess deaths. | |||
"About time we try the Swedish way. Protect the vulnerable and trust the rest to assess risk and act as they, not the state, see as appropriate. Trust the rest ? Do you read the posts in this forum ? Some people cant be trusted full stop" It's the same few names in this forum, who are a small proportion of the site, who are a small proportion of the population. Where I live we have had 4 cases in the last 10 weeks which reflects the behaviour of the people I see when I'm out and about. There are many people doing the right thing. | |||
" Or people that die from covid but more than 28 days after a positive test they don't get counted on the covid death toll. In this case how do you know they have died of Covid ? For example my cousin in his mid 40s who thankfully did not die. Was in hospital for 7 weeks with covid. Was on a ventilator for 5. If he had died he wouldn't be counted in the stats but he almost certainly should. His kidney, heart and lungs are all severely damaged and will almost certainly shorten his life. Someone who is young and fit could fight the virus for more than 28 days but still die." I'm very sorry. | |||
"About time we try the Swedish way. Protect the vulnerable and trust the rest to assess risk and act as they, not the state, see as appropriate. Trust the rest ? Do you read the posts in this forum ? Some people cant be trusted full stop It's the same few names in this forum, who are a small proportion of the site, who are a small proportion of the population. Where I live we have had 4 cases in the last 10 weeks which reflects the behaviour of the people I see when I'm out and about. There are many people doing the right thing." vuvu land must he a very nice place to live then for the rest of us in big cities which is where most of uk population lives, there are easily as many people testing and pushing the boundaries just a little to suit themselves (or even further again) as there are doing the right thing why do you think they had to ban the scottish central belt from being in other peoples houses and pit so many cities in a lockdown again ... we got an inch and took a mile | |||
| |||
"About time we try the Swedish way. Protect the vulnerable and trust the rest to assess risk and act as they, not the state, see as appropriate. Trust the rest ? Do you read the posts in this forum ? Some people cant be trusted full stop It's the same few names in this forum, who are a small proportion of the site, who are a small proportion of the population. Where I live we have had 4 cases in the last 10 weeks which reflects the behaviour of the people I see when I'm out and about. There are many people doing the right thing. vuvu land must he a very nice place to live then for the rest of us in big cities which is where most of uk population lives, there are easily as many people testing and pushing the boundaries just a little to suit themselves (or even further again) as there are doing the right thing why do you think they had to ban the scottish central belt from being in other peoples houses and pit so many cities in a lockdown again ... we got an inch and took a mile " We have a government which clearly has no idea what to do, we have a broken economy, a health service serving only the Covid crisis, an increasingly divided nation. All this because of a disease which (tragic for those who die) is killing only a handful of people every day. We will never get back to anything like a normal life unless we start to protect the vulnerable and let the rest make their own choices. It seems to be working for Sweden. | |||
"About time we try the Swedish way. Protect the vulnerable and trust the rest to assess risk and act as they, not the state, see as appropriate. Trust the rest ? Do you read the posts in this forum ? Some people cant be trusted full stop It's the same few names in this forum, who are a small proportion of the site, who are a small proportion of the population. Where I live we have had 4 cases in the last 10 weeks which reflects the behaviour of the people I see when I'm out and about. There are many people doing the right thing. vuvu land must he a very nice place to live then for the rest of us in big cities which is where most of uk population lives, there are easily as many people testing and pushing the boundaries just a little to suit themselves (or even further again) as there are doing the right thing why do you think they had to ban the scottish central belt from being in other peoples houses and pit so many cities in a lockdown again ... we got an inch and took a mile We have a government which clearly has no idea what to do, we have a broken economy, a health service serving only the Covid crisis, an increasingly divided nation. All this because of a disease which (tragic for those who die) is killing only a handful of people every day. We will never get back to anything like a normal life unless we start to protect the vulnerable and let the rest make their own choices. It seems to be working for Sweden. " Sweden didn't protect their vunerable. They let them die, which is why sweden's death rate is at least 10 times higher than any other Scandinavian country. | |||
"About time we try the Swedish way. Protect the vulnerable and trust the rest to assess risk and act as they, not the state, see as appropriate. Trust the rest ? Do you read the posts in this forum ? Some people cant be trusted full stop It's the same few names in this forum, who are a small proportion of the site, who are a small proportion of the population. Where I live we have had 4 cases in the last 10 weeks which reflects the behaviour of the people I see when I'm out and about. There are many people doing the right thing. vuvu land must he a very nice place to live then for the rest of us in big cities which is where most of uk population lives, there are easily as many people testing and pushing the boundaries just a little to suit themselves (or even further again) as there are doing the right thing why do you think they had to ban the scottish central belt from being in other peoples houses and pit so many cities in a lockdown again ... we got an inch and took a mile We have a government which clearly has no idea what to do, we have a broken economy, a health service serving only the Covid crisis, an increasingly divided nation. All this because of a disease which (tragic for those who die) is killing only a handful of people every day. We will never get back to anything like a normal life unless we start to protect the vulnerable and let the rest make their own choices. It seems to be working for Sweden. " To be fair to the woefully incompetent self gratifying arsehole who is unfortunately prime minister, they have no choice but to try to relax the restrictions and see what happens. Unfortunately they can't allow for ignorant sociopaths who couldn't give a flying fk and therefore they have to find a delicate balance between lockdown and normality. Fortunately they have *some* very clever people monitoring and telling them how and when to react The problem is not unique to the UK and unfortunately cannot be directly blamed on a truly useless prime minister I do honestly think Boris is suffering from some mild brain damage post Covid though or possibly severe | |||
"About time we try the Swedish way. Protect the vulnerable and trust the rest to assess risk and act as they, not the state, see as appropriate. Trust the rest ? Do you read the posts in this forum ? Some people cant be trusted full stop It's the same few names in this forum, who are a small proportion of the site, who are a small proportion of the population. Where I live we have had 4 cases in the last 10 weeks which reflects the behaviour of the people I see when I'm out and about. There are many people doing the right thing. vuvu land must he a very nice place to live then for the rest of us in big cities which is where most of uk population lives, there are easily as many people testing and pushing the boundaries just a little to suit themselves (or even further again) as there are doing the right thing why do you think they had to ban the scottish central belt from being in other peoples houses and pit so many cities in a lockdown again ... we got an inch and took a mile We have a government which clearly has no idea what to do, we have a broken economy, a health service serving only the Covid crisis, an increasingly divided nation. All this because of a disease which (tragic for those who die) is killing only a handful of people every day. We will never get back to anything like a normal life unless we start to protect the vulnerable and let the rest make their own choices. It seems to be working for Sweden. Sweden didn't protect their vunerable. They let them die, which is why sweden's death rate is at least 10 times higher than any other Scandinavian country." Yes, Sweden got that wrong and they admit it. We lost tens of thousands in the care system. Sweden now has low infection rates, while ours are rising. We also have a divided nation, a broken society and economy. The government has no grip of the situation and no plan (other than more, increasingly ignored, restrictions) to offer us. What if Covid goes on for years? | |||
"About time we try the Swedish way. Protect the vulnerable and trust the rest to assess risk and act as they, not the state, see as appropriate. Trust the rest ? Do you read the posts in this forum ? Some people cant be trusted full stop It's the same few names in this forum, who are a small proportion of the site, who are a small proportion of the population. Where I live we have had 4 cases in the last 10 weeks which reflects the behaviour of the people I see when I'm out and about. There are many people doing the right thing. vuvu land must he a very nice place to live then for the rest of us in big cities which is where most of uk population lives, there are easily as many people testing and pushing the boundaries just a little to suit themselves (or even further again) as there are doing the right thing why do you think they had to ban the scottish central belt from being in other peoples houses and pit so many cities in a lockdown again ... we got an inch and took a mile We have a government which clearly has no idea what to do, we have a broken economy, a health service serving only the Covid crisis, an increasingly divided nation. All this because of a disease which (tragic for those who die) is killing only a handful of people every day. We will never get back to anything like a normal life unless we start to protect the vulnerable and let the rest make their own choices. It seems to be working for Sweden. Sweden didn't protect their vunerable. They let them die, which is why sweden's death rate is at least 10 times higher than any other Scandinavian country. Yes, Sweden got that wrong and they admit it. We lost tens of thousands in the care system. Sweden now has low infection rates, while ours are rising. We also have a divided nation, a broken society and economy. The government has no grip of the situation and no plan (other than more, increasingly ignored, restrictions) to offer us. What if Covid goes on for years?" Sweden is also a completely different country with a completely different culture which values social responsibility far greater than we do in the UK. That doesn’t even touch on the fact we live in a far more densely populated country with far more opportunity for the irresponsible to spread the virus. | |||
"About time we try the Swedish way. Protect the vulnerable and trust the rest to assess risk and act as they, not the state, see as appropriate. Trust the rest ? Do you read the posts in this forum ? Some people cant be trusted full stop It's the same few names in this forum, who are a small proportion of the site, who are a small proportion of the population. Where I live we have had 4 cases in the last 10 weeks which reflects the behaviour of the people I see when I'm out and about. There are many people doing the right thing. vuvu land must he a very nice place to live then for the rest of us in big cities which is where most of uk population lives, there are easily as many people testing and pushing the boundaries just a little to suit themselves (or even further again) as there are doing the right thing why do you think they had to ban the scottish central belt from being in other peoples houses and pit so many cities in a lockdown again ... we got an inch and took a mile We have a government which clearly has no idea what to do, we have a broken economy, a health service serving only the Covid crisis, an increasingly divided nation. All this because of a disease which (tragic for those who die) is killing only a handful of people every day. We will never get back to anything like a normal life unless we start to protect the vulnerable and let the rest make their own choices. It seems to be working for Sweden. To be fair to the woefully incompetent self gratifying arsehole who is unfortunately prime minister, they have no choice but to try to relax the restrictions and see what happens. Unfortunately they can't allow for ignorant sociopaths who couldn't give a flying fk and therefore they have to find a delicate balance between lockdown and normality. Fortunately they have *some* very clever people monitoring and telling them how and when to react The problem is not unique to the UK and unfortunately cannot be directly blamed on a truly useless prime minister I do honestly think Boris is suffering from some mild brain damage post Covid though or possibly severe" agreed will never be a boris fan but you cant always blame the government for the actions of the people and looking at the actions of the people and trying to compare us to a scandanavian country where peoples value base differs greatly from our own is just madness i think you only have to read the quarantine threads to get a sense of how many people would give a crap about protecting the vulnerable if the restrictions were not written into law | |||
"About time we try the Swedish way. Protect the vulnerable and trust the rest to assess risk and act as they, not the state, see as appropriate. Trust the rest ? Do you read the posts in this forum ? Some people cant be trusted full stop It's the same few names in this forum, who are a small proportion of the site, who are a small proportion of the population. Where I live we have had 4 cases in the last 10 weeks which reflects the behaviour of the people I see when I'm out and about. There are many people doing the right thing. vuvu land must he a very nice place to live then for the rest of us in big cities which is where most of uk population lives, there are easily as many people testing and pushing the boundaries just a little to suit themselves (or even further again) as there are doing the right thing why do you think they had to ban the scottish central belt from being in other peoples houses and pit so many cities in a lockdown again ... we got an inch and took a mile We have a government which clearly has no idea what to do, we have a broken economy, a health service serving only the Covid crisis, an increasingly divided nation. All this because of a disease which (tragic for those who die) is killing only a handful of people every day. We will never get back to anything like a normal life unless we start to protect the vulnerable and let the rest make their own choices. It seems to be working for Sweden. Sweden didn't protect their vunerable. They let them die, which is why sweden's death rate is at least 10 times higher than any other Scandinavian country. Yes, Sweden got that wrong and they admit it. We lost tens of thousands in the care system. Sweden now has low infection rates, while ours are rising. We also have a divided nation, a broken society and economy. The government has no grip of the situation and no plan (other than more, increasingly ignored, restrictions) to offer us. What if Covid goes on for years?" youve hit the nail on the head in your own post “increasingly ignored restrictions” if we cant get people to follow legal restrictions why on earth do you think they will restrict their life to protect the vulnerable from the kindness of their own heart | |||
| |||
| |||
"People may not restrict themselves though kindness of their hearts, but may respond to common sense rather than threats and denial of civil liberties by an out of touch and increasingly panicked government. " A coherent response and clear explanation would be a wonderful thing. Restrictions on civil liberties are often essential to contain infectious disease. | |||
"People may not restrict themselves though kindness of their hearts, but may respond to common sense rather than threats and denial of civil liberties by an out of touch and increasingly panicked government. " Have you met many people? | |||
"People may not restrict themselves though kindness of their hearts, but may respond to common sense rather than threats and denial of civil liberties by an out of touch and increasingly panicked government. Have you met many people?" Yes, and many of them are getting on with their lives regardless of the rules and that is why a new approach is needed. | |||
"People may not restrict themselves though kindness of their hearts, but may respond to common sense rather than threats and denial of civil liberties by an out of touch and increasingly panicked government. " Absolutely spot on. Average daily UK Covid deaths over the last couple of weeks. - 9 per day Deaths from Suicide per day 18 (Average daily 2018 rate)- 18 per day Deaths from Air Pollution per day (European Heart Journal Estimate 2019) - 175 For more information on real data search for "Viral Issue Crucial Update Sept 8th: the Science, Logic and Data Explained!" on Youtube. It should be mandatory watching for everyone. | |||
"People may not restrict themselves though kindness of their hearts, but may respond to common sense rather than threats and denial of civil liberties by an out of touch and increasingly panicked government. Absolutely spot on. Average daily UK Covid deaths over the last couple of weeks. - 9 per day Deaths from Suicide per day 18 (Average daily 2018 rate)- 18 per day Deaths from Air Pollution per day (European Heart Journal Estimate 2019) - 175 For more information on real data search for "Viral Issue Crucial Update Sept 8th: the Science, Logic and Data Explained!" on Youtube. It should be mandatory watching for everyone." Why does your data come from three sets of sources? Doesn't that automatically render them meaningless because different years produce different conditions? Or does it not matter because you've found a way that you think makes you look sciencey while supporting letting the virus rip and destroying lives? | |||
"People may not restrict themselves though kindness of their hearts, but may respond to common sense rather than threats and denial of civil liberties by an out of touch and increasingly panicked government. Absolutely spot on. Average daily UK Covid deaths over the last couple of weeks. - 9 per day Deaths from Suicide per day 18 (Average daily 2018 rate)- 18 per day Deaths from Air Pollution per day (European Heart Journal Estimate 2019) - 175 For more information on real data search for "Viral Issue Crucial Update Sept 8th: the Science, Logic and Data Explained!" on Youtube. It should be mandatory watching for everyone. Why does your data come from three sets of sources? Doesn't that automatically render them meaningless because different years produce different conditions? Or does it not matter because you've found a way that you think makes you look sciencey while supporting letting the virus rip and destroying lives?" Sadly we are in a "Catch 22" situation. More and more people are dieing, and will die, from cancelled medical care and poverty. At the moment the death rate from Covid is low. If it stays that way, we can allow a high rate of infection among those least in danger. | |||
"People may not restrict themselves though kindness of their hearts, but may respond to common sense rather than threats and denial of civil liberties by an out of touch and increasingly panicked government. Have you met many people? Yes, and many of them are getting on with their lives regardless of the rules and that is why a new approach is needed. " If the new approach is the government being clear and consistent in its guidance so people can understand why it’s not ok to break the rules, then I’m with you. If the new approach is the one where we make all the vulnerable people prisoners in their own homes so the rest of us can get back to having a few pints and fucking strangers off the internet then I have to say I’m out. | |||
"People may not restrict themselves though kindness of their hearts, but may respond to common sense rather than threats and denial of civil liberties by an out of touch and increasingly panicked government. Have you met many people? Yes, and many of them are getting on with their lives regardless of the rules and that is why a new approach is needed. If the new approach is the government being clear and consistent in its guidance so people can understand why it’s not ok to break the rules, then I’m with you. If the new approach is the one where we make all the vulnerable people prisoners in their own homes so the rest of us can get back to having a few pints and fucking strangers off the internet then I have to say I’m out." Yeah ditto. The vulnerable have been prisoners in their homes long enough, thank you. | |||
"People may not restrict themselves though kindness of their hearts, but may respond to common sense rather than threats and denial of civil liberties by an out of touch and increasingly panicked government. Have you met many people? Yes, and many of them are getting on with their lives regardless of the rules and that is why a new approach is needed. If the new approach is the government being clear and consistent in its guidance so people can understand why it’s not ok to break the rules, then I’m with you. If the new approach is the one where we make all the vulnerable people prisoners in their own homes so the rest of us can get back to having a few pints and fucking strangers off the internet then I have to say I’m out." | |||
"Since July 13th. Deaths still low but obviously the way of counting deaths has changed since back then. I'm finding it hard to be optimistic about all of today's figures,so at what point, do figures become concerning to you?" Yes, they do. I could get more cancelled appointments in the near future | |||
