Coronavirus

[G STAR RAM]

6 minutes ago, Cardinal said:

Where does this whole NHS is at breaking point come from? My sister is a GP and her husband is a consultant in a hospital. Neither of them have said its at breaking point. Both are pragmatic about the situation. Both says its what they are trained to do. Both say its hard work at the minute and also its hard work for everyone else as well outside of the NHS. 

Yes but that would mean believing people with first hand knowledge, rather than MSM scare stories anecdotes from Twitter.

 

[GboroRam]

2 minutes ago, Cardinal said:

Where does this whole NHS is at breaking point come from? My sister is a GP and her husband is a consultant in a hospital. Neither of them have said its at breaking point. Both are pragmatic about the situation. Both says its what they are trained to do. Both say its hard work at the minute and also its hard work for everyone else as well outside of the NHS. 

At the moment, the NHS is handling things very well. But every year at winter time we hear normal demand has stretched capacity past breaking point and the doctors and nurses are mentally and physically drained from the effort required to keep the wheels turning. 

We're heading into winter and the virus is growing, although I'm optimistic it it starting to plateau again. Shame the data seems so unreliable - hopefully it's more accurate than the first wave. 

Some people would be happy to remove the local lockdowns. That will increase the rate of infection, and increase the pressure on the health services. 

I hope the current measures prove effective enough to see cases drop to a more manageable figure. If not I can picture a lockdown to reduce numbers and prevent covid deaths, otherwise the health service will hit major problems handling demand. 

[Gone]

7 minutes ago, GboroRam said:

Ahem. 

Seriously why do you crave a lockdown so much? I think in the UK for whatever reason it’s shown not to have worked, I’m really intrigued why you desire one so much. 

Why do think I'm craving a lockdown? Why do you think I desire one? 

Seems to me to be the best of a set of bad options. 

Because you keep banging on about having one.......why do something that hasn’t worked? 

Whats the old saying apparently but  questionably quoted by Einstein about the definition of insanity?

[GboroRam]

4 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

Yes but that would mean believing people with first hand knowledge, rather than MSM scare stories anecdotes from Twitter.

 

Ah, of course. No nurses have ever said the NHS is overstretched. I'm sure nobody will have any personal stories to give. I have a friend of a friend who is a nurse and she constantly tells people those scare stories, but I guess she read them on twitter. 

[G STAR RAM]

1 minute ago, GboroRam said:

Ah, of course. No nurses have ever said the NHS is overstretched. I'm sure nobody will have any personal stories to give. I have a friend of a friend who is a nurse and she constantly tells people those scare stories, but I guess she read them on twitter. 

A friend of a friend.

Have you heard of Chinese whispers?

To what some people is just hard work, will be overstretched to others.

I have friends that work at the Royal Hospital and also at Stoke hospital.

Neither have said anything about either being overstretched. 

Obviously, I accept that is 2 hospitals out of a lot. Dont think I have heard first hand from anyone about the NHS being overstretched.

[Cardinal]

The lockdown one is an interesting one. 

From an NHS perspective my sister is a bit concerned by the prospect because it means her kids can't go to school which means she would have to stay at home to look after them which means she can't go to work. 

So effectively, a lockdown is actually causing the NHS to be stretched by taking doctors away from their work. 

Is that a good idea? 

[sage]

4 minutes ago, Cardinal said:

The lockdown one is an interesting one. 

From an NHS perspective my sister is a bit concerned by the prospect because it means her kids can't go to school which means she would have to stay at home to look after them which means she can't go to work. 

So effectively, a lockdown is actually causing the NHS to be stretched by taking doctors away from their work. 

Is that a good idea? 

Children of key workers still go to school.

[G STAR RAM]

3 minutes ago, Cardinal said:

The lockdown one is an interesting one. 

From an NHS perspective my sister is a bit concerned by the prospect because it means her kids can't go to school which means she would have to stay at home to look after them which means she can't go to work. 

So effectively, a lockdown is actually causing the NHS to be stretched by taking doctors away from their work. 

Is that a good idea? 

Wow, now you are daring to move away from the official narrative and offer a different perspective...that will definitely not go down well!

[G STAR RAM]

Just now, sage said:

Children of key workers still go to school.

When we the rules of any new lockdown announced?

I'm assuming a new lockdown would have to be much stricter than before otherwise what is the point?

[Cardinal]

8 minutes ago, sage said:

Children of key workers still go to school.

She has been told that in the case of her kids school if there is an outbreak then the kids would not be allowed to go to school. 

Will probably be different for different regions. 

Plus guess it depends on how hard a lockdown they go for. Hopefully if they do go national lockdown again then they have the same rules as before. But then the virus will still have the opportunity to spread. 

[Eddie]

1 hour ago, G STAR RAM said:

When we the rules of any new lockdown announced?

I'm assuming a new lockdown would have to be much stricter than before otherwise what is the point?

First time we have ever been in agreement.

While there is no effective trace and test system, and while we have a society that doesn't recognise the effectiveness of wearing a mask  and social distancing in order to curtail the spread of the virus, there is no point at all in having a lockdown

[ariotofmyown]

2 hours ago, G STAR RAM said:

So did we get it under control or not, I'm almost as confused as your argument...

Always odd when you keep pressing a non-point like this. We clearly got the virus under control as deaths were minimal. A huge lockdown is clearly going to achieve this as so few people are mixing.

During the lockdown, we should have come up with a robust test process and track and trace system. Why didn't we just give South Korea a ring and ask them how to do it?

Why did we handover loads of responsibility to accountancy firms and pretend companies created by the friends of our ruling elite?

[Andicis]

13 minutes ago, ariotofmyown said:

During the lockdown, we should have come up with a robust test process and track and trace system. Why didn't we just give South Korea a ring and ask them how to do it?

This is without a doubt the key takeaway. No idea what the Government has been playing at with track and trace, they had months of lockdown and they've ducked it completely. 

[G STAR RAM]

24 minutes ago, ariotofmyown said:

Always odd when you keep pressing a non-point like this. We clearly got the virus under control as deaths were minimal. A huge lockdown is clearly going to achieve this as so few people are mixing.

During the lockdown, we should have come up with a robust test process and track and trace system. Why didn't we just give South Korea a ring and ask them how to do it?

Why did we handover loads of responsibility to accountancy firms and pretend companies created by the friends of our ruling elite?

I mean its clearly an easy thing to do.

Every other country in the world has the virus under a control and the perfect track and trace system in place right?

[Albert]

6 hours ago, G STAR RAM said:

How do you gain control when there are hundreds of thousands of cases and many are asymptomatic. 

In theory your idea sounds great, in reality I think you're living in a dream world.

Through controls and restrictions. The UK had the case numbers right down, but never quite got it under control, as they opened as soon as they felt they could, and without using the time to get robust systems in place. 

The suggestion that I'm living in 'a dream World', when the World around me is indeed Covid-free, is truly bizarre. It is very much the reality. The key was that there was competent leadership that made sure that the cases where down, rather than just quietly letting it rip. 

5 hours ago, G STAR RAM said:

A 4 month lockdown failed, how is a 2 week lockdown going to be any different?

Honestly, a 2 week lockdown is going to achieve very little in the UK apart from buying time. Whatever gets done is going to hurt though, either way, as the government failed to control the virus when it had a chance. 

5 hours ago, TexasRam said:

Seriously why do you crave a lockdown so much? I think in the UK for whatever reason it’s shown not to have worked, I’m really intrigued why you desire one so much. 

The UK never showed it didn't work, it absolutely did work, the issue is that they did none of the other stuff that was required for control. 

7 hours ago, G STAR RAM said:

Dont remember commenting on what was happening in Australia?

I may have said I dont think comparing Australia with Europe doesn't work in my opinion. I think the numbers reflect that but happy for that opinion to be challenged.

You're working from the conclusion backwards. Europe failed, and has never managed to get the virus under control. That doesn't mean they weren't capable. In Asia, there are far denser, more connected, countries, and they did indeed achieve control. It's not a cultural point either, as places like Australia have managed it as well, so don't go trying on the 'but we culturally don't listen to our government that way'. We have people who on the campaign trail come up to the sitting prime minister to call them names, and it just because a laugh on the news. The difference was that there was a quick, and organised response, despite having less warning to do so. 

7 hours ago, G STAR RAM said:

If you think the WHO warnings about Covid at the beginning of the year were sufficient then I will respectfully disagree with you.

I dread to think how many cases a day we were at by time their 'warnings' made people sit up and take notice.

Australia was right on it, which is why despite having direct flights from China, and our first cases earlier than the UK, we managed to control things quicker. 

13 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

I mean its clearly an easy thing to do.

Every other country in the world has the virus under a control and the perfect track and trace system in place right?

Who ever said it was easy? Again, you're working backwards. Countries have achieved it, but it is hard, and easy to mess up. It seems that it's your own government that you're really questioning in these posts. 

[Chester40]

35 minutes ago, ariotofmyown said:

Always odd when you keep pressing a non-point like this. We clearly got the virus under control as deaths were minimal. A huge lockdown is clearly going to achieve this as so few people are mixing.

During the lockdown, we should have come up with a robust test process and track and trace system. Why didn't we just give South Korea a ring and ask them how to do it?

Why did we handover loads of responsibility to accountancy firms and pretend companies created by the friends of our ruling elite?

Lockdown worked in that people couldn't mix, so the figures died down. But it wasn't extinguished and it will just go off again as soon as lockdown ends. 

Honest question.. I'm not sure what people's points are with track and trace...what are they saying it isn't doing now that they think it can /could be? If you test positive, you can work back yourself and tell the friends /family you have been in contact with over the previous 2 or 3 days to self-isolate, be vigilant..depending. 

Schools have systems in place now that are slightly OTT but that's to be expected, same with workplaces. There is no stigma, most people would happily tell their colleagues they have had a positive test. 

So when does the track and trace come into force? Where you have mixed with people in a restaurant maybe? I know lots of people who aren't downloading the app, are loathe to give correct mobile numbers to restaurants, or answer their phone to 0300 numbers. Recently I had to give my number to the library when I dropped a book back. If I was called to say someone in there at the same time had tested postive 3 days later and I was expected to self isolate... I would be majorly peed off and question the sanity.

Maybe things will change but at the moment I don't feel there is an overwhelming will to engage with track and trace. I know from Vets football and cricket that lots of the (often self employed) players are constantly working ways round giving their details so they don't risk getting contacted to self isolate if they play a match and later a player tests positive. 

 

[G STAR RAM]

12 minutes ago, Albert said:

Through controls and restrictions. The UK had the case numbers right down, but never quite got it under control, as they opened as soon as they felt they could, and without using the time to get robust systems in place. 

Source on numbers please, including how you have calculated asymptomatic cases.

The suggestion that I'm living in 'a dream World', when the World around me is indeed Covid-free, is truly bizarre. It is very much the reality. The key was that there was competent leadership that made sure that the cases where down, rather than just quietly letting it rip.

Really? Why didnt you say before?

Honestly, a 2 week lockdown is going to achieve very little in the UK apart from buying time. Whatever gets done is going to hurt though, either way, as the government failed to control the virus when it had a chance.

Really? Why didn't you say before?

The UK never showed it didn't work, it absolutely did work, the issue is that they did none of the other stuff that was required for control. 

Really? Why didnt you say before?

You're working from the conclusion backwards. Europe failed, and has never managed to get the virus under control. That doesn't mean they weren't capable. In Asia, there are far denser, more connected, countries, and they did indeed achieve control. It's not a cultural point either, as places like Australia have managed it as well, so don't go trying on the 'but we culturally don't listen to our government that way'. We have people who on the campaign trail come up to the sitting prime minister to call them names, and it just because a laugh on the news. The difference was that there was a quick, and organised response, despite having less warning to do so. 

Really? Why didnt you say before?

Australia was right on it, which is why despite having direct flights from China, and our first cases earlier than the UK, we managed to control things quicker. 

Really? Why didnt you say before?

Who ever said it was easy? Again, you're working backwards. Countries have achieved it, but it is hard, and easy to mess up. It seems that it's your own government that you're really questioning in these posts. 

Really? Why didnt you say before?

 

[Albert]

6 minutes ago, Chester40 said:

Lockdown worked in that people couldn't mix, so the figures died down. But it wasn't extinguished and it will just go off again as soon as lockdown ends. 

Notionally, a long enough lockdown would indeed limit the virus. The time it takes would be long enough to make it unfeasible on its own though, at least from the situation the UK is in. 

6 minutes ago, Chester40 said:

Honest question.. I'm not sure what people's points are with track and trace...what are they saying it isn't doing now that they think it can /could be? If you test positive, you can work back yourself and tell the friends /family you have been in contact with over the previous 2 or 3 days to self-isolate, be vigilant..depending. 

Schools have systems in place now that are slightly OTT but that's to be expected, same with workplaces. There is no stigma, most people would happily tell their colleagues they have had a positive test. 

So when does the track and trace come into force? Where you have mixed with people in a restaurant maybe? I know lots of people who aren't downloading the app, are loathe to give correct mobile numbers to restaurants, or answer their phone to 0300 numbers. Recently I had to give my number to the library when I dropped a book back. If I was called to say someone in there at the same time had tested postive 3 days later and I was expected to self isolate... I would be majorly peed off and question the sanity.

Maybe things will change but at the moment I don't feel there is an overwhelming will to engage with track and trace. I know from Vets football and cricket that lots of the (often self employed) players are constantly working ways round giving their details so they don't risk getting contacted to self isolate if they play a match and later a player tests positive. 

 

The key with track and trace is you don't make it optional, and that the mandated quarantine periods are enforced. In South Australia, people who have positive tests are put either in hospital or a medihotel, and are isolated until they have had multiple negative tests, while being constantly monitored for their condition. 

People who are close contacts are immediately in isolation, and given how few cases there are, the close contacts are usually put in hotel quarantine too now. Everyone who has been in the same places at the same times in the time they've been infectious are also put into quarantine. This included a case where all students and staff at two schools ended up in quarantine for 14 days; it worked. 

There's also the point of all travelers from areas with known infections going into 14 days of quarantine when entering the state.  

In order to facilitate this, people need to fill in forms for events where many people are together, as well as other standard ways of people giving their details when signing up for things, etc. The contact tracers work tirelessly after a confirmed infection to confirm its source, and notify anyone who has been in contact with them. The idea that you could leave it up to the people who have been infected is quite frankly frightening. 

The key thing is, however, that all of those systems require that you have control over infections first. You can't house literally thousands of people a day in medihotels, you can't have contact tracers figuring out where thousands of people went, etc. It's at the point where there's no control of the situation that broader lockdowns are the only option to exert control. At the moment the UK is just flailing wildly about, and unsurprisingly, it's achieving very little. 

[Albert]

6 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

Source on numbers please, including how you have calculated asymptomatic cases.

Asymptomatic cases can be inferred from a number of factors, including symptomatic cases, death rate, etc. 

It's not clear which numbers you want a source on here, however. 

6 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

Really? Why didnt you say before?

Really? Why didn't you say before?

Really? Why didnt you say before?

Really? Why didnt you say before?

Really? Why didnt you say before?

Really? Why didnt you say before?

Is this really the only kind of response you can muster? 

Also, could you please learn to quote properly. It's not hard. Hit the quote button, and do a line break between the paragraphs. This splits the quote box so you can respond in turn. Right now, your posts look like you're struggling to handle a computer. 

[Chester40]

3 minutes ago, Albert said:

Notionally, a long enough lockdown would indeed limit the virus. The time it takes would be long enough to make it unfeasible on its own though, at least from the situation the UK is in. 

The key with track and trace is you don't make it optional, and that the mandated quarantine periods are enforced. In South Australia, people who have positive tests are put either in hospital or a medihotel, and are isolated until they have had multiple negative tests, while being constantly monitored for their condition. 

People who are close contacts are immediately in isolation, and given how few cases there are, the close contacts are usually put in hotel quarantine too now. Everyone who has been in the same places at the same times in the time they've been infectious are also put into quarantine. This included a case where all students and staff at two schools ended up in quarantine for 14 days; it worked. 

There's also the point of all travelers from areas with known infections going into 14 days of quarantine when entering the state.  

In order to facilitate this, people need to fill in forms for events where many people are together, as well as other standard ways of people giving their details when signing up for things, etc. The contact tracers work tirelessly after a confirmed infection to confirm its source, and notify anyone who has been in contact with them. The idea that you could leave it up to the people who have been infected is quite frankly frightening. 

The key thing is, however, that all of those systems require that you have control over infections first. You can't house literally thousands of people a day in medihotels, you can't have contact tracers figuring out where thousands of people went, etc. It's at the point where there's no control of the situation that broader lockdowns are the only option to exert control. At the moment the UK is just flailing wildly about, and unsurprisingly, it's achieving very little. 

Clearly answered, I credit you for that. 

At the moment I really can't see us ever getting to a stage in the UK where track and trace is used to such draconian levels.

Currently an 'infected' child gets sent home from school and the whole year can be sent home for 2 weeks. Large numbers of parents think its a nonsense. Those who are more Covid fearful go the opposite way and fear it is out of control and refuse to send their children in anyway..when in reality you had 1 child with little or no symptoms. 

If this keeps happening (children repeatedly being sent home for 2 weeks) I think parents will become less supportive of track and trace not more.