Coronavirus

[alexxxxx]

Sounds like the new tier 3 is basically the same as national lockdown. 

[Sith Happens]

55 minutes ago, alexxxxx said:

Sounds like the new tier 3 is basically the same as national lockdown. 

Its not far off is it. Fully expecting Derby/Derbyshire to be in tier 3 with the current rates of infection.

[Marriot Ram99]

I'm not expecting normality until the summer personally, not going to get my hopes up for a quick change. 

[Albert]

8 hours ago, maxjam said:

Focussing on the number is completely missing the point I was making.  Would it make you feel better if a mod amended it to 11.7?  Because I'm happy for someone to do that.  The point, as I have stated several times, regardless of the number being 11 or 11.7 is that typically covid victims are well into their retirement and therefore we should be better shielding them whilst keeping the economy open.

I discussed the latter point too, so don't pretend I didn't. As noted on here numerous times, there is no clearly defined strategy to 'shield the vulnerable' while keeping the economy open that hasn't later been dropped as a failure. The UK is in no position to try such a strategy at this time either. People already try to shield the vulnerable in any case. 

8 hours ago, maxjam said:

And you deny arguments become a war of attrition...

You're trying to make them into one, but only by just ignoring the facts of the case. 

8 hours ago, maxjam said:

Its not just the UK, as discussed previously different countries have different challenges to contend with.  It is no surprise to me at least that the UK, much of the EU and US have fared worse than other parts of the world.

Why? We've discussed this before, but you ended up resorting to random ad hoc points, never being able to synthesise something vaguely coherent about why some countries could achieve control, while others couldn't. The fact remains that the key differentiator in achieving control was attempting to achieve it for these countries. America and Europe never tried, so it's not surprising that they failed on that front. 

8 hours ago, maxjam said:

Round an around we go, the only thing moot about this is the discussion we're having.

This isn't going 'around and around', the guy just isn't qualified in the field. That's not a point to debate. 

8 hours ago, maxjam said:

Regardless of whether they listen to them or not - thats a different debate tbh, if they are the only voices they are listening to therein lies the problem.

They are clearly following the literature, as they have responded to it at points. 

Equally, do you honestly think them getting getting a team of fringe and pseudoscientists who can't even string together 10 minutes without filling it with incorrect information is going to help the situation? 

8 hours ago, maxjam said:

I do provide facts and figures if possible, and links to articles where necessary.

One of the things Dr Yeadon mentioned was that some countries including the UK had mild 2018/19 winters that led to more vulnerable people still being around this year.  I provided an ONS link that said there were 'significantly lower excess deaths' that year.

It is well known that the elements take their toll on the elderly - the 2003 heatwave for example,  (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_European_heat_wave as does seasonal flu.  A mild winter previously may explain for some of the excess deaths this year especially given the typical covid victim has already exceeded national life expectancy.

Hand on, so you've dropped the 'mild flu season' (which was challenged with the actual data) to move to it being due to a 'mild winter' as a cause. Equally, I'm not entirely sure how that makes anything better. Whether it be 55k or 40k, the death figures are horrifying, and the UK's systems are being put under incredible strain by it. 

8 hours ago, maxjam said:

Furthermore I will add that fixating on 11 instead of 11.7 - when the minutia of the detail was clearly not the argument I was presenting and littering your argument with demeaning comments such as 'tired and defeated arguments', or absolutely stating your opinion as fact and describing any and all discussions as moot, does indeed make me guilty of not treating the discussion with the respect its due.

I did discuss the point as well. Taking offence to being called out, then putting your head in a sand as a result isn't an excuse. 

8 hours ago, maxjam said:

I can't remember tbh but I'm not sure I have posted many, if any graphs - although I may have done, this thread has dragged on forever!  But here are some to rectify the apparent lack.

 

The bottom left graph is comparing the death figures against models discussed. Much as with our previous discussions, the whole point is that it should be less, as restrictions have been put in place. The fact that they're still so high is worrisome. 

On the bottom right is that bed occupancy is a moving target. The UK had to shed beds to meet requirements to treat Covid-19 patients, and critical care for such patients can't just be done on the wards. Equally, the NHS already runs close to capacity, and keeping things under control has meant they've had to not take patients they would at other times. This has had knock-on effects for preventative and elective medicine. The left part shows that this wave is burning slower, but maintaining longer, which is it's own concern. The same points go for the top right. 

As to the top left, the expectation was that it should be less than the maximum at the moment, as flu etc are down due to lower rates of transmission. Given that deaths are only beginning to apparently plateau now, with all the restrictions, suggests we might just be getting on top of this. Are you advocating for giving that up?

 

[Albert]

6 hours ago, Archied said:

yea right Albert you carry on building your concrete argument on estimate and could have????,,, year on year death tastes can and do swing wildly for all sorts of reason also 5 year averages are best guess with these swings ,

So, what you're saying is that deaths have just randomly increased 50 fold, without precedent or explanation? 

6 hours ago, Archied said:

covid has gone on death certs of people who haven’t so much as been tested ?, let alone died within 28 days of testing positive , died with does not mean died of but let’s take a guess , can’t do that ?? ,you seem ok to do it in terms of deaths not listed as Covid you say have been missed ,

The doctors who have done so have done this due to clinical features of the virus. The issue in the first wave is that tests weren't as available as they are now. Again though, this criticism isn't valid for the first wave. 

6 hours ago, Archied said:

long Covid ??? , the thing has been around less than a year , watched with interest a report on bbc news , they had a fellow on and went through a lot of symptoms he was suffering with , all very concerning and just slipped in and flipped past near the end they concluded that they believed he had had Covid 19 ,,, not even ducking tested for it ????,

Same issue with the above with tests. An interesting way of dismissing all the concerns around long term impacts though, which are an area of active research. 

6 hours ago, Archied said:

so in short ( we’ll Albert relative short ) NOPE your pumping out disputed guesstimate s and flawed data that then can be shown interpreted in lots of ways as fact and telling us to accept without question the building your argument from there???
 

They're not 'guesstimates' at all, and you've failed to really challenge anything validly here. 

6 hours ago, Archied said:

was thinking this morning about the last few months in general as it’s been a strange monumental time 

in UNDER A YEAR yes under a year we have found a virus that threatens the world , changed the whole ethos and fabric of the free world and democracy, destroyed the livelihoods, futures and presents of multi millions world wide and produce not one but a handful of vaccines that will save the world (and perform better than vaccines that took years to develop and have been around longer) as long as we all have it and have freedom passes to say we’ve had it ,,,, WOW just WOW, , that’s s some going

Yes, pandemics can change things, particularly when you completely bottle the response. 

6 hours ago, Archied said:

yes Albert you have made clear your not following the gov line,,,,,,,,,,,, you are clear they have not been draconian enough by a long chalk ,,, all of us then go wow how lucky we are we have such a liberal democracy and freedom protecting gov we have in this country ,,,, ??????, give me a break your more transparent than Dominic s new glasses 

It's interesting that you say this given I'm out and about living my life at the moment. Spent 3 days in lockdown out of the last 220 odd. Was at State of Origin here in Adelaide a few weeks back. Now that's a response I can get behind!

[G STAR RAM]

10 minutes ago, Albert said:

On the bottom right is that bed occupancy is a moving target. The UK had to shed beds to meet requirements to treat Covid-19 patients, and critical care for such patients can't just be done on the wards. Equally, the NHS already runs close to capacity, and keeping things under control has meant they've had to not take patients they would at other times. This has had knock-on effects for preventative and elective medicine. The left part shows that this wave is burning slower, but maintaining longer, which is it's own concern. The same points go for the top right. 

Can you link me to the data which shows capacity was reached leading to patients being turned away and not treated please.

[jimmyp]

19 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

Can you link me to the data which shows capacity was reached leading to patients being turned away and not treated please.

As in you want proof that operations were cancelled and treatment delayed because we didn’t have an available icu bed for them?

Or proof that emergency admissions were turned away?

[G STAR RAM]

6 minutes ago, jimmyp said:

As in you want proof that operations were cancelled and treatment delayed because we didn’t have an available icu bed for them?

Or proof that emergency admissions were turned away?

Both. 

Interested to see how many have actually been cancelled because capacity had been reached. 

[Archied]

46 minutes ago, Albert said:

So, what you're saying is that deaths have just randomly increased 50 fold, without precedent or explanation? 

The doctors who have done so have done this due to clinical features of the virus. The issue in the first wave is that tests weren't as available as they are now. Again though, this criticism isn't valid for the first wave. 

Same issue with the above with tests. An interesting way of dismissing all the concerns around long term impacts though, which are an area of active research. 

They're not 'guesstimates' at all, and you've failed to really challenge anything validly here. 

Yes, pandemics can change things, particularly when you completely bottle the response. 

It's interesting that you say this given I'm out and about living my life at the moment. Spent 3 days in lockdown out of the last 220 odd. Was at State of Origin here in Adelaide a few weeks back. Now that's a response I can get behind!

More strictly programmed robotic responses , 

you never did respond to whether you had military connections or background

[jimmyp]

4 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

Both. 

Interested to see how many have actually been cancelled because capacity had been reached. 

Have you watched series 6 of Hospital on the BBC?

Emergency admissions have never been turned away. 

Critical care capacity has been increased in terms of beds available due to new covid wards being created. Although bed numbers have increased, staff numbers haven’t, staff numbers have decreased. 

 

Official figures for cancelled operations has not yet been released. It’s lots though unfortunately.

 

 

 

[jimmyp]

5 minutes ago, Archied said:

More strictly programmed robotic responses , 

you never did respond to whether you had military connections or background

What difference does it make if he has a military background, why does it matter? ?‍♀️

[Archied]

9 minutes ago, jimmyp said:

What difference does it make if he has a military background, why does it matter? ?‍♀️

Just curious 

[maxjam]

13 minutes ago, Albert said:

I discussed the latter point too, so don't pretend I didn't. As noted on here numerous times, there is no clearly defined strategy to 'shield the vulnerable' while keeping the economy open that hasn't later been dropped as a failure. The UK is in no position to try such a strategy at this time either. People already try to shield the vulnerable in any case.

 

13 minutes ago, Albert said:

I did discuss the point as well. Taking offence to being called out, then putting your head in a sand as a result isn't an excuse. 

Firstly, I took offence at 'Dismissing deaths just because they are largely from the vulnerable in our society is also, to be blunt, simply abhorrent.'  That horrible argument has been thrown around several times on this thread - usually in reply to opening up the economy *whilst* shielding the vulnerable.  No one has ever suggested throwing a section of society under a bus.

Lockdowns have worked so well that we're now stuck in a never-ending tier system until the vaccine is rolled out.  Jobs are being lost and debt is being accumulated at record rates.  Furthermore, we are literally throwing people under a bus - people that would otherwise have probably survived by cancelling Doctors appointments and cancer treatments.  The money we have spent and the lengths we have gone to in protecting the vast majority would have been better targetted at the elderly and vulnerable. 

All I have been asking for is better conversations and debate around employing a different approach.  Its to late for that now though, with the vaccines the end is hopefully in sight now.  The debates will inevitably come later and we'll probably be better prepared next time.  Or not.

Did you discuss the point?  All I recall is you giving a vague opinion.

 

27 minutes ago, Albert said:

Why? We've discussed this before, but you ended up resorting to random ad hoc points, never being able to synthesise something vaguely coherent about why some countries could achieve control, while others couldn't. The fact remains that the key differentiator in achieving control was attempting to achieve it for these countries. America and Europe never tried, so it's not surprising that they failed on that front.

Yup, we started off comparing the UK and Australia, then you dragged Taiwan, Vietnam and other countries into the argument changing the parameters.

There are multiple reasons why the UK, much of the EU and US are struggled to deal with covid whilst others have been more successful.  One key reason, and one I tried to bring up over the weekend but the post got removed so I'll briefly sum it up as the differing political situations in certain countries.

Other ad hoc arguments that you dismissed included individual countries economies, obesity, life expectancy, geographical location etc.  I make no apology for being concerned about 1m missed mammograms or 75% reduction in cancer referrals - you may not seen their deaths announced on the news every night but I am of the firm believe that they will dwarf the covid numbers.

 

51 minutes ago, Albert said:

Hand on, so you've dropped the 'mild flu season' (which was challenged with the actual data) to move to it being due to a 'mild winter' as a cause. Equally, I'm not entirely sure how that makes anything better. Whether it be 55k or 40k, the death figures are horrifying, and the UK's systems are being put under incredible strain by it.

The numbers are bad and no one is is defending the Government or arguing that the situation couldn't have been handled better - but a mild winter and flu season led to there being more people around that were at higher risk of a more deadly strain this year, potentially born out in the fact that the average age of covid victims is above the national life expectancy.

Maybe if we had shielded the elderly better instead of sending them back to care homes...

 

58 minutes ago, Albert said:

This isn't going 'around and around', the guy just isn't qualified in the field. That's not a point to debate.

Really?  You should have said something!  Well the epidemiologists have done such a great job so far that perhaps someone from a related field might bring new ideas to the table.

 

1 hour ago, Albert said:

As to the top left, the expectation was that it should be less than the maximum at the moment, as flu etc are down due to lower rates of transmission. Given that deaths are only beginning to apparently plateau now, with all the restrictions, suggests we might just be getting on top of this. Are you advocating for giving that up?

I think that the first lockdown was essential, it was a new disease and we had minimal data.  It bought us time over the summer to get a better plan in place.  The tier system and this second lockdown have cost us billions and will cripple us financially for decades, in an attempt at shielding everyone when a better plan would have been to keep people in jobs, the economy moving and focus any shielding on the vulnerable.

[jimmyp]

17 minutes ago, maxjam said:

 

Firstly, I took offence at 'Dismissing deaths just because they are largely from the vulnerable in our society is also, to be blunt, simply abhorrent.'  That horrible argument has been thrown around several times on this thread - usually in reply to opening up the economy *whilst* shielding the vulnerable.  No one has ever suggested throwing a section of society under a bus.

Lockdowns have worked so well that we're now stuck in a never-ending tier system until the vaccine is rolled out.  Jobs are being lost and debt is being accumulated at record rates.  Furthermore, we are literally throwing people under a bus - people that would otherwise have probably survived by cancelling Doctors appointments and cancer treatments.

Who or what is responsible for this in your opinion?

 

17 minutes ago, maxjam said:

  The money we have spent and the lengths we have gone to in protecting the vast majority would have been better targetted at the elderly and vulnerable. 

All I have been asking for is better conversations and debate around employing a different approach.  Its to late for that now though, with the vaccines the end is hopefully in sight now.  The debates will inevitably come later and we'll probably be better prepared next time.  Or not.

Did you discuss the point?  All I recall is you giving a vague opinion.

 

Yup, we started off comparing the UK and Australia, then you dragged Taiwan, Vietnam and other countries into the argument changing the parameters.

There are multiple reasons why the UK, much of the EU and US are struggled to deal with covid whilst others have been more successful.  One key reason, and one I tried to bring up over the weekend but the post got removed so I'll briefly sum it up as the differing political situations in certain countries.

Other ad hoc arguments that you dismissed included individual countries economies, obesity, life expectancy, geographical location etc.  I make no apology for being concerned about 1m missed mammograms or 75% reduction in cancer referrals - you may not seen their deaths announced on the news every night but I am of the firm believe that they will dwarf the covid numbers.

 

The numbers are bad and no one is is defending the Government or arguing that the situation couldn't have been handled better - but a mild winter and flu season led to there being more people around that were at higher risk of a more deadly strain this year, potentially born out in the fact that the average age of covid victims is above the national life expectancy.

Maybe if we had shielded the elderly better instead of sending them back to care homes...

Shield them where?

17 minutes ago, maxjam said:

 

Really?  You should have said something!  Well the epidemiologists have done such a great job so far that perhaps someone from a related field might bring new ideas to the table.

 

I think that the first lockdown was essential, it was a new disease and we had minimal data.  It bought us time over the summer to get a better plan in place.  The tier system and this second lockdown have cost us billions and will cripple us financially for decades, in an attempt at shielding everyone when a better plan would have been to keep people in jobs, the economy moving and focus any shielding on the vulnerable.

How? Have we had any viable options on how to do this suggested to the government?

[maxjam]

14 minutes ago, jimmyp said:

Who or what is responsible for this in your opinion?

Government policy and media.

 

14 minutes ago, jimmyp said:

Shield them where?

Maybe some of the unused Nightgale hospitals could have temporarily housed elderly/vulnerable - although a major problem with care homes was the inadequate testing, hygiene protocols and lack of PPE.

 

14 minutes ago, jimmyp said:

How? Have we had any viable options on how to do this suggested to the government?

Dunno, if only there was a declaration or something that suggested an alternative approach.

After all didn't Dr. David Nabarro say  “We in the World Health Organization do not advocate lockdowns as the primary means of control of this virus,”

[jimmyp]

2 minutes ago, maxjam said:

Government policy and media.

The government should never of pulled so much of the funding allowing the NHS to use Private hospital facilities with NHS staff. I guess the public / government didn't beleive it was value for money. Media are just poo. Im suprised you used the Daily Mail in one of your quotes.

2 minutes ago, maxjam said:

 

Maybe some of the unused Nightgale hospitals could have temporarily housed elderly/vulnerable - although a major problem with care homes was the inadequate testing, hygiene protocols and lack of PPE.

Biggest issue with the Nightingale hospitals is having no one to staff them. Infection control in any healthcare scenario is proving to be very difficult with covid. Hospitals still don't have the rapid tests they need in adequate supply. The care homes suffer also due to the amount of agency staff they use and infection control across multiple sites. I don't know how they can tackle this problem without increasing staff numbers.

2 minutes ago, maxjam said:

 

Dunno, if only there was a declaration or something that suggested an alternative approach.

After all didn't Dr. David Nabarro say  “We in the World Health Organization do not advocate lockdowns as the primary means of control of this virus,”

They raised the issue. They had no suggestions on how to implement the alternative approach though I don't beleive. 

 

Yep primary control of the virus should be through social distancing, mask use and limiting interaction with others. If that fails though we seem to be left with little other viable option other than lockdown. WHO agree that lockdowns have a purpose and need to be used when essential I beleive.

 

 

 

[maxjam]

3 minutes ago, jimmyp said:

The government should never of pulled so much of the funding allowing the NHS to use Private hospital facilities with NHS staff. I guess the public / government didn't beleive it was value for money. Media are just poo. Im suprised you used the Daily Mail in one of your quotes.

To be completely honest I only added a link as an after thought when replying to someone about not posting graphs.  I searched for a recent tweet and a mischievous smirk did cross my face when I found a Daily Mail one ?

 

5 minutes ago, jimmyp said:

Biggest issue with the Nightingale hospitals is having no one to staff them. Infection control in any healthcare scenario is proving to be very difficult with covid.

Agreed, but I'm not asking for them to be staffed with ICU qualified nurses etc, properly trained care home staff could have done the job.

Looks like finally care homes are taking a step in the right direction;

https://news.sky.com/story/covid-19-care-home-visitors-can-hug-loved-ones-before-christmas-12140605

 

7 minutes ago, jimmyp said:

They raised the issue. They had no suggestions on how to implement the alternative approach though I don't beleive.

Yep primary control of the virus should be through social distancing, mask use and limiting interaction with others. If that fails though we seem to be left with little other viable option other than lockdown. WHO agree that lockdowns have a purpose and need to be used when essential I beleive.

I recall them saying they should be used as a temporary measure to prevent the outbreak becoming unmanageable - which the first lockdown did.  The human cost to continued lockdowns will be felt around the world, especially in the poorer nations potentially leading to millions of deaths.

For what its worth there is a good Great Barrington Declaration article here;

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/it-s-time-for-an-alternative-to-lockdown

Its written by Jay Bhattacharya is Professor of Medicine at Stanford University, one of the authors.

I know some dismiss it outright and I'm not stating it is the only alternative, but it could have been a good starting point from which to have a discussion.

[jimmyp]

24 minutes ago, maxjam said:

To be completely honest I only added a link as an after thought when replying to someone about not posting graphs.  I searched for a recent tweet and a mischievous smirk did cross my face when I found a Daily Mail one ?

 

Agreed, but I'm not asking for them to be staffed with ICU qualified nurses etc, properly trained care home staff could have done the job.

Not sure we have any of those going spare either. Healthcare workers in general in the uk are in high demand and short supply.

24 minutes ago, maxjam said:

Looks like finally care homes are taking a step in the right direction;

https://news.sky.com/story/covid-19-care-home-visitors-can-hug-loved-ones-before-christmas-12140605

I really sincerely hope this doesn’t cause a new increase of cases in care homes. I also hope they are supplied the tests they need in the correct quantities also.

24 minutes ago, maxjam said:

 

I recall them saying they should be used as a temporary measure to prevent the outbreak becoming unmanageable - which the first lockdown did.  The human cost to continued lockdowns will be felt around the world, especially in the poorer nations potentially leading to millions of deaths.

Why do you think lockdowns could possibly cause millions of deaths?  

24 minutes ago, maxjam said:

For what its worth there is a good Great Barrington Declaration article here;

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/it-s-time-for-an-alternative-to-lockdown

Its written by Jay Bhattacharya is Professor of Medicine at Stanford University, one of the authors.

I know some dismiss it outright and I'm not stating it is the only alternative, but it could have been a good starting point from which to have a discussion.

They intended it to be a starting point to have discussion. They didn’t offer it as a solution to the problem.

I forget the lady professors name now but she was on tv not long ago saying she had spoken to sage and the PM. She was saddened by the media’s response and public’s reaction to it more than anything else, think she received quite a lot of verbal abuse.

Certain other scientists, mp’s and parts of the media were suggesting it was the solution and the government should immediately adopt it. 

I know the government big up how many tests we now carry out and the availability of tests, the hospitals still don’t have the amount they require yet though, how are we going to start sharing them out to folk in other settings. 

The vaccine and therapeutic treatments now available will definitely be the game changer. 

Lets hope people stay sensible when restrictions are eased so we don’t have another wave before the vaccine is rolled out. 

[maxjam]

30 minutes ago, jimmyp said:

Why do you think lockdowns could possibly cause millions of deaths? 

https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2020/apr/21/coronavirus-pandemic-will-cause-famine-of-biblical-proportions

 

30 minutes ago, jimmyp said:

They intended it to be a starting point to have discussion. They didn’t offer it as a solution to the problem.

I forget the lady professors name now but she was on tv not long ago saying she had spoken to sage and the PM. She was saddened by the media’s response and public’s reaction to it more than anything else, think she received quite a lot of verbal abuse.

Prof Sunetra Gupta was her name.

Yes it was a starting point for discussion and despite the highly qualified authors and thousands upon thousands of other such cosignatories it was ridiculed in the media for a number of fake names amongst the 175k+ supporting the Declaration. 

The Wiki for it is here and details a long list of pro's and con's;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Barrington_Declaration

Again, I am not stating that it is the answer - but it may have been a good starting point for a debate.

[B4ev6is]

I bet I was hoping that I get see neve doctorie spailist early 2021 but sounds of things I be lucky to see him summer 2021.