Jump to content
simFox

Corona Virus

Message added by Mark

No political discussion in this topic. That is complaining about a country, a politician, a party and/or its voters, etc

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, StanSP said:

Did anyone, erm, check what they were buying before bulk ordering it?! 

 

 

That 's poor, but there was certainly the "pay any price" opinion at that point in time, which just makes you get ripped off :dunno:

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, martyn said:

To me the figures of deaths and new cases still look too high to be relaxing measures to any great degree at this point, but the populist move is clearly to follow the lead of other countries, despite the UK being in a worse position. 

If would be prudent for the UK,to wait another 3-4 weeks,to See how The European/Skandinavien countries fair where they have slowly relieved part of their lockdowns..

Its mothers-day in Germany on Sunday,this will be interesting to see how The German public ,go about this...

German Bundeslaender(counties),are slowly allowing certain things...One allowance,is that 2 Family housholds,can Meet each other....

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, fuchsntf said:

If would be prudent for the UK,to wait another 3-4 weeks,to See how The European/Skandinavien countries fair where they have slowly relieved part of their lockdowns..

Its mothers-day in Germany on Sunday,this will be interesting to see how The German public ,go about this...

German Bundeslaender(counties),are slowly allowing certain things...One allowance,is that 2 Family housholds,can Meet each other....

 

Glad things seem to be relaxing at a calm sensible rate :thumbup:

 

The relaxing of lockdown measures is arguably one of the biggest decisions that needs to be made during the whole crisis.

It is not so cut and dried as "let everyone stay home until this virus is 100% gone or we have a vaccine", and to some degree it will always be taking a chance.

The balancing act between safety and financial stability for individuals is a very real quandary, as returning from the virus to poverty and depression is not a pleasant outcome.

Just as people rightly judge that  responses to the lockdown are different per country, their measurements of death rates are different, we should not necessarily diverge from this approach and declare a relaxing of lockdown measures has a single methodology, as it too will likely require a per country specific response.

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, worth_the_wait said:

I'm glad the articles mentioned the risk associated with driving, and ended up wisely saying:

"Putting risk in perspective is going to be essential for individuals and decision-makers,"

 

Since we have been gathering stats since 1926, there have been nearly 500,000 deaths on the road.   And probably 10 times that number seriously injured.

 

Deaths on the roads have dropped dramatically from its peace-time peak of about 8,000 in the mid 60's, to about 1,800 a year now.    But even with our roads as super safe as they've ever been, we still "accept" 1800 deaths a year, every year ... as a risk worth taking to ensure we live our lives, as we'd like to

 

We don't avoid cars or crossing the road, though.   We take care, and manage the risk.

 

That's ultimately what we have to do with this virus ... take care, and manage the risk.

It's a similar situation with the risks associated with smoking , alcohol and obesity.

 

The global death rate from smoking this year so far is 1.8m

The global death rate from alcohol this year so far is 870k

Obesity is a tricky one to put down as a cause as it covers so many other illnesses. 

 

These numbers won't stop people drinking 10 pints, chuffing 10 fags and tucking into a kebab any time soon. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

In respect of risks, I have serious concerns that the groups defined as 'extremely vulnerable' by the NHS and advised to shield are not the groups which have suffered the greatest mortality.  As someone who was advised to shield, I've been paying attention to the studies on Covid-19 comorbidity and concluded the following:

 

1.  Obesity is a major comorbidity; in most studies it's in the top three of additional conditions for patients dying as a result of Covid-19 infection.  However, although obesity is defined as high risk by the NHS it's not extremely high risk therefore obese people have not been advised to shield.

 

2.  High blood pressure (hypertension in some studies) is a major comorbidity.  In the study of deaths in New York it was the top comorbidity, being suffered by 56% of the patients who died from Covid-19 infection.  It isn't even mentioned as a high or extremely high risk factor by the NHS so persons with high blood pressure are not required to shield.

 

3.  Diabetes is a significant comorbidity in a number of studies; it is in the high risk group but not the extremely high risk group so sufferers are not required to shield.

 

4.  There are some conditions on the NHS list which I've not been able to identify in the studies which leads me to doubt if sufferers of those conditions should be shielding.

 

I can't understand why the NHS list is at such variance with the comorbidity data published to date.

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Dahnsouff said:

That 's poor, but there was certainly the "pay any price" opinion at that point in time, which just makes you get ripped off :dunno:

 

But there was also the 'make sure the PPE that is bought is fit for purpose' opinion too. I remember several suppliers saying they have equipment ready to go and contacted governments but didn't get replies or weren't acknowledged. Who knows but you'd rather pay more for a (more than) adequate product as opposed to pay anything for something that won't do the job at all or not fit for purpose, surely? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, StanSP said:

But there was also the 'make sure the PPE that is bought is fit for purpose' opinion too. I remember several suppliers saying they have equipment ready to go and contacted governments but didn't get replies or weren't acknowledged. Who knows but you'd rather pay more for a (more than) adequate product as opposed to pay anything for something that won't do the job at all or not fit for purpose, surely? 

Oh for sure, always the bit more for a quality product, but from what I read it seemed the whole free market demand for PPE  was a nightmare, and at risk from next-day start ups with questionable reliability.

Difficult situation and surely we could and should have managed it better, but I have zero exposure to the details of such offers or negotiations, so not fair for me comment.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Dahnsouff said:

Oh for sure, always the bit more for a quality product, but from what I read it seemed the whole free market demand for PPE  was a nightmare, and at risk from next-day start ups with questionable reliability.

Difficult situation and surely we could and should have managed it better, but I have zero exposure to the details of such offers or negotiations, so not fair for me comment.

 

Surely if you're being offered a local product, you can quickly get a sample and test it. If it's good then you're good to go. Better that paying, then waiting weeks for a delivery from a foreign country, only to discover that they aren't fit for purpose when they get here.

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Crinklyfox said:

In respect of risks, I have serious concerns that the groups defined as 'extremely vulnerable' by the NHS and advised to shield are not the groups which have suffered the greatest mortality.  As someone who was advised to shield, I've been paying attention to the studies on Covid-19 comorbidity and concluded the following:

 

1.  Obesity is a major comorbidity; in most studies it's in the top three of additional conditions for patients dying as a result of Covid-19 infection.  However, although obesity is defined as high risk by the NHS it's not extremely high risk therefore obese people have not been advised to shield.

 

2.  High blood pressure (hypertension in some studies) is a major comorbidity.  In the study of deaths in New York it was the top comorbidity, being suffered by 56% of the patients who died from Covid-19 infection.  It isn't even mentioned as a high or extremely high risk factor by the NHS so persons with high blood pressure are not required to shield.

 

3.  Diabetes is a significant comorbidity in a number of studies; it is in the high risk group but not the extremely high risk group so sufferers are not required to shield.

 

4.  There are some conditions on the NHS list which I've not been able to identify in the studies which leads me to doubt if sufferers of those conditions should be shielding.

 

I can't understand why the NHS list is at such variance with the comorbidity data published to date.

 

 

Excellent post. Do you feel you should have been told to shield?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Facecloth said:

Surely if you're being offered a local product, you can quickly get a sample and test it. If it's good then you're good to go. Better that paying, then waiting weeks for a delivery from a foreign country, only to discover that they aren't fit for purpose when they get here.

Yes, would be better to get it from a local supplier, but you are sent a sample, it looks great, the price is good and you proceed to place an order. You are then told it will take 4 weeks as they being fabricated in Ulan Bator. Its a very complex situation, and one that starts with the equipment quality but ultimately is subject to its availability.

Seems there were some supplier who magically sprang from the weeds during the requirement for PPE.

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Crinklyfox said:

In respect of risks, I have serious concerns that the groups defined as 'extremely vulnerable' by the NHS and advised to shield are not the groups which have suffered the greatest mortality.  As someone who was advised to shield, I've been paying attention to the studies on Covid-19 comorbidity and concluded the following:

 

1.  Obesity is a major comorbidity; in most studies it's in the top three of additional conditions for patients dying as a result of Covid-19 infection.  However, although obesity is defined as high risk by the NHS it's not extremely high risk therefore obese people have not been advised to shield.

 

2.  High blood pressure (hypertension in some studies) is a major comorbidity.  In the study of deaths in New York it was the top comorbidity, being suffered by 56% of the patients who died from Covid-19 infection.  It isn't even mentioned as a high or extremely high risk factor by the NHS so persons with high blood pressure are not required to shield.

 

3.  Diabetes is a significant comorbidity in a number of studies; it is in the high risk group but not the extremely high risk group so sufferers are not required to shield.

 

4.  There are some conditions on the NHS list which I've not been able to identify in the studies which leads me to doubt if sufferers of those conditions should be shielding.

 

I can't understand why the NHS list is at such variance with the comorbidity data published to date.

 

 

I know of obese people that have been told to shield, some weren't even that big !

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, worth_the_wait said:

I'm glad the articles mentioned the risk associated with driving, and ended up wisely saying:

"Putting risk in perspective is going to be essential for individuals and decision-makers,"

 

Since we have been gathering stats since 1926, there have been nearly 500,000 deaths on the road.   And probably 10 times that number seriously injured.

 

Deaths on the roads have dropped dramatically from its peace-time peak of about 8,000 in the mid 60's, to about 1,800 a year now.    But even with our roads as super safe as they've ever been, we still "accept" 1800 deaths a year, every year ... as a risk worth taking to ensure we live our lives, as we'd like to

 

We don't avoid cars or crossing the road, though.   We take care, and manage the risk.

 

That's ultimately what we have to do with this virus ... take care, and manage the risk.

This just seems the only way to progress, peoples views of when and if we relax the lock-down comes from a judgement of their own experiences obviously, if you've not had employment or serious financial issues I would think you would be more cautious to relax.

I think financially this will be much bigger and far reaching than expected. I went from being a homeowner and the same comfortable employment for 15 years to redundant and homeless, living in my car. It really can happen and quickly. So I admit my view is from one side but I would happily take a large risk to get back to work and an income. I'm not sure I would survive living like that again wondering where the next meal would come from or if it was even worth it all!

Sadly I don't think people who can ride this out financially are aware of just how some are more worried about more than the virus itself.

  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

From The Lancet;https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)31035-7/fulltext

Quote

 

Many countries (and members of their press media) have marvelled at Sweden's relaxed strategy in the face of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic: schools and most workplaces have remained open, and police officers were not checking one's errands in the street. Severe critics have described it as Sweden sacrificing its (elderly) citizens to quickly reach herd immunity.

1

 The death toll has surpassed our three closest neighbours, Denmark, Norway, and Finland, but the mortality remains lower than in the UK, Spain, and Belgium.

2

It has become clear that a hard lockdown does not protect old and frail people living in care homes—a population the lockdown was designed to protect.

3

 Neither does it decrease mortality from COVID-19, which is evident when comparing the UK's experience with that of other European countries.

• View related content for this article

PCR testing and some straightforward assumptions indicate that, as of April 29, 2020, more than half a million people in Stockholm county, Sweden, which is about 20–25% of the population, have been infected (Hansson D, Swedish Public Health Agency, personal communication). 98–99% of these people are probably unaware or uncertain of having had the infection; they either had symptoms that were severe, but not severe enough for them to go to a hospital and get tested, or no symptoms at all. Serology testing is now supporting these assumptions.

4

These facts have led me to the following conclusions. Everyone will be exposed to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, and most people will become infected. COVID-19 is spreading like wildfire in all countries, but we do not see it—it almost always spreads from younger people with no or weak symptoms to other people who will also have mild symptoms. This is the real pandemic, but it goes on beneath the surface, and is probably at its peak now in many European countries. There is very little we can do to prevent this spread: a lockdown might delay severe cases for a while, but once restrictions are eased, cases will reappear. I expect that when we count the number of deaths from COVID-19 in each country in 1 year from now, the figures will be similar, regardless of measures taken.

Measures to flatten the curve might have an effect, but a lockdown only pushes the severe cases into the future —it will not prevent them. Admittedly, countries have managed to slow down spread so as not to overburden health-care systems, and, yes, effective drugs that save lives might soon be developed, but this pandemic is swift, and those drugs have to be developed, tested, and marketed quickly. Much hope is put in vaccines, but they will take time, and with the unclear protective immunological response to infection, it is not certain that vaccines will be very effective.

In summary, COVID-19 is a disease that is highly infectious and spreads rapidly through society. It is often quite symptomless and might pass unnoticed, but it also causes severe disease, and even death, in a proportion of the population, and our most important task is not to stop spread, which is all but futile, but to concentrate on giving the unfortunate victims optimal care.

I declare no competing interests.

 

This is what I've been thinking for weeks now.

  • Like 1
  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dahnsouff said:

That 's poor, but there was certainly the "pay any price" opinion at that point in time, which just makes you get ripped off :dunno:

 

I read what they ordered didn't come at all as the supplier let them down and the Greek government diverted some PPE to save the Government's blushes / Greek supplier reputation.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, foxile5 said:

The lockdown wasn't about preventing everyone getting infected, it was about keeping the infection rate slow enough the NHS wasn't overwhelmed. 

 

 

I know that and I'm not saying it was the wrong thing to do. It's just that the virus will have it's way eventually, whatever we do. In a years time all countries will have roughly the same results no matter what policies are implemented.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Jon the Hat said:

I read what they ordered didn't come at all as the supplier let them down and the Greek government diverted some PPE to save the Government's blushes / Greek supplier reputation.

Yup, seems some of these acquisitions turned quite "testy". Although not related to the UK or even Europe, but what the US did to a 3M shipment for Canada was pretty sh*tty.

(Army went and requisitioned it for the US Federal stock pile)

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Webbo said:

I know that and I'm not saying it was the wrong thing to do. It's just that the virus will have it's way eventually, whatever we do. In a years time all countries will have roughly the same results no matter what policies are implemented.

Indeed - unfortunately two things have led to the probably unnecessary lockdown in the UK 1) The Ferguson report which predicted the 500k deaths (and is look more like bullshit as time goes on - his model for Sweden said 20k by now)) and 2) Publis and media pressure to "DO SOMETHING" when other countries were also locking down.  So the SAFE the NHS approach was born.  It is hard to argue with in the circumstances, but it just delays herd immunity reaching a critical mass IMO.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Dahnsouff said:

Yup, seems some of these acquisitions turned quite "testy". Although not related to the UK or even Europe, but what the US did to a 3M shipment for Canada was pretty sh*tty.

(Army went and requisitioned it for the US Federal stock pile)

The French did it to us early on - including routine monthly orders for NHS supplies;  German also stopped exports of equipment including ventilators but the impact of that is not clear.  Apparently you cannot trust even your closest trading partners to maintain supply when the shit hits the fan.

  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Jon the Hat said:

Indeed - unfortunately two things have led to the probably unnecessary lockdown in the UK 1) The Ferguson report which predicted the 500k deaths (and is look more like bullshit as time goes on - his model for Sweden said 20k by now)) and 2) Publis and media pressure to "DO SOMETHING" when other countries were also locking down.  So the SAFE the NHS approach was born.  It is hard to argue with in the circumstances, but it just delays herd immunity reaching a critical mass IMO.

Whether or not it was the right thing to do long term, there was no way to avoid a lockdown, especially in a country as densely populated as England.

 

And we're a long way from herd immunity from most things I've read.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, bovril said:

Whether or not it was the right thing to do long term, there was no way to avoid a lockdown, especially in a country as densely populated as England.

 

And we're a long way from herd immunity from most things I've read.

Hard to say - it is possible that a lot more people have had this thing than we know.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Jon the Hat said:

The French did it to us early on - including routine monthly orders for NHS supplies;  German also stopped exports of equipment including ventilators but the impact of that is not clear.  Apparently you cannot trust even your closest trading partners to maintain supply when the shit hits the fan.

Did not know that - I cannot say I am surprised, but yes, when your own population is on the line, what is any Government morally obliged to do I guess...

Or just have your own bloody production capacity for such items...

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...