- Jun 4, 2013
People just started really getting infected ...it will take a week for the first batch to start getting sick enough for the hospital than the numbers will build up in the hospitals.if that was gonna happen it would have during the first major wave. numbers atm are way lower than they were then.
I'm sure I read a claim from Johnson that there were already more people in hospital this time around than at the start of the first lockdown.if that was gonna happen it would have during the first major wave. numbers atm are way lower than they were then.
maybe, i'm too drunk to look it up now, what i looked at earlier said cases are < 20% of the major outbreak earlier in the year.I'm sure I read a claim from Johnson that there were already more people in hospital this time around than at the start of the first lockdown.
The number of new infections curve in the UK is headed upward and there is a time lag between infection and hospitalization and then another between hospitalization and death.
The spike in new cases in the UK now is of tidal wave proportions compared to the first wave. The numbers are about 3 times higher. The resulting impact on hospitals probably hasn't even been felt yet.maybe, i'm too drunk to look it up now, what i looked at earlier said cases are < 20% of the major outbreak earlier in the year.
if that = more people in hospital i'd be very suprised. not that it means anything but last weekend i picked my mum up from a routine scan at a london hospital. i saw one guy on the door, 2 nurses in the endoscopy ward and 1 person when we were walking out, not exactly rammed to capacity(more like 28 days later tbh).
what i said before was clearly wrong. prob looked at a different metric.The spike in new cases in the UK now is of tidal wave proportions compared to the first wave. The numbers are about 3 times higher. The resulting impact on hospitals probably hasn't even been felt yet.
what i said before was clearly wrong. prob looked at a different metric.
that's a difference in testing between the 2 waves. testing has gone up significanlty, cases have gone up significantly, hospital admissions and deaths have not.
https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/ based on those graphs at the height of the deaths and hospital admissions basically nobody was being tested. there doesn't seem to be any significant lag between cases and admissions/deaths either.
i'm not gonna get into some big argument about it, if you wanna think it's worse fine, but understand why most people disagree with that view.
i genuinley don't know, the gov's daily updated official facts page says far less people are in hospital, i don't really know where else to get the facts.
Not looking for an argument. Just the facts
All the 'facts' seem to vary to some degree depending on the source and in some cases their narrative.i genuinley don't know, the gov's daily updated official facts page says far less people are in hospital, i don't really know where else to get the facts.
maybe the left team paper talking about a right team gov decided to use the date of the lockdown to write bolox? look at the official number of cases in march.
Only time will tell.i think narrative is a big part, whether deaths and admissions go mad over the next week or not will tell us the answer.
While I agree with that you are are saying in part, that wasn't what I was saying in that particular post in regards to contact tracing. What I was saying is contact tracing is only effective when dealing with small numbers. If were dealing with say 10-50 cases it's far easier to track down maybe a few hundred people that have come in contact with these people to get them tested and to isolate compared to 20k cases and the possible 100k contacts they may need contact. Contact tracing as a tool even with a cooperative population is only effective when dealing with a manageable number of cases.The problem with contact tracing isn't the app, it's the will of the people which isn't going to change. Sadiq Khan and said that we need to learn from Japan, South Korea etc., but it's not their better technology which makes a significant difference, it's the inclination to use apps that people deem to be an invasion of their privacy. It's not something I agree with, I know you don't, but it's the reality. We can't just copy these nations because their population has a vastly different mentality than we do, and no matter how good the technology is, the success or failure is down to the people. British people, for whatever reason, won't ever get on board so this idea that some politicians - like Khan - have called for a "circuit breaker" to allow us to then improve contact trasing is purely fantasy, it'll never happen because people don't want to.
Without wanting to sound too callous, there have been tens of thousands of care home patients who have recently died, so whilst there aren't a huge number of available beds, it's a start. That's the sort of thing we should be looking at, and you're right, there's lot of issues with that, it's not an easy thing to undertake, but it's a drastically better option than the alternative. You're going to have crowding, overworked staff, frantic conditions etc. that aren't ideal but even if this can't be perfect, it's the right sacrifice to make.
The only reason testing is where it's at now is because of funding, so everything can be scaled up when you look at the billions we've spent on furlough and loss of income through lockdowns. If we'd have set out in April to have 700,000 tests a day and dedicated massive funding to that instead of furlough, it would have been viable by now, so whilst you're right to point out we currently don't have the resources for it, that wouldn't necessarily have been the case had things been done differently. Furlough stretched the economy but without it, that massive effort could have been diverted to directly fighting the virus rather than paying people to stay at home, so the problem here isn't an impossible lack of resources, it's the incorrect allocation of the resources which have limited what we can achieve.
As for the number of carers, that's just something which would have to be worked around. Even if you couldn't solve it by offering short term contracts, moving NHS workers around, offering big wages etc., and no matter what you do, it wouldn't be enough...unfortunately, that might just have to be taken on the chin. Even if in the worst case scenario - which I think could be avoided - you had people who need carers and were struggling, not seeing them frequently enough, then that's no different to people with cancer growing inside them not being able to get an early diagnosis. Yeah, it's shit, but it's not like there's an alternative without many of the same dire consequences. That's just the nature of living with a pandemic that's draining our resources. We can't fight and win every battle, we have to choose where the losses come from, which is why I advocate fiercely protecting the vulnerable whilst allowing the rest of society to function as normal as posisble. It's not perfect, it'd require massive funding and a reallocation of resources, but whilst it's not a silver bullet, it's a better alternative that the absolute farce that national lockdowns have been.
Good post. Solid logic supported by data and obviously some relevant experience.While I agree with that you are are saying in part, that wasn't what I was saying in that particular post in regards to contact tracing. What I was saying is contact tracing is only effective when dealing with small numbers. If were dealing with say 10-50 cases it's far easier to track down maybe a few hundred people that have come in contact with these people to get them tested and to isolate compared to 20k cases and the possible 100k contacts they may need contact. Contact tracing as a tool even with a cooperative population is only effective when dealing with a manageable number of cases.
While you are right many have died in care homes, lets say 50% of deaths are in care homes, that's almost 22k new free spaces for 840k people that need care in the community. In fact if everyone in every care home died tomorrow there still wouldn't be enough care homes to house all those 840k.
I actually don't think just shipping people into care homes would make it safer for them even if it was possible. Vulnerable people are much safer in smaller bubbles sheltering in their own homes that some care home which will have far more opportunities for transmission.
Testing isn't just about funding like you say. The government have been under fire for testing for ages and they are of course trying to increase capacity their target is to get 500k tests per day by the end of the month, still far short of the required to do what you suggest. There's almost 300k tests done per day now and your asking for another possible 881k tests per day on top of that, doesn't matter how much money you throw at this there is a limit to how many labs we have and how many qualified people we have to work in these labs. Not to mention we'll need to get much larger quantities of the ingredients for these tests which we've had issues with even when doing the number of cases were currently doing.
Moving NHS workers isn't going to work as of course just like with carers there's not an abundance of staff. They couldn't even staff the Nightingale hospital properly during the last wave which is why it didn't receive many patients and why some patients had to be turned away. Especially during a 2nd wave the NHS staff we have will be needed in hospitals especially if the plan is just to let the virus run rampant through the population as you suggest.
The idea of isolating vulnerable people will simply not work. Best way we can protect the vulnerable is to ensure there are fewer cases in the population in general so it's less likely that these vulnerable will come into contact with someone who is positive. Allowing the rest of the population just "get on with it" and see huge numbers of healthy young people get infected only puts these vulnerable types at greater risk no matter what measures you put in place.
Yes at this point the only thing we can do is lock down. We've allowed this thing to run rampant to the point where anything else like the half measures the government have been using will be ineffective.Good post. Solid logic supported by data and obviously some relevant experience.
What compounds things of course is that people are currently being infected at such a rate in the UK only a lockdown can return things to manageable proportions again. That has to be the priority for the moment.