☣ Coronavirus ☣

Status
Not open for further replies.
4tothefloor said:
Well they don’t want to believe the politicians, statistics, media or pharmaceutical firms. I can understand that to a point. Let’s hope they believe the scientists. The problem with the nay sayers is they are seeking any to question interventions. The bigger worry is their refusal to accept we need to be proactive as opposed reactive this time.

Let’s hope the public take heed and that is doesn’t need heavy policing. Small and big P.
Click to expand...
I think those people you call "naysayers" are actually people with genuine concerns about the strategy (and execution of it) of the UK government. Sure, a few of them are conspiracy nuts, but most are highly educated people who can spot BS when they see it.

The justification for the first lockdown was to "save" (i.e. not to overload) the NHS, which meant you would buy time so that ICU capacity could be expanded, test & trace be set up, treatment methods to improve, etc. Even SAGE admitted in a report in the spring that the lockdown was only "kicking the can down the road" and the virus would return. And as we have clearly seen around Europe, if you lock down, the virus returns when you open up.

So in that context, how the heck is Hancock & Co keeping a second lockdown on a table 6 months later? We know test & trace is an utter failure, but how about NHS ICU capacity that was supposed to built out?

Or have they changed strategy - is it no longer about ensuring that the health care system has sufficient capacity, but about minimising people dying with Covid mentioned on their death certificate? I suspect it is, and that is where a lot of "naysayers" - including myself - find the problem. It would be a massive mistake to have this as a strategy, as you then go from focussing on the general health of the public (yes, there are other problems than Covid) and to be completely Covid focussed.
 
Am I right or wrong thinking that for planned surgery/hospital stay, you have to have a negative test before they will admit you??

(eg case of 83 yr old having to drive 120 miles for test before could get his cancer treatment)
 
Just trying to understand the figures which agree is 'soft data'.

Someone admitted in respiratory distress + positive covid is definitely covid.

But what about someone with underlying heart condition living in community and covid results in been hospitalised with heart trouble. How that be counted?

It's pretty hard to classify as this or that. Has methodology changed since May?

Maybe out glorious leaders would lead & keep us informed. (Cummings that would be ?‍♂️)
 
Twentynine said:
I think those people you call "naysayers" are actually people with genuine concerns about the strategy (and execution of it) of the UK government. Sure, a few of them are conspiracy nuts, but most are highly educated people who can spot BS when they see it.

The justification for the first lockdown was to "save" (i.e. not to overload) the NHS, which meant you would buy time so that ICU capacity could be expanded, test & trace be set up, treatment methods to improve, etc. Even SAGE admitted in a report in the spring that the lockdown was only "kicking the can down the road" and the virus would return. And as we have clearly seen around Europe, if you lock down, the virus returns when you open up.

So in that context, how the heck is Hancock & Co keeping a second lockdown on a table 6 months later? We know test & trace is an utter failure, but how about NHS ICU capacity that was supposed to built out?

Or have they changed strategy - is it no longer about ensuring that the health care system has sufficient capacity, but about minimising people dying with Covid mentioned on their death certificate? I suspect it is, and that is where a lot of "naysayers" - including myself - find the problem. It would be a massive mistake to have this as a strategy, as you then go from focussing on the general health of the public (yes, there are other problems than Covid) and to be completely Covid focussed.
Click to expand...
We all have (or should have imo) genuine concerns. I don’t believe a word the government tell us about anything. I also think they have been incompetent. However, the nay sayers I am referring to are those that are coming from a position of discrediting everything in order justify their view that they want to live the life they want to live, with a blatant disregard for their own health and that of others, despite the facts being presented by the medical profession and scientists.

To add to your cynicism, I suspect that protecting the economy is front and centre this time, unlike at the first lockdown.
 
I think people in general would be a lot more willing to accept the various degrees of lockdown, if we didn't have a money-obsessed government diluting the message by encouraging us to spend, spend, spend and "get back to work" whilst simultaneously threatening us with tougher measures

It's a shame these educated people who smell BS didn't use their education and bullshit detection at the last election really, because the signs were right there for everybody to see
 
MrHullMysterious said:
Just trying to understand the figures which agree is 'soft data'.

Someone admitted in respiratory distress + positive covid is definitely covid.

But what about someone with underlying heart condition living in community and covid results in been hospitalised with heart trouble. How that be counted?

It's pretty hard to classify as this or that. Has methodology changed since May?
Click to expand...

Anyone admitted to hospital, for whatever reason (RTA, bashed head from a fall, stroke etc) is tested and counted as a covid hospitalisation if the result is positive.
 
lee111s said:
Anyone admitted to hospital, for whatever reason (RTA, bashed head from a fall, stroke etc) is tested and counted as a covid hospitalisation if the result is positive.
Click to expand...
Ah fair enough. I think what I'm trying to say/understand is that all data has flaws. I'm sure the scientists understand this and include it in their models. It's the piss poor communication from uk gov that is problem.

Eg: it's not the absolute numbers that concerns us but the trends and how the models currently predict this. (As in number of peeps in hospital is stable but positive cases are going up, or are number of people needing assistance in breathing has gone up and more bed occupancy etc)

But then again hear lots of people the current rules are 'too hard to understand' ?

Apparently bojo is addressing parliament tmrw about it all. Another example of poor planning. Leave 24hrs for people to wonder wtf is going on, stressing some people. Some are even starting to panic buy again incase of full lockdown. (I don't think will be lockdown like that again, more to do with households meeting)

Edit: bet they still dilly dallying on what to actually do.
 
I thought the chart of infections was telling. 20-29 were by far the highest age bracket so of course it’s a ticking time bomb before that does hit the 60+
 
Guess what the real important number to know is bed occupancy for the NHS. Afaik it's usually above 90% at best of times. Into winter pushing 100%. So how is that tracking should be one key number that informs policy.

I heard gov has signed contracts with care homes to force them to take elderly patients that are covid positive. Guess didn't learn from last time ?‍♂️
 
Springal said:
I thought the chart of infections was telling. 20-29 were by far the highest age bracket so of course it’s a ticking time bomb before that does hit the 60+
Click to expand...
Yeah they biggest group, but the chart shows pretty much all age groups affected and increasing. Which means it's hard to stop the spread between groups.

(Can't see many 20-29yr olds partying with 80+ yr olds... well except in ibiza on a normal year?)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top