Jump to content

Generic Virus Thread


villakram

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, DCJonah said:

Guilt? 

When you didn't give a shit about healthcare and the wellbeing of people less fortunate, probably hurts to keep be reminded of it during such an awful time. 

It should never be forgotten, no matter how well this current government deal with the issue. 

Hear hear.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, bannedfromHandV said:

I wish I shared your optimism.

Right now I think we’re on the precipice of things turning into something more akin to ‘Escape from New York’ than a well maintained orderly society all playing along to the tune of the governments whims and wishes.

This hasn’t happened anywhere else in the World, in Countries facing far more difficulties than being stopped from going to the pub.

However many people are agitated, the vast majority will just sit tight until they no longer need to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

Out of idle curiosity, as we’re sort of debating the trade off between deaths and our standard of living, what numbers do people feel are the tipping point for all this being genuinely necessary.

So, for instance, some flu seasons we can have around 20,000 or 30,000 deaths, but we don’t shut down. So I’d presume nobody thinks we’d need a 3 month shut down if those were the predicted worse case / business as usual numbers. I think the ‘worst’ scenario we are seeing for the UK is circa 500,000 and clearly there are a small number willing to speak out and say that’s worth the hit.

So what if predicted worst case deaths due to business as normal were... 100,000? Higher? Lower? Where does the close down kick in for you?

 

Wasn't the predicted deaths if we do nothing, when the herd immunity theory was spouted, that it could result in 500,000+ deaths?

The hope is that the 5,000/10,000/30,000.. that may now lose their lives in the UK would have lost their lives anyway had they gotten this. By undertaking the measures we are ensuring those that get the severest symptoms get the ICU care/onto a ventilator so tens of thousands of people, that if they can get the care, will survive. If we had allowed this to just rip through the population the health service would become overwhelmed in the next couple of weeks and we'd then see thousands of deaths that could have been avoided.

I don't think many of the 20,000 people who usually die from seasonal flu die because they couldn't get care do they? I don't know how you put a figure on it but it is hard to take anyone dying who we could have saved if we had the capacity.

Edited by markavfc40
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

There's a good discussion of the underlying problems in this thread, IMO:

(These are simply the most relevant parts of a useful thread).

It's frustrating to have people claiming things that they don't fully understand, whether it's Tom Pike producing a purely statistical model that is overwhelmed by quite routine changes in the data, Jeremy Vine boosting his model without even slightly caveating it to his thousands of followers, or Peter Hitchens assuming that two completely different models produced by two different groups from two different departments of Imperial College are the same thing, because he hasn't researched it properly.

In particular the problem they’ve mentioned with “ outlier” cases.

Modern media means things are magnified and distorted out of all proportion.

A young person dying is met by “ even the young are getting it we are done for”.....the building of a mortuary ( which would be necessary as soon as ‘demand’ exceeds ‘ supply’, especially with infectious disease) becomes “ its so bad we are building extra room for the dead” - in pure numbers terms “ the dead” are currently far less than an average Flu season - and so on. 
A queue at a shop becomes Armageddon.

The facts, as best we know them, are that the key difficulty with this disease is that the ability it has to be transmitted before symptoms are visible means it can spread widely and quickly. Even with a low proportion of ( mostly ill, mostly elderly) victims this means it can overwhelm Services. Because of this, treatment is lacking, care is lacking, staff are missing, resources are stretched. This is the part which is nightmarish, this is the part we needed to cater for.

Once this part passes, as it will, the issue of an endemic virus sitting alongside others will be handled as all those others are. It isn’t the plague. It isn’t the end of the world, there aren’t going to be riots on the streets.

The press ( and the twitters etc) sensationalise. It’s their job. They are still competing with each other.

This is an awful time. Fearful, dangerous, bitterly sad. But it must still be kept in some context however hard that sometimes is to do.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

Out of idle curiosity, as we’re sort of debating the trade off between deaths and our standard of living, what numbers do people feel are the tipping point for all this being genuinely necessary.

So, for instance, some flu seasons we can have around 20,000 or 30,000 deaths, but we don’t shut down. So I’d presume nobody thinks we’d need a 3 month shut down if those were the predicted worse case / business as usual numbers. I think the ‘worst’ scenario we are seeing for the UK is circa 500,000 and clearly there are a small number willing to speak out and say that’s worth the hit.

So what if predicted worst case deaths due to business as normal were... 100,000? Higher? Lower? Where does the close down kick in for you?

 

It’s a great question ( well, you know what I mean). 
 

For me ( and I’m probably not going to explain this very well), it’s about preventable deaths. Everybody should have access to treatment that gives them the best chance of survival. If coming off lockdown means doctors have to decide who gets a chance of living and who doesn’t (accepting this may happen anyway) then I’m prepared to stay locked down for as long as it takes. 
 

The caveat is, I am employed and on a good wage. My job isn’t totally secure, but secure enough that I’m not overly worried about the next 3-6 months. I understand there are millions of people in a much worse position than me. 
 

My hope is they sort a treatment out. There are still positive noises out there and trials are underway, but short of a miracle the world is going to be in a bad way for a while 

Edited by wazzap24
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, markavfc40 said:

I don't think many of the 20,000 people who usually die from seasonal flu die because they couldn't get care do they? I don't know how you put a figure on it but it is hard to take anyone dying who we could have saved if we had the capacity.

Exactly.

With the advance acquisition of equipment, for testing and treatment, with early restrictions on large social movement, with a clear message ( which took ages) that proximity and surfaces mattered aswell as coughing, with an advertising campaign, with local government being tasked with pooling resources and diverting them from non vital work, the peak of the  “ curve” could have remained UNDER the ICU capacity, and every person who needed treatment could’ve got it, and every health worker been given sensible recovery time.

Every one of those steps has been wargamed. Every one could’ve been done significantly earlier.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, terrytini said:

This hasn’t happened anywhere else in the World, in Countries facing far more difficulties than being stopped from going to the pub.

However many people are agitated, the vast majority will just sit tight until they no longer need to.

I hope you’re right, I’ve always considered Britain to be particularly precious over civil liberties and equally as keen on an opportunity to complain and revolt, certainly in comparison to some other countries anyway (e.g. China).

Im just trying to consider the mental state of the nation 6+ weeks from now, naturally it’ll be dependent on the volume of infection and rate of deaths.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One last expression of my anger and bewilderment.

I isolated myself completely on 11th March. I’d read the evidence and it was crystal clear what was coming.

So....why, at that stage, didn’t the government at least issue advice informing people that anyone who could do so might at least want to consider it ?

Not risking early close downs costing the economy, nor mass disobedience, nor any of the other feeble excuses.

Just a nice simple bit of advice. So that people were informed. Maybe Granny would’ve asked the kids not to visit that day ? Maybe Fred might’ve decided not to go to Cheltenham. 
 

And Granny, and Fred, wouldn’t have got infected. Wouldn’t have needed hospital. Wouldn’t have infected the Nurse. Who wouldn’t have infected her Dad. And more people would still be alive. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, markavfc40 said:

I don't think many, if any, of the 20,000 people who usually die from seasonal flu die because they couldn't get care do they? I don't know how you put a figure on it but arguably anyone dying who we could have saved if we had the capacity is enough of a tipping point to say these measures are necessary.

But some people do already die for lack of care. It happens every day. We haven’t put defibrillators on the end of every street and we accept that bigger hospitals further and further away are more cost effective than every town having a fully equipped A&E and maternity. This clearly must have cost ‘a’ life. We could have better equipment and more staff in more modern hospitals and researching cancer more, this must have cost ‘a’ life.

So I’m not sure the ‘anyone’ argument stands up to much scrutiny?

Perhaps, pure speculation, the reason we didn’t hold firm on herd immunity and taking it on the chin was because someone pointed out that it looked unethical for it to be so clear cut, plus 500,000 deaths is 500,000 chances for it to mutate to something that takes out a million key workers?

I have no idea where the magic line is but clearly there must be a cost / benefit to be done. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

Out of idle curiosity, as we’re sort of debating the trade off between deaths and our standard of living, what numbers do people feel are the tipping point for all this being genuinely necessary.

So, for instance, some flu seasons we can have around 20,000 or 30,000 deaths, but we don’t shut down. So I’d presume nobody thinks we’d need a 3 month shut down if those were the predicted worse case / business as usual numbers. I think the ‘worst’ scenario we are seeing for the UK is circa 500,000 and clearly there are a small number willing to speak out and say that’s worth the hit.

So what if predicted worst case deaths due to business as normal were... 100,000? Higher? Lower? Where does the close down kick in for you?

I really don't think this is either the right way or a helpful way in which to look at the situation.

The issue is that this virus is a new one and we don't know for sure what is going to happen with it in the future.

Once we've addressed this intial wave and have a better idea of what we're dealing with (in terms of how we can test for it, whether people are immune for life or for a certain period or at all after catching it, whether we'll have a successful vaccine, whether it's going to become endemic such as influenza or a common cold) then perhaps we could talk in terms of how to deal with the returning issue and any disruption but I think that any simple 'cost/benefit' analysis in terms of numbers of deaths that are a tipping point are beyond the pale.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, bannedfromHandV said:

I hope you’re right, I’ve always considered Britain to be particularly precious over civil liberties and equally as keen on an opportunity to complain and revolt, certainly in comparison to some other countries anyway (e.g. China).

Im just trying to consider the mental state of the nation 6+ weeks from now, naturally it’ll be dependent on the volume of infection and rate of deaths.

 

Well if it’s any comfort we aren’t 🙂..... we are almost unique in the World for never having had a citizens revolt. ( unlike China for example !).....even when we had a Civil War it was those in Power fighting each other rather than the oppressed rising up.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

At the moment, I’m more worried about the police getting more than a bit over zealous with the new powers than I am about society breaking down. 
 

I get there is a % of the public who are morons, but chasing dog walkers with drones and tweeting MP’s about going to see their elderly relatives is already too much for me. 
 

Just as there is a % of clearings in the woods amongst joe public, there is also a % of coppers that are absolute words removed and I’m genuinely worried about abuse of power. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, terrytini said:

Well if it’s any comfort we aren’t 🙂..... we are almost unique in the World for never having had a citizens revolt. ( unlike China for example !).....even when we had a Civil War it was those in Power fighting each other rather than the oppressed rising up.

Yep. Now the French, they LOVE a good riot. And even they aren't doing it. 

The place I'm watching with interest is the USA. They have too many guns. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, snowychap said:

I really don't think this is either the right way or a helpful way in which to look at the situation.

The issue is that this virus is a new one and we don't know for sure what is going to happen with it in the future.

Once we've addressed this intial wave and have a better idea of what we're dealing with (in terms of how we can test for it, whether people are immune for life or for a certain period or at all after catching it, whether we'll have a successful vaccine, whether it's going to become endemic such as influenza or a common cold) then perhaps we could talk in terms of how to deal with the returning issue and any disruption but I think that any simple 'cost/benefit' analysis in terms of numbers of deaths that are a tipping point are beyond the pale.

That’s fair. I do get that this is exceptional and the not knowing what happens next is a major part of the issue. I’ve sort of mentioned that up page that a mutation can take it away from those ‘less productive’ to those considered ‘more productive’ in purely monetary terms. 

I’m not saying it’s right. But there clearly is a point at which things are economically and financially decided. We have people on here for whole one extra death would be too many, and we have people on here that think perhaps we should just crack on. 

I was wondering where the average was going to sit. No more morbid or beyond the pale than any other conversation. I don’t have a right answer in mind that I’m going to spring on people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, foreveryoung said:

Its mental in the hospitals (mrs is a nurse). Most staff now being transferred to the cronovirurus areas to help out. They have kit but not enough and Mrs was saying its hard to stay in full kit apron, mask visor for a full 12 hour shift, also its tables, handles, beds etc, you have to be so careful althpugh its everywhere. Mrs said she will get it guaranteed, but then it's me and my lad too. God knows what people are supposed to do when they have family being front line NHS.

Mate, half the time you seem to be doing the above, (rightly) worried about your other half and how mental the hospitals are and the awful PPE situation.

 

And the other half of the time you seem to be moaning about people being negative in this thread as if it's an overreaction.

22 hours ago, foreveryoung said:

Get them to read this thread. They'll shit themselves and prbably never go out again!!

 

1 hour ago, foreveryoung said:

Shit me, just reminded me to stay off here, it's doing my anxiety no good at all, woke up positive this morning.

If people took thing more seriously, and obeyed what they're being told to do and didn't think it was all a big overreaction, then the situations in the hospital with your other half would be far far more manageable.

Things are going to get worse in the hospitals before they get better. And the more people don't take this as seriously as they should, the worst still it will be.

As someone who has a partner working in the NHS, I feel like you should be begging people to take this as seriously as possible.

Edited by Stevo985
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, wazzap24 said:

At the moment, I’m more worried about the police getting more than a bit over zealous with the new powers than I am about society breaking down. 
 

I get there is a % of the public who are morons, but chasing dog walkers with drones and tweeting MP’s about going to see their elderly relatives is already too much for me. 
 

Just as there is a % of clearings in the woods amongst joe public, there is also a % of coppers that are absolute words removed and I’m genuinely worried about abuse of power. 

The picture on the news yesterday of the police triumphantly posing with the (beautiful looking) lagoon in Derbyshire, I think - having just dyed it black to deter visitors, scared me, a lot.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...
Â