CV19 - Cure worse than the disease? (Vol 5)
Discussion
Colonel Cupcake said:
ruggedscotty said:
Its being widely reported that they are going to start vaccinations of the NHS before christmas...
Two doses 28 days apart. and it by all accounts works, and its the oxford team that have done the work... We may be at the end of the tunnel with this soon enough.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8875931/C...
At least one NHS staff member will not be having it. Me.Two doses 28 days apart. and it by all accounts works, and its the oxford team that have done the work... We may be at the end of the tunnel with this soon enough.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8875931/C...
Not sure if this has been posted previously...
We need better evidence on non-drug interventions for covid-19
https://www.bmj.com/content/370/bmj.m3473
There are large gaps in our knowledge and without clear evidence on the use of cloth masks in the community we may be wearing false reassurance. Observation of the use of face coverings, in real life, finds that they are commonly worn incorrectly. Nor have we considered enough the broader societal impact. People with histories of trauma, or who have hearing difficulties, are placed at disadvantage. Yet those who do not wear face coverings are categorised, by proponents of face coverings, as “deviants from the new norm.” Societal cohesion is risked by dividing rather than understanding behaviour. These are all harms. Nor do we have a clear “end” strategy. We need less panic and more practical, pragmatic research.
We need better evidence on non-drug interventions for covid-19
https://www.bmj.com/content/370/bmj.m3473
There are large gaps in our knowledge and without clear evidence on the use of cloth masks in the community we may be wearing false reassurance. Observation of the use of face coverings, in real life, finds that they are commonly worn incorrectly. Nor have we considered enough the broader societal impact. People with histories of trauma, or who have hearing difficulties, are placed at disadvantage. Yet those who do not wear face coverings are categorised, by proponents of face coverings, as “deviants from the new norm.” Societal cohesion is risked by dividing rather than understanding behaviour. These are all harms. Nor do we have a clear “end” strategy. We need less panic and more practical, pragmatic research.
Sticks. said:
Elysium said:
Sticks. said:
Elysium said:
I think it’s reasonable to expect the person who is ultimately in charge of the NHS to take feedback from frontline staff seriously, particularly in this incredibly difficult situation.
Your ‘nothing to see here’ approach is baffling.
I honestly feel like someone watching people slowly wake up from some sort of mass psychosis. It’s as if everyone has been under mind control and they are slowly coming round but still unaware of what has happened.
I would not believe it was possible if I was not living through it.
Get real, you think he has time to sit and read letters from a GP? Not busy, no, nothing else to do. Your ‘nothing to see here’ approach is baffling.
I honestly feel like someone watching people slowly wake up from some sort of mass psychosis. It’s as if everyone has been under mind control and they are slowly coming round but still unaware of what has happened.
I would not believe it was possible if I was not living through it.
Baffling? Mind psychosis? Given how you've been sucked in by the DM cranking your chain, that's ironic. They know, as I do, how ministerial correspondence is handled, but won't let that get in the way of a good story.
It is precisely the sort of correspondence ministers should take very seriously indeed.
A superficial response cobbled together from old speeches might be enough to satisfy a member of the public, but not 66 frontline medics who know exactly what they are talking about.
'Cobbled together from old speeches' is wasn't. But that's a quote from her Twitter page - did you cut and paste it?
Civil servants are employed to decide the level at which correspondence is answered, that's their job.
You don't think the DM has an angle here? Looks like confirmation bias to me.
I don’t have any problem with the response being from someone other that Hancock. However, it seems very obvious to me that the person tasked with responding should have taken greater time and care to understand what was being said and engage with the problem.
The Daily Mail angle is to get people to read the article so they can sell advertising.
Sophisticated Sarah said:
Colonel Cupcake said:
ruggedscotty said:
Its being widely reported that they are going to start vaccinations of the NHS before christmas...
Two doses 28 days apart. and it by all accounts works, and its the oxford team that have done the work... We may be at the end of the tunnel with this soon enough.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8875931/C...
At least one NHS staff member will not be having it. Me.Two doses 28 days apart. and it by all accounts works, and its the oxford team that have done the work... We may be at the end of the tunnel with this soon enough.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8875931/C...
Pocty
i4got said:
This - surely the route is via the Royal College of General Practitioners.
Then it has some authority.
Anything else is worthless. Given they (the signatories) must know this, you'd wonder why they didn't get the buy in of the Royal College.
Maybe because the people who head 'professional organisations' are often more bureaucrat than practitioner. They have reached a position with high status and don't want to rock the boat. Funnelling everything through a central organisation creates a 'kill zone' for dissent.Then it has some authority.
Anything else is worthless. Given they (the signatories) must know this, you'd wonder why they didn't get the buy in of the Royal College.
Alucidnation said:
Elysium said:
Sticks. said:
Elysium said:
I think it’s reasonable to expect the person who is ultimately in charge of the NHS to take feedback from frontline staff seriously, particularly in this incredibly difficult situation.
Your ‘nothing to see here’ approach is baffling.
I honestly feel like someone watching people slowly wake up from some sort of mass psychosis. It’s as if everyone has been under mind control and they are slowly coming round but still unaware of what has happened.
I would not believe it was possible if I was not living through it.
Get real, you think he has time to sit and read letters from a GP? Not busy, no, nothing else to do. Your ‘nothing to see here’ approach is baffling.
I honestly feel like someone watching people slowly wake up from some sort of mass psychosis. It’s as if everyone has been under mind control and they are slowly coming round but still unaware of what has happened.
I would not believe it was possible if I was not living through it.
Baffling? Mind psychosis? Given how you've been sucked in by the DM cranking your chain, that's ironic. They know, as I do, how ministerial correspondence is handled, but won't let that get in the way of a good story.
Not just a random GP.
Not denying going through a formal society/body would have been better.
MDMetal said:
If there's any truth to the mask paper showing the virus can become nebulised by masks it's surely game over for all this daftness. We've all chucked at the graphs that stay flat or even usually increase after mask wearing is brought on but if it turns out mask wearing is increasing the chance of getting a large enough dose to get ill what will the general population think?! Surely people will be burning masks in the street the day after and calling for the government's head? This is the downside with mandating everything legally Vs a bit of guidance if you force everyone to do something your 100% responsible.
I know they’re just graphs but it is interestinghttps://threadreaderapp.com/thread/129786505503641...
MDMetal said:
If there's any truth to the mask paper showing the virus can become nebulised by masks it's surely game over for all this daftness. We've all chucked at the graphs that stay flat or even usually increase after mask wearing is brought on but if it turns out mask wearing is increasing the chance of getting a large enough dose to get ill what will the general population think?! Surely people will be burning masks in the street the day after and calling for the government's head? This is the downside with mandating everything legally Vs a bit of guidance if you force everyone to do something your 100% responsible.
Well it depends whether it gets published or not. It’s all very well a few of us on this forum chatting about it but if it doesn’t become world news then nothing will change. MDMetal said:
If there's any truth to the mask paper showing the virus can become nebulised by masks it's surely game over for all this daftness. We've all chucked at the graphs that stay flat or even usually increase after mask wearing is brought on but if it turns out mask wearing is increasing the chance of getting a large enough dose to get ill what will the general population think?! Surely people will be burning masks in the street the day after and calling for the government's head? This is the downside with mandating everything legally Vs a bit of guidance if you force everyone to do something your 100% responsible.
It is certainly plausible according to people who work in the fieldhttps://threadreaderapp.com/thread/132003236255046...
but an RCT would carry the "weight" that the media need to publish against the government, assuming they wish to.
It's not going to help the general population though. They will continue to think whatever the BBC tells them to think until long after this is over. At which point they will all have "been in ze resistance".
Turfy said:
The Spruce Goose said:
Turfy said:
it was 1 billion. The Gov are currently being sued for it. Add it to the list of absolutely abhorrent things they have done.Operation Moonshot is around the corner; this is the £50bn play that all and sundry have been manoeuvring to get a piece of. Once the “pieces” are all in place there off...
https://www.bmj.com/content/370/bmj.m3585
I just hope the don't use the SB Biosensor Antigen Kit as this is the same test kit Roche use, (just white-labelled) and the Limit of Detection is awful and the WHO/all in the know, know it
On the IFU one is c.1900 and one is c.300! Hmmmmmm....
Edited by Turfy on Sunday 25th October 12:46
I find the whole thing utterly outrageous and feel helpless that the evidence of wrong doing is plain to see, yet no one is being challenged on things.
grumbledoak said:
MDMetal said:
If there's any truth to the mask paper showing the virus can become nebulised by masks it's surely game over for all this daftness. We've all chucked at the graphs that stay flat or even usually increase after mask wearing is brought on but if it turns out mask wearing is increasing the chance of getting a large enough dose to get ill what will the general population think?! Surely people will be burning masks in the street the day after and calling for the government's head? This is the downside with mandating everything legally Vs a bit of guidance if you force everyone to do something your 100% responsible.
It is certainly plausible according to people who work in the fieldhttps://threadreaderapp.com/thread/132003236255046...
but an RCT would carry the "weight" that the media need to publish against the government, assuming they wish to.
It's not going to help the general population though. They will continue to think whatever the BBC tells them to think until long after this is over. At which point they will all have "been in ze resistance".
anonymous said:
[redacted]
What’s interesting is that none of journals have come out and said why they’re not prepared to publish, is the study flawed in some way? The answer being inconvenient would surely not see publication withheld. After all the now discredited MMR / autism study was first published in the lancet.
b0rk said:
anonymous said:
[redacted]
What’s interesting is that none of journals have come out and said why they’re not prepared to publish, is the study flawed in some way? The answer being inconvenient would surely not see publication withheld. After all the now discredited MMR / autism study was first published in the lancet.
Surely the paper and its findings are of scientific interest, and thus everyone in that community wants it publishing and analysing??
Me and my quaint old fashioned common sense view of how the world should work is taking a battering. Not for the first time during this pandemic
johnboy1975 said:
b0rk said:
anonymous said:
[redacted]
What’s interesting is that none of journals have come out and said why they’re not prepared to publish, is the study flawed in some way? The answer being inconvenient would surely not see publication withheld. After all the now discredited MMR / autism study was first published in the lancet.
Surely the paper and its findings are of scientific interest, and thus everyone in that community wants it publishing and analysing??
Me and my quaint old fashioned common sense view of how the world should work is taking a battering. Not for the first time during this pandemic
[quote=isaldiri]
I realise you aren't an icu doctor but per the very first ISARIC report in April, it was noted on here (well the other covid thread anyway) that the vast majority of deaths were taking place in normal wards rather than in intensive care. Do you think the same that you found wrt to refusing to take people to hospitals might have happened in hospitals moving patients to icu? Because it always seemed to me a little weird to simply be allowing large numbers of people to die on a normal ward with seemingly little effort to save them in icu.
Although i take the point invasive ventilation might not be suitable for 80+ people and perhaps high flow oxygen was able to be given on a normal ward but surely there's something in between extra oxygen and full scale ventilation ICU might be able to provide.....?
Isaldiri
The Times article mentions a few things but I think the key issue was that folk simply were denied proper assessments. Mechanical ventilation of elderly people is generally not done unless you think that the reason they are needing that intervention is something they will recover from, like post op Patients, the insult, the trauma of the surgery is known and they can be supported through it. COVID and it's effects in March were not known and so I can absolutely understand why these Patients were not considered candidates for intubation.
There are however MANY things that you can do to assist people in hospital that you cannot possibly consider doing in the community. I keep banging on about chest x rays and it's because it's the fundamental intervention that these people were denied. Also blood tests like arterial samples that can fairly instantly tell you the likely prognosis in ill people in respiratory distress. These things are interventions that I would order within minutes of seeing Patients in A+E in my time there, results also almost instant.
They could have been done at the Excel. You would be amazed at how quickly many very ill people improve when they get some 02 and intravenous fluids, it's not rocket science.
Many care home residents in the interim (after the initial peak) have recovered really well after fairly brief hospital admissions, it's because they were properly assessed, supported and you know, treated.
I realise you aren't an icu doctor but per the very first ISARIC report in April, it was noted on here (well the other covid thread anyway) that the vast majority of deaths were taking place in normal wards rather than in intensive care. Do you think the same that you found wrt to refusing to take people to hospitals might have happened in hospitals moving patients to icu? Because it always seemed to me a little weird to simply be allowing large numbers of people to die on a normal ward with seemingly little effort to save them in icu.
Although i take the point invasive ventilation might not be suitable for 80+ people and perhaps high flow oxygen was able to be given on a normal ward but surely there's something in between extra oxygen and full scale ventilation ICU might be able to provide.....?
Isaldiri
The Times article mentions a few things but I think the key issue was that folk simply were denied proper assessments. Mechanical ventilation of elderly people is generally not done unless you think that the reason they are needing that intervention is something they will recover from, like post op Patients, the insult, the trauma of the surgery is known and they can be supported through it. COVID and it's effects in March were not known and so I can absolutely understand why these Patients were not considered candidates for intubation.
There are however MANY things that you can do to assist people in hospital that you cannot possibly consider doing in the community. I keep banging on about chest x rays and it's because it's the fundamental intervention that these people were denied. Also blood tests like arterial samples that can fairly instantly tell you the likely prognosis in ill people in respiratory distress. These things are interventions that I would order within minutes of seeing Patients in A+E in my time there, results also almost instant.
They could have been done at the Excel. You would be amazed at how quickly many very ill people improve when they get some 02 and intravenous fluids, it's not rocket science.
Many care home residents in the interim (after the initial peak) have recovered really well after fairly brief hospital admissions, it's because they were properly assessed, supported and you know, treated.
I still think that the big thing we could have done in early March that could have changed what's happened since to the NHS was dedicated hospitals for cases. It's an idea that has many easily seen flaws, but it would imo have made a big difference to the overall death rate (collateral ones mainly)
pneumothorax said:
The Times article mentions a few things but I think the key issue was that folk simply were denied proper assessments. Mechanical ventilation of elderly people is generally not done unless you think that the reason they are needing that intervention is something they will recover from, like post op Patients, the insult, the trauma of the surgery is known and they can be supported through it. COVID and it's effects in March were not known and so I can absolutely understand why these Patients were not considered candidates for intubation.
There are however MANY things that you can do to assist people in hospital that you cannot possibly consider doing in the community. I keep banging on about chest x rays and it's because it's the fundamental intervention that these people were denied. Also blood tests like arterial samples that can fairly instantly tell you the likely prognosis in ill people in respiratory distress. These things are interventions that I would order within minutes of seeing Patients in A+E in my time there, results also almost instant.
They could have been done at the Excel. You would be amazed at how quickly many very ill people improve when they get some 02 and intravenous fluids, it's not rocket science.
Many care home residents in the interim (after the initial peak) have recovered really well after fairly brief hospital admissions, it's because they were properly assessed, supported and you know, treated.
Yes I remember you did mention that previously but you might have misread my post slightly. I suppose I am just wondering if the triaging to try to prevent treatment that you did see had continued post hospital admission into another set of decisions to try to avoid ICU as I would still have thought there's something further ICU was capable of providing help for covid patients between whatever that was available in a normal ward and full blown invasive ventilation. Or would ICU always mean ventilation? However given Boris was put into ICU but without ventilation I'd always assumed ICU had a couple more tricks up their sleeve... There are however MANY things that you can do to assist people in hospital that you cannot possibly consider doing in the community. I keep banging on about chest x rays and it's because it's the fundamental intervention that these people were denied. Also blood tests like arterial samples that can fairly instantly tell you the likely prognosis in ill people in respiratory distress. These things are interventions that I would order within minutes of seeing Patients in A+E in my time there, results also almost instant.
They could have been done at the Excel. You would be amazed at how quickly many very ill people improve when they get some 02 and intravenous fluids, it's not rocket science.
Many care home residents in the interim (after the initial peak) have recovered really well after fairly brief hospital admissions, it's because they were properly assessed, supported and you know, treated.
Edited by isaldiri on Sunday 25th October 17:18
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff