CV19 - Cure worse than the disease? (Vol 6)
Discussion
whitesocks said:
RSTurboPaul said:
Well, good for you, I'm so f
king pleased for you and your friends.
Some of us are unemployed, are down to their last few hundred quid and have a family to support, but are unable to just walk into even poorly-paid employment thanks to the total fk-up that is in progress.
But you crack on.
Boo hoo.king pleased for you and your friends.Some of us are unemployed, are down to their last few hundred quid and have a family to support, but are unable to just walk into even poorly-paid employment thanks to the total f
k-up that is in progress.But you crack on.
Remember, no matter how hard you have it, there is always somebody worse off.
320d is all you need said:
Canute said:
I believe the "beach-day" didn't cause an uptick in deaths or cases.
Neither did the VE day celebrations
Nor the Black Lives Matter protests.
Maybe someone has a graph
markyb_lcy said:
Canute said:
whitesocks said:
If I had a quid for every moron who said they believed in the 'Overpopulation' myth, I would be a rich man by now.
If there is an elephant in the room... I hate to say this, but it's our kids.... they are the vectors/silent enemies... but no one has the balls to address this.f
k me, you’ve really got this bad 
f
k me: ‘Balls to address this’... lolGovernment order 66. Please hand in all teenagers for immediate ‘vectorisation.:.
I swear to god we are living in peculiar times.
isaldiri said:
Has the health/emergency service returned to 'normal' function by the way? so even given the recent bout of idiocy, one would truly hope that there is not going to be a repeat of what you found in late March/April with the emergency services refusing as much as possible to come round to take 'standard' cases to hospital for treatment.
IsaldiriI do not know . The chap I saw had very end stage dementia and so he did not need an ambulance or anything other than palliative care. But he is the first "unwell" Patient with CV19 I have seen since Easter, we will see.
pneumothorax said:
Morning all. Difficult to work out how we have got back here again. There is a really serious disconnect between what I am seeing in this situation in the community and what we are being told by HMG. I was covering a supposed "hotspot" in West London today (Ealing) and so girded my loins for an "exponential" rise in people asking to speak to someone about their COVID symptoms, but the triage pool was quiet and mainly populated by Patients attempting to get prescriptions for anti-pyschotics. Something is not right....
I did see my first real life COVID + and ill Patient though (since Easter) and it IS back in the care homes. I sat with his carer in the clinical room whilst writing up his palliative meds and asked her about her experience of March, I have met her previously, really pragmatic and looks like nothing would faze her, hardened by years working in the sector, she then broke down in a spectacular fashion and explained what she had seen, these people have been traumatized by what they have witnessed.
Also, the summer and the time we had to prepare has not changed things much with regard how these palliative + Patients are being managed with regard nosocomial infection risk save for the carers are not wearing sunglasses. You cannot safely nurse a dying Patient with COVID safely in these places.
Thanks for the view on the ground.I did see my first real life COVID + and ill Patient though (since Easter) and it IS back in the care homes. I sat with his carer in the clinical room whilst writing up his palliative meds and asked her about her experience of March, I have met her previously, really pragmatic and looks like nothing would faze her, hardened by years working in the sector, she then broke down in a spectacular fashion and explained what she had seen, these people have been traumatized by what they have witnessed.
Also, the summer and the time we had to prepare has not changed things much with regard how these palliative + Patients are being managed with regard nosocomial infection risk save for the carers are not wearing sunglasses. You cannot safely nurse a dying Patient with COVID safely in these places.
This whole situation is very odd. There’s just a massive cognitive disconnect between the situation back in April where it genuinely felt like systems were buckling and what people can see/hear with their eyes and ears now. It just doesn’t add up. I can only assume that governance is being blinded by numbers out of T&T.
ash73 said:
All good links, but the thing we need is more details on admissions. How many with covid, how many because covid, how many symptomatic, etc... because it's rising admissions that's the concern if you look forward 4 weeks - how many are going to turn into deaths?
Well the below popped up on twitter
https://twitter.com/RealJoelSmalley/status/1322544...
If correct the majority of COVID cases in hospital where not initially admitted with/for COVID diagnosed on/after admission.
The dataset appears to be:
https://www.england.nhs.uk/statistics/statistical-...
rich888 said:
Cheers WindyCommon, that's nearly the one I was looking for, I think that one is the one I found for you last week but it's in figures and I was after a graph, and guess what, I found it on another thread.
The graph was posted by PH member kiethton on page 40 of the 'lockdown Imminent (vol 2)' thread, and like he said, we're being played each and every way. Is utterly disgraceful they way the politicians and the press are behaving, there needs to be an inquiry after this and the regulations need to be changed so that both sides of the argument can be shown in the news. This is not North Korea.
Perhaps I am missing something.The graph was posted by PH member kiethton on page 40 of the 'lockdown Imminent (vol 2)' thread, and like he said, we're being played each and every way. Is utterly disgraceful they way the politicians and the press are behaving, there needs to be an inquiry after this and the regulations need to be changed so that both sides of the argument can be shown in the news. This is not North Korea.
exactly how does that chart show 'we are being played'? We locked down in March in and around week 12 when excess deaths were < 100. There were about 3100 people in hospital with covid at that point as well in England and Wales. As of week ending 16 october, we had 600 covid deaths (and excess deaths) and 9500 in hospital as of 30 October. I don't particularly think that graph necessarily shows what you think it does tbh.
EDIT: This is a long post but please bear with me...
Just look at the constant handwringing about cases, long covid, no herd immunity, 'we must defeat the deadly disease' claptrap coming from... well just about everyone in cabinet. And especially how long it dragged on from releasing the original lockdown fully to open up non essential retail/restaurants.
What they want is for cases to continue falling (look how marvellous we are at saving you from the deadly disease!) without taking the necessary measures to really bring them down and getting blamed for the economic damage or really authoritarian measures that would be required. It's precisely the actions they have been taking that leads one to concludes the words they have been saying are exactly that - suppression to the greatest extent (but don't blame us for any economic damage as much as possible) and blindly hoping for a magic bullet vaccine.My take on things (and my utter fear) is that after 'Project moonshot' and 'freedom passes' / 'Health Passports' were mentioned, they have been working to increase testing and are aiming to roll out mass testing as much as they can - presumably with the aim of enacting authoritarian isolation measures and attempting to create acceptance of a 'health passport'.
If we can be shown to be many in number in terms of those 'guilty' of having SARS-CoV-2/Covid without knowing it, presumably the public will willingly accept being told they are all 'dirty disease spreaders' and accept that they must submit to regular testing in order to 'SaVe gRaNNy - after all, we apparently must all 'take personal responsibility' for our behaviour; by which they mean 'obey the rulez' or face the wrath of angry people who hate you for it, rather than 'determine your own risk tolerance' and live your lives using independent thought.
It would appear that in this way, the 'innocent until proven guilty' approach enshrined in British law will be overturned, and we will end up all being assumed to be 'guilty' of having Covid unless we can prove otherwise with our 'Health Passports'.
Boris basically said as much today, with his comments on testing whole cities using military logistics help, to 'help people self-isolate immediately':
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IJl3QF58g3s&t=...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-54697113
I recall it being noted by Big Brother Watch (or similar) that Facial Recognition cameras were being rolled out in Prisons first - similarly, rolling out mass testing on students (while painting them as the traitorous cause of our impending doom because they are disobedient, and are therefore worthy of 'punishment') means getting public acceptance for 'the easy wins' first.
And once it's up and running well, lo and behold, it's time to announce that we're going to test everyone, everywhere, whether they like it or not - and as you agreed (or didn't object to) to the principle when it was those pesky students, you have no argument against it now.
Cunning and manipulative, and I would say treacherous.
My thoughts now are around what legal basis they can enforce such mandatory testing.
I presume they will seek to restrict all movements from a location, in order to ensure no-one 'escapes'. And as they've conveniently banned all overnight stays away from home apart from for Work purposes, there's little chance of getting away from such a testing process unless one owns a campervan or has relatives with a house they might hide at (assuming brownshirt neighbours don't report them).
I also presume that Schedule 21 will come into play, whereby an 'authorised person' can (if I understand it correctly) force entry into your property if they merely suspect someone might be infectious - and then order you to quarantine facilities for 1, 2, 14, 28 days, depending on the whim of those in charge.
If these random thoughts are actually correct, this is a serious move, and surely puts us on a par with China and Victoria in Australia - and is totally, utterly excessive for the risks that actually exist.
I await comments about Tin Foil Hats from at least one certain person
but is any of the above really a leap?
All the legislation is in place or will (I'm sure) already be in place by next week, and our apparently puppet MPs will just nod it through, so there is effectively no chance to mount an objection unless direct action is taking (risking criminal records for the man on the clapham omnibus, which he is reluctant to risk) or someone can mount a Judicial Review (at vast cost and at too slow a speed to avert the impending surveillance actions).
Please, someone, prove to me the above is not likely or not wrong - as it all seems far too convenient to me.
isaldiri said:
WindyCommon said:
My take on this is that our governments real (but undeclared because politically unacceptable...) strategy is to run the spread of infection as fast as they can without exceeding NHS capacity. The decision to go against the SAGE advice a couple of weeks ago was good evidence of this, as is the sudden imposition of tighter restrictions.
I think it’s the right call. We have to increase our collective exposure/resilience as quickly as we can, but without allowing our health system to fail. This means keeping the hospitals as full as we dare. Bluntly, it means running with a level of daily deaths (500-1000?) for an extended period. It looks like we’ve sailed a little close to the wind in recent weeks, and now need to take corrective action.
I would prefer the strategy to be declared overtly, but I understand why that may not be possible. We should always remember to watch the actions not the words.
I always wonder how one can see the same things and come to completely the opposite opinion. I absolutely disagree that the govt's actual but undeclared aim is to spread the infection as much as possible without exceeding NHS capacity. I'd love that to be true but frankly everything about what they have done in May suggest that there is no chance in hell they have the wit for something like that.I think it’s the right call. We have to increase our collective exposure/resilience as quickly as we can, but without allowing our health system to fail. This means keeping the hospitals as full as we dare. Bluntly, it means running with a level of daily deaths (500-1000?) for an extended period. It looks like we’ve sailed a little close to the wind in recent weeks, and now need to take corrective action.
I would prefer the strategy to be declared overtly, but I understand why that may not be possible. We should always remember to watch the actions not the words.
Just look at the constant handwringing about cases, long covid, no herd immunity, 'we must defeat the deadly disease' claptrap coming from... well just about everyone in cabinet. And especially how long it dragged on from releasing the original lockdown fully to open up non essential retail/restaurants.
What they want is for cases to continue falling (look how marvellous we are at saving you from the deadly disease!) without taking the necessary measures to really bring them down and getting blamed for the economic damage or really authoritarian measures that would be required. It's precisely the actions they have been taking that leads one to concludes the words they have been saying are exactly that - suppression to the greatest extent (but don't blame us for any economic damage as much as possible) and blindly hoping for a magic bullet vaccine.
If we can be shown to be many in number in terms of those 'guilty' of having SARS-CoV-2/Covid without knowing it, presumably the public will willingly accept being told they are all 'dirty disease spreaders' and accept that they must submit to regular testing in order to 'SaVe gRaNNy - after all, we apparently must all 'take personal responsibility' for our behaviour; by which they mean 'obey the rulez' or face the wrath of angry people who hate you for it, rather than 'determine your own risk tolerance' and live your lives using independent thought.
It would appear that in this way, the 'innocent until proven guilty' approach enshrined in British law will be overturned, and we will end up all being assumed to be 'guilty' of having Covid unless we can prove otherwise with our 'Health Passports'.
Boris basically said as much today, with his comments on testing whole cities using military logistics help, to 'help people self-isolate immediately':
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IJl3QF58g3s&t=...
Boris speech from 22m36s to 24m35 said:
...
As we come together now to fight this second wave I want to say something about the way ahead, because people will reasonably ask 'when will this all end?', and as I said before, I am optimistic that this will feel very different and better by the Spring.
It's not just that we have ever better medicines and therapies and a realistic hope of a vaccine in the first quarter of next year, we now have the immediate prospect of using many millions of cheap, reliable, and above all, rapid turnaround tests; tests that you can use yourself to tell you whether or not you are infectious and get a result within 10 to 15 minutes.
And we know from trials across the country in schools and hospitals that we can use these tests not just to locate infectious people, but to drive down the disease.
And so over the next few days/weeks, we plan a steady but massive expansion in the deployment of these quick turnaround tests, applying them in an every growing number of situations; from helping women to have their partners with them in labour wards when they are giving birth, to testing whole towns and even whole cities.
The army has been brought in to work on the logistics and the programme will begin in a matter of days.
Working with local communities, local government, public health directors, organisations of all kinds, to help people discover whether or not they are infectious, and immediately help them self-isolate and stop the spread of the disease.
...
This article the other day noted that they have been using the student testing as a dry run for larger testing regimes:As we come together now to fight this second wave I want to say something about the way ahead, because people will reasonably ask 'when will this all end?', and as I said before, I am optimistic that this will feel very different and better by the Spring.
It's not just that we have ever better medicines and therapies and a realistic hope of a vaccine in the first quarter of next year, we now have the immediate prospect of using many millions of cheap, reliable, and above all, rapid turnaround tests; tests that you can use yourself to tell you whether or not you are infectious and get a result within 10 to 15 minutes.
And we know from trials across the country in schools and hospitals that we can use these tests not just to locate infectious people, but to drive down the disease.
And so over the next few days/weeks, we plan a steady but massive expansion in the deployment of these quick turnaround tests, applying them in an every growing number of situations; from helping women to have their partners with them in labour wards when they are giving birth, to testing whole towns and even whole cities.
The army has been brought in to work on the logistics and the programme will begin in a matter of days.
Working with local communities, local government, public health directors, organisations of all kinds, to help people discover whether or not they are infectious, and immediately help them self-isolate and stop the spread of the disease.
...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-54697113
BBC said:
Covid tests with results within an hour are being piloted in universities - which could help students in England get home for Christmas.
More than a million students will have to travel from their term-time accommodation in December.
This has raised concerns about spreading coronavirus as students move across the country between areas with different levels of infection.
..
SAGE scientific advisory group calls the "significant risk" of students causing outbreaks by moving for Christmas and New Year.
De Montfort and Durham universities are now running pilot projects for rapid Covid testing, including identifying those who might be infectious but have no symptoms.
...
A decision, involving all four devolved governments and education ministries in the UK, is awaited on the logistics of getting students home for Christmas, in a way that will not cause Covid outbreaks.
...
In Scotland, Education Secretary John Swinney has suggested a staggered end of term and has not ruled out students being kept in universities over the break, if "we have a situation where the virus has not been controlled".
Universities, who would face the challenge of keeping students in Christmas isolation, have called for a faster system of mass testing.
"Enhanced testing capacity - including faster turnaround of results and effective contact tracing - will help to contain outbreaks at universities and limit transmission to the wider community," says a Universities UK spokesman.
The 'lateral flow tests' now being piloted are intended to find out whether someone has "high enough levels of Covid-19 in their body to make them infectious to others", says a statement from Durham University.
Using a nose and throat swab, the tests would be self-administered and would not need a laboratory to process the results.
The Department for Health and Social Care says the aim of the pilots would be to "turn around rapid results within an hour at the location of the test".
And the DHSC says the pilots at Durham and De Montfort will see how such tests could be used "at scale".
Durham says the pilot project, beginning this week for staff and students in two of its colleges, will be able to deliver results within 20 to 30 minutes.
Once students have been safely removed from university in December there will then be questions about how they can be brought back in January, without triggering another wave of campus outbreaks.
...
The DHSC says the testing pilots are "building the foundations for a mass testing programme" which could also help reduce the number of school pupils having to be sent home in Covid outbreaks.
That article appears to be saying that universities are going to imprison students over Christmas if they test positive for Covid19 - which I presume is the same tactic that is going to be used in the wider population.More than a million students will have to travel from their term-time accommodation in December.
This has raised concerns about spreading coronavirus as students move across the country between areas with different levels of infection.
..
SAGE scientific advisory group calls the "significant risk" of students causing outbreaks by moving for Christmas and New Year.
De Montfort and Durham universities are now running pilot projects for rapid Covid testing, including identifying those who might be infectious but have no symptoms.
...
A decision, involving all four devolved governments and education ministries in the UK, is awaited on the logistics of getting students home for Christmas, in a way that will not cause Covid outbreaks.
...
In Scotland, Education Secretary John Swinney has suggested a staggered end of term and has not ruled out students being kept in universities over the break, if "we have a situation where the virus has not been controlled".
Universities, who would face the challenge of keeping students in Christmas isolation, have called for a faster system of mass testing.
"Enhanced testing capacity - including faster turnaround of results and effective contact tracing - will help to contain outbreaks at universities and limit transmission to the wider community," says a Universities UK spokesman.
The 'lateral flow tests' now being piloted are intended to find out whether someone has "high enough levels of Covid-19 in their body to make them infectious to others", says a statement from Durham University.
Using a nose and throat swab, the tests would be self-administered and would not need a laboratory to process the results.
The Department for Health and Social Care says the aim of the pilots would be to "turn around rapid results within an hour at the location of the test".
And the DHSC says the pilots at Durham and De Montfort will see how such tests could be used "at scale".
Durham says the pilot project, beginning this week for staff and students in two of its colleges, will be able to deliver results within 20 to 30 minutes.
Once students have been safely removed from university in December there will then be questions about how they can be brought back in January, without triggering another wave of campus outbreaks.
...
The DHSC says the testing pilots are "building the foundations for a mass testing programme" which could also help reduce the number of school pupils having to be sent home in Covid outbreaks.
I recall it being noted by Big Brother Watch (or similar) that Facial Recognition cameras were being rolled out in Prisons first - similarly, rolling out mass testing on students (while painting them as the traitorous cause of our impending doom because they are disobedient, and are therefore worthy of 'punishment') means getting public acceptance for 'the easy wins' first.
And once it's up and running well, lo and behold, it's time to announce that we're going to test everyone, everywhere, whether they like it or not - and as you agreed (or didn't object to) to the principle when it was those pesky students, you have no argument against it now.
Cunning and manipulative, and I would say treacherous.
My thoughts now are around what legal basis they can enforce such mandatory testing.
I presume they will seek to restrict all movements from a location, in order to ensure no-one 'escapes'. And as they've conveniently banned all overnight stays away from home apart from for Work purposes, there's little chance of getting away from such a testing process unless one owns a campervan or has relatives with a house they might hide at (assuming brownshirt neighbours don't report them).
I also presume that Schedule 21 will come into play, whereby an 'authorised person' can (if I understand it correctly) force entry into your property if they merely suspect someone might be infectious - and then order you to quarantine facilities for 1, 2, 14, 28 days, depending on the whim of those in charge.
If these random thoughts are actually correct, this is a serious move, and surely puts us on a par with China and Victoria in Australia - and is totally, utterly excessive for the risks that actually exist.
I await comments about Tin Foil Hats from at least one certain person
but is any of the above really a leap?All the legislation is in place or will (I'm sure) already be in place by next week, and our apparently puppet MPs will just nod it through, so there is effectively no chance to mount an objection unless direct action is taking (risking criminal records for the man on the clapham omnibus, which he is reluctant to risk) or someone can mount a Judicial Review (at vast cost and at too slow a speed to avert the impending surveillance actions).
Please, someone, prove to me the above is not likely or not wrong - as it all seems far too convenient to me.
Edited by RSTurboPaul on Sunday 1st November 02:34
pneumothorax said:
Morning all. Difficult to work out how we have got back here again. There is a really serious disconnect between what I am seeing in this situation in the community and what we are being told by HMG. I was covering a supposed "hotspot" in West London today (Ealing) and so girded my loins for an "exponential" rise in people asking to speak to someone about their COVID symptoms, but the triage pool was quiet and mainly populated by Patients attempting to get prescriptions for anti-pyschotics. Something is not right....
I did see my first real life COVID + and ill Patient though (since Easter) and it IS back in the care homes. I sat with his carer in the clinical room whilst writing up his palliative meds and asked her about her experience of March, I have met her previously, really pragmatic and looks like nothing would faze her, hardened by years working in the sector, she then broke down in a spectacular fashion and explained what she had seen, these people have been traumatized by what they have witnessed.
Also, the summer and the time we had to prepare has not changed things much with regard how these palliative + Patients are being managed with regard nosocomial infection risk save for the carers are not wearing sunglasses. You cannot safely nurse a dying Patient with COVID safely in these places.
How have we got here?I did see my first real life COVID + and ill Patient though (since Easter) and it IS back in the care homes. I sat with his carer in the clinical room whilst writing up his palliative meds and asked her about her experience of March, I have met her previously, really pragmatic and looks like nothing would faze her, hardened by years working in the sector, she then broke down in a spectacular fashion and explained what she had seen, these people have been traumatized by what they have witnessed.
Also, the summer and the time we had to prepare has not changed things much with regard how these palliative + Patients are being managed with regard nosocomial infection risk save for the carers are not wearing sunglasses. You cannot safely nurse a dying Patient with COVID safely in these places.
Hysteria (maybe induced), personal gain, lack of awareness and what seems like a complete absence of understanding that we are all mortal & part of that is that some are more unlucky than others, but we all are eventually.
Interesting on some ways about the care home worker. IMHO, some just reach their personal limit, even if they should be hard as nails regarding the situation. I knew a few embalmers in my younger years, who were ostensibly very immune to the situation and capable of nursing & then doing the necessary on their own fathers, something that still feels alien to me, but as of today (minus a decent time frame), none of them are involved now. Even the reasonably healthy reward and, almost 6 months on, 6 months off, weren't enough.
I'd imagine the care home scenario is a bit like that, but without the financial benefit. In that situation, it probably takes a particular frame of mind, especially when the system isn't helping, also known as doing anything but.
Telegraph poll on whether or not people support National Lockdown pt2:
https://twitter.com/Telegraph/status/1322620212789...
52.9% Yes
47.1% No
(3,480 votes)
I would say that is far from conclusive that they have support for this.
https://twitter.com/Telegraph/status/1322620212789...
52.9% Yes
47.1% No
(3,480 votes)
I would say that is far from conclusive that they have support for this.
Interesting graphic further down the aforementioned Telegraph twitter page / thread / whatever it's called:
https://twitter.com/Telegraph/status/1322621033413...
Seems to be suggesting they think the Nightingale facilities would be overwhelmed two weeks after current capacity is exceeded, but I think the thing that stands out to me (if I'm reading it right) is that the North never had that much of a peak in 'the first wave', hence they are (apparently) already at or about to exceed it.
Surely it's obvious that there is a much larger pool of potential hosts in such an area?? The London line shows that their first wave was much higher, and is unlikely to be exceeded this time round, which suggests Herd Immunity is doing what we expect it to do.
And while I'm here, that R graph from the announcement earlier:
https://twitter.com/Telegraph/status/1322621033413...
Seems to be suggesting they think the Nightingale facilities would be overwhelmed two weeks after current capacity is exceeded, but I think the thing that stands out to me (if I'm reading it right) is that the North never had that much of a peak in 'the first wave', hence they are (apparently) already at or about to exceed it.
Surely it's obvious that there is a much larger pool of potential hosts in such an area?? The London line shows that their first wave was much higher, and is unlikely to be exceeded this time round, which suggests Herd Immunity is doing what we expect it to do.
And while I'm here, that R graph from the announcement earlier:
Edited by RSTurboPaul on Sunday 1st November 03:10
ash73 said:
One interesting trend from that data - total bed occupancy (in England) has increased throughout the year, and is much higher now than it was during the Spring peak, so I can understand why they're feeling the pressure... *regardless* of Covid admissions:
Well yes I'd noticed that too helpfully the NHS provide an historical timeseries dataset for beds available and occupied. Sadly detail is only at the quarterly level but Q4 19 88%, Q1 20 62%, Q1 19 90%, Q1 18 89% etc. So I'd say that there had been an organisational level decision to clear out acute beds in Q1 of this year and low occupancy level is abnormal. This would I presume have been the cancelling of electives and sending the old/infirm off the care homes without testing.
https://www.england.nhs.uk/statistics/statistical-...
Well, I find myself in somewhat of a quandary. Having been working away this week, I arrived home to discover that my eldest lad (20 yo) has tested positive for covid and is exhibiting symptoms, now, I haven't seen him for a week and it seemed to me that if I were to enter my house then I would have to then isolate with the rest of my household? As a result I'm currently holed up in a Premier Inn up the road but Boris's latest jape could put a end to that in short order 
The question being, would/could I be obliged to put myself in an environment where I know there is a risk of exposure to covid due to the latest lockdown or is it back to living in the van like during the last one? What a pain.
The question being, would/could I be obliged to put myself in an environment where I know there is a risk of exposure to covid due to the latest lockdown or is it back to living in the van like during the last one? What a pain.
Edited by TeamD on Sunday 1st November 03:58
TeamD said:
Well, I find myself in somewhat of a quandary. Having been working away this week, I arrived home to discover that my eldest lad (20 yo) has tested positive for covid and is exhibiting symptoms, now, I haven't seen him for a week and it seemed to me that if I were to enter my house then I would have to then isolate with the rest of my household? As a result I'm currently holed up in a Premier Inn up the road but Boris's latest jape could put a end to that in short order
You need to be 'working away' again...RSTurboPaul said:
TeamD said:
Well, I find myself in somewhat of a quandary. Having been working away this week, I arrived home to discover that my eldest lad (20 yo) has tested positive for covid and is exhibiting symptoms, now, I haven't seen him for a week and it seemed to me that if I were to enter my house then I would have to then isolate with the rest of my household? As a result I'm currently holed up in a Premier Inn up the road but Boris's latest jape could put a end to that in short order
You need to be 'working away' again...A bit off topic but still a pain in the backside. The wife has just started a fortnight's leave, needless to say she's really chuffed at having to spend it isolating.
Edited by TeamD on Sunday 1st November 04:10
RSTurboPaul said:
..........I await comments about Tin Foil Hats from at least one certain person but is any of the above really a leap?
All the legislation is in place or will (I'm sure) already be in place by next week, and our apparently puppet MPs will just nod it through, so there is effectively no chance to mount an objection unless direct action is taking (risking criminal records for the man on the clapham omnibus, which he is reluctant to risk) or someone can mount a Judicial Review (at vast cost and at too slow a speed to avert the impending surveillance actions).
Please, someone, prove to me the above is not likely or not wrong - as it all seems far too convenient to me.
The danger of reading something like this when I've woken this morning with thoughts closely aligned to this is that if there isn't someone here to pull us in with logical argument against this is that we end up creating an echo chamber need in tin foil for security - and saying, they wouldn't do that doesn't cut it. The more pertinent question is why would they do it? but is any of the above really a leap?All the legislation is in place or will (I'm sure) already be in place by next week, and our apparently puppet MPs will just nod it through, so there is effectively no chance to mount an objection unless direct action is taking (risking criminal records for the man on the clapham omnibus, which he is reluctant to risk) or someone can mount a Judicial Review (at vast cost and at too slow a speed to avert the impending surveillance actions).
Please, someone, prove to me the above is not likely or not wrong - as it all seems far too convenient to me.
Edited by RSTurboPaul on Sunday 1st November 02:34
The lack of strategy has stood out for months now. when I say lack - the only strategy has been based on the hope of a vaccine within months not years. Nothing else seems to be on the table. That hasn't made sense from the outset as there is no exit strategy.
With a sufficiently brutal testing regime sweeping through the UK - would it be possible to test, trace, isolate and eliminate wakamole style?
It sounds ridiculous, the cost, the sheer numbers involved, the potential for a mole to lie low although I guess if they lie low long enough, they're not a Covid threat anyway if they need a health passport to go anywhere or do anything.
Sorry, I can only come up with - it sounds too far fetched to be credible for the cost benefit but would appreciate a more convincing argument than it's too far fetched.
Moving forward, whilst C-19 has been a largely benign threat to most - this system of surveillance and health passports would be a model against other more threatening viruses and that is where the cost benefit would come in.
Of course, all I'm doing is connecting making up a story which fits some radom aspects of all of this as I can't make sense of it.
Edited by Pistom on Sunday 1st November 06:03
b0rk said:
ash73 said:
One interesting trend from that data - total bed occupancy (in England) has increased throughout the year, and is much higher now than it was during the Spring peak, so I can understand why they're feeling the pressure... *regardless* of Covid admissions:
Well yes I'd noticed that too helpfully the NHS provide an historical timeseries dataset for beds available and occupied. Sadly detail is only at the quarterly level but Q4 19 88%, Q1 20 62%, Q1 19 90%, Q1 18 89% etc. So I'd say that there had been an organisational level decision to clear out acute beds in Q1 of this year and low occupancy level is abnormal. This would I presume have been the cancelling of electives and sending the old/infirm off the care homes without testing.
https://www.england.nhs.uk/statistics/statistical-...
Obviously we are close(r) to capacity in November, we always are
So if you could choose when to have your outbreak, would you choose:
A spring/summer
B Autimn/Winter
Obviously you would choose A. You absolutely definately wouldn't spend £200b+ suppressing it in the summer in order to create a covid apocalypse in the winter? Surely?
And at what point would you say it was deliberate, rather than a well meaning clusterf
k of good intentions which didnt work?WindyCommon said:
My take on this is that our governments real (but undeclared because politically unacceptable...) strategy is to run the spread of infection as fast as they can without exceeding NHS capacity. The decision to go against the SAGE advice a couple of weeks ago was good evidence of this, as is the sudden imposition of tighter restrictions.
I think it’s the right call. We have to increase our collective exposure/resilience as quickly as we can, but without allowing our health system to fail. This means keeping the hospitals as full as we dare. Bluntly, it means running with a level of daily deaths (500-1000?) for an extended period. It looks like we’ve sailed a little close to the wind in recent weeks, and now need to take corrective action.
I would prefer the strategy to be declared overtly, but I understand why that may not be possible. We should always remember to watch the actions not the words.
Except that have locked down too soon for that.I think it’s the right call. We have to increase our collective exposure/resilience as quickly as we can, but without allowing our health system to fail. This means keeping the hospitals as full as we dare. Bluntly, it means running with a level of daily deaths (500-1000?) for an extended period. It looks like we’ve sailed a little close to the wind in recent weeks, and now need to take corrective action.
I would prefer the strategy to be declared overtly, but I understand why that may not be possible. We should always remember to watch the actions not the words.
The R number is low so there wasn't going to be THAT many more cases a week or so from now than there are now and hospitalisations with Covid are currently half peak.
Far more likely that SAGE have come up with a set of lurid fantasies and Boris has swallowed it.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff