Ignoring lockdown in ED

[jimlad48]

Keano

Thats precisely my point - we do need to ask these questions because we do, at some point, need to end lockdown. But we do need to think carefully around how and when we do this - relying on a set of emotive responses doesnt solve the longer term issues we face.

[edcam]

What Spartacus said.

[Spartacus]

Keano your statement of "Unfortunately Spartacus the emotive argument you present will only go so far. The longer lockdown continues in the U.K. the danger is the economy will collapse, house prices and pensions will collapse and unemployment will be unprecedented." Is also a dangerous emotive drive for people to make a decision based on protecting their financial assets, over protecting lives in my mind.

My argument above is that the public shouldn't be asked to make a decision because for what ever reason they will be tempted to vote based on their own particular circumstances rather than what is actually best for the country / population as a whole.

Maybe there needs to be an external and balanced, in terms of scientific and economical members, committee to review and make decisions on when and how to come out of lock down rather than a public vote

[Blah Blah]

jimlad48 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I've spoken to enough doctors I know socially and

> professionally to hear that many feel the threat

> is not as bad as some people make it out to be.

> Its hitting people who are either on their way out

> anyway, or its hitting people who are made worse

> by very poor lifestyle choices.

Really? because I don't know a single one underestimates the issues with pandemics.

> I'm sorry, I know its a nasty illness, but lets be

> clear, its mainly hitting people who are already

> at risk of infection anyway due to underlying

> conditions.

Have you not also noticed that a high percentage of people who contract the virus need ICU care to recover? And that adults of ANY age can end up in that position? What would you say if 18% of the entire population needed ICU care in just 12 weeks and many of them died because they could not get that care? Because that is the point you are missing here.

> Haven't you noticed how many of the

> death figures contain thewords 'all but X had

> underlying health conditions' -thats the thing, it

> was a factor, it was not the sole factor.

No you are completely wrong here. It is the virus that leads to the onset of the conditions that cause death in their compromised immune systems and biology. It is a premature death caused by the virus in other words. It is the reason why we vaccinate against flu. Flu is another virus that causes premature death in this way.

> I genuinely think we're overreacting here and my

> worry is the medium term ability to pay for an NHS

> to cope for future outbreaks is at risk. The

> sooner we relax the restrictions the better, and

> get on with our lives.

We borrowed far more money to get through the second world war. And every country in the world is in the same position. The thing with economics is that it is a human construct. Resources and a work force do not disappear suddenly. The world will adjust its economic modelling, especially if the virus mutates and brings a second wave.

And therein is the real risk. If the virus were allowed to spread freely, apart from the tens of millions it would kill, the risk of mutation into a more virulent and deadly wave becomes increased. This is what happened with Spanish Flu. You might argue now that the elderly are expendable, so who cares if millions of them die, but what will you say if a mutation starts killing other age groups in significant percentages? We are already heading for a society with differing levels of fear. Imagine what would happen in that latter scenario. A short term economic hit to get public health in a manageable position will cost far less in the longer term considering the alternative.

The truth is that we just do not know enough about this virus yet to risk that. We don't even know if getting the virus delivers immunity, because it takes months and years to genuinely measure that. SARS CoV 1 seems to suggest any immunity is short term and weak. So the only way to beat this may well be with a vaccine in the same way seasonal flu is controlled. And this is also why that Oxford vaccine has been developed using Adenovirus and not the SARS CoV 2 virus. The Adenovirus produces a stronger antibody response that may work to combat Covid - that is the thinking there.

[keano77]

Spartacus Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Keano your statement of "Unfortunately Spartacus

> the emotive argument you present will only go so

> far. The longer lockdown continues in the U.K. the

> danger is the economy will collapse, house prices

> and pensions will collapse and unemployment will

> be unprecedented." Is also a dangerous emotive

> drive for people to make a decision based on

> protecting their financial assets, over protecting

> lives in my mind.

>

> My argument above is that the public shouldn't be

> asked to make a decision because for what ever

> reason they will be tempted to vote based on their

> own particular circumstances rather than what is

> actually best for the country / population as a

> whole.

>

> Maybe there needs to be an external and balanced,

> in terms of scientific and economical members,

> committee to review and make decisions on when and

> how to come out of lock down rather than a public

> vote

Fair enough Spartacus. It was not a direct criticism. I don?t have the answers.

[Penguin68]

'Rules' about lock-down -

1. If you are symptomatic, self-isolate at home (quarantine) and don't leave quarantine until 7 days after you first showed symptoms unless you still have symptoms. Stay at home till these pass (assuming you don't become so ill you need medical treatment) [And there are additional rules if you are sharing a living space with others]

2. If you are well, (mainly) stay at home except for the permitted reasons, including an hour's exercise - by limiting your time there will be fewer people out at any one time to possibly infect each other.

3. If you practice social distancing (2 metres) outside you are very unlikely, in the open air, to contract the virus. [What that means is that socially distancing people who sunbathe or sit down are putting no one, themselves or others, at risk. However spending more than an hour out will start to contribute locally to 'over crowding.]

4. Thoroughly wash your hands if you touch anything you have not brought with you when outside. Which includes a seat you might have sat on.

If only the asymptomatic go out, and if they socially distance, and hand wash, the virus will not spread.

So if people are conforming to this, but not beating themselves about the head to increase their lock-down pain, don't criticise them.

The virus is spreading because either people are not following the advice (and we do see them on our streets), or because they are forced, as key workers or people in contact with key workers to 'break' social distancing rules. You can't nurse someone whilst 2 metres away from them. Or serve them in a shop.

[malumbu]

' We borrowed far more money to get through the second world war. And every country in the world is in the same position. The thing with economics is that it is a human construct. Resources and a work force do not disappear suddenly. The world will adjust its economic modelling, especially if the virus mutates and brings a second wave. '

I do worry though. One benefit of the second world war is that afterwards we had a big competitive advantage in a war torn Europe as industry had adapted, innovated, become leaner and fitter. And the benefits of shed loads of coal. It didn't last of course.

This time we will be lagging behind our European neighbours, in a precarious financial environment. Maybe our financial and sector and other services will be robust enough after we wave good bye to some of our remaining industry - I think automotive is particularly vulnerable.

Not a reason to end lockdown early, just something that we can't ignore.

[wordsworth]

God give me strength... this thread is doing my head in

[Plough Man]

Penguin68 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> 'Rules' about lock-down

>

> 4. Thoroughly wash your hands if you touch

> anything you have not brought with you when

> outside. Which includes a seat you might have sat

> on.

>

Only go out wearing a pair of boxing gloves.

That way you can't get infected by picking your nose or rubbing your eyes PLUS other people will give you a wider berth than a measly 2 metres.

[Blah Blah]

I agree Malumbu. There are a lot of unknowns but we were already an economy in decline anyway. We seem to think we can stay on top forever (an arrogance delivered by an Empirical past of course) but the rest of the World has been catching up for some time. I still think that if we can get away from that mentality, we can create a more vibrant and meritocratic economy. And maybe one good thing to come out of this pandemic will be a necessary shift away from plutocracy.

[Sally Eva]

This is a Chris Whitty lecture on Covid. Dry but highly informative.

[doogsey]

jimlad48 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> For whats its worth, my view on the situation is

> that lockdown is becoming increasingly untenable.

> I don?t doubt Corona is a horrible virus/bug/thing

> and it can be truly awful for some people, but we

> need to have a national conversation around the

> risk we want to take here.

The main reason for the lock-down is to flatten the curve and to avoid overwhelming the NFS.

Even if you think you won't catch it, or you think you're in good enough health to survive it, you have to consider the impact that the coronavirus left unchecked would have on all parts of the NHS. That *could* end up having a direct impact on you, e.g. if you need to use A&E for an unrelated reason.

[micromacromonkey]

If you fall out of a tree and break your legs don't come running to me.

dbboy Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> When you eventually catch CV 19, can't breath and

> subsequently die, don't moan, because you didn't

> follow the guidance.

[seenbeen]

micromacromonkey Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> If you fall out of a tree and break your legs

> don't come running to me.

>

> dbboy Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > When you eventually catch CV 19, can't breath

> and

> > subsequently die, don't moan, because you

> didn't

> > follow the guidance.

Unfortunately you may yourself very well follow the guidance but if the ICU beds are not protected then you could die of ANYTHING because of a selfish person spreading it around, or the lockdown was eased too soon because of 'pressure' from ignoramuses!

[malumbu]

Interesting article on the BBC following research from Kings College, 45 % willingly following lockdown, 45 % begrudgingly and 10& not, May be higher not in reality as there is always a bias "have you been a good boy?" "yes of course".

But the comments are rather rabid. I sometimes go to the comments on the BBC as you get polarisation and lots of throwing of rocks. If you want to get angry read the ones on this article which are almost universally people ignoring the rules, due to infringement of civil liberty, conspiracies or whatever else they use to justify their behaviour. Not quite America

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-52495201

[JohnL]

I think some people actually thrive in lockdown (I read that there are a proportion who's mental health improves under these conditions for various reasons) - of course it all depends how much space you have.

Beginning to think it maybe me as I'm alone, can set an exercise regime, get things done I've put off for years, drink less etc.

[JohnL]

jimlad48 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I?m concerned that we have potentially overplayed

> the fatality figures by adding Corona as a cause

> of death, not as the sole cause of death unlike

> other countries. For example you could have

> terminal cancer in its final stages, and very mild

> corona symptoms, but if you died, you?d be

> recorded as a corona victim ? even if you only had

> it in the mildest of ways.

> While there is no suggestion that having it is not

> a factor in these deaths, it makes people assume

> that its perhaps more lethal than may actually be

> the case compared to other reporting rates. There

> is some good work done on this by the Guardian

> around how nations record fatalities in very

> different ways.

> The next question is how many who have died of

> Corona would have died anyway, probably in fairly

> short order? It?s a blunt question but when you

> listen to accounts of people in their late 90s

> dying (or in one case I heard a 105 year old) then

> you need to ask if we?re overemphasing the impact

> its having. Many of those impacted would almost

> certainly have had underlying health conditions

> that probably played a very significant part here

> ? not COVID itself.

This doesn't fit with the people I've known who have died where they may have been ill and had been ill for many years but they were hanging on in there - then COVID19 finished them off - but who knows if they would have lasted 3, 5 or 10 years further ?

Where do you draw the line - we all have a death day coming ?

[Blah Blah]

All of us would die from a whole range of bacterial and viral infections if we had sufficiently compromised immune systems. The point here though is that it is a NEW virus. One of the first things to be measured when a new virus emerges, is mode of transmission and rate of infection. If spread is fast enough and people are becoming seriously ill in significant numbers, you assume the worst until you know what you are dealing with. Some things can be understood relatively quickly, like transmission, symptoms, mortality. Other things take much longer to measure, learn and understand.

It really doesn't matter that many of those who have died had underlying conditions. All that means is that they were living with an existing but manageable condition, which became unmanageable once this new virus entered their body and started infecting cells. To suggest that COVID is not really the cause of death here is a denial of the facts. Even healthy people who recover at home have a rough time of it, and a significant percentage of them need ICU care to recover. There is no other virus or cause of death killing people in these numbers at the moment. On top of that, today we became the country with the worst death toll in Europe. Lock down has prevented that figure being higher than it already is.

[malumbu]

Not arguing strongly against your point but seasonal influenza does claim the lives of many older and/or immunocompromised people each year

Public Health England estimates that on average 17,000 people have died from the flu in England annually between 2014/15 and 2018/19. However, the yearly deaths vary widely from a high of 28,330 in 2014/15 to a low of 1,692 in 2018/19. Public Health England does not publish a mortality rate for the flu.

I've been through the 'oh its just a cull, let it run its course', before understanding that this is something very different as you and others have clearly pointed out. I've also lost two close members of family to pneumonia so don't take this lightly. Nor am I trying to play God or the grim reaper.

We of course don't have a mass vaccination programme against seasonal flu, nor have we needed a lock down in our life times.

[Blah Blah]

There would be no point in vaccinating everyone from seasonal flu because it mutates frequently. That's why we only vaccinate vulnerable groups that may benefit from it in that season. But as you also point out, that vaccine has varying rates of success from season to season, mainly because it is created for a predicted mutation of the flu virus. Sometimes what arrives is not really what was expected. Overall though, I would argue that flu vaccines do a good job of keeping annual death rates at lower levels. The caveat though is that we could still see a flu pandemic if a particularly virulent strain appeared.

[TE44]

flu vaccinations are not efficient especially in older people. the live nasal spray vaccine given to children also sheds for up to 4wks. The fact this is an attenuated does not change the fact it is a live vaccine. hence why parents are given information to keep there children away from immucompromised people. if a psuedovirus can cause infection why is it always ruled out that shedding can be contagious. there was a genetic mutation discovered by John Hopkins researchers with this vaccine flumist in 2017. it was said it may help to restore the vaccines effectiveness after the US stopped using it. A pharmaceutical genetic mutation brought about by doing what may happen naturally. this was not an intention as far as I could see. Did the mutation bring about clinical studies before US then continued using it in its immunisation programme. If my memory serves me right I could not find any information regarding trials around this. I don't remember ever finding out how this mutation helped effectiveness.

[Blah Blah]

This is where we get into the realm of antigenic shift vs drift. And also, the immune system ability to produce antibodies decreases with age. At the same time, the abundance of certain receptors that viruses need to infect cells increases. Pseudoviruses have no ability to replicate, even if they infect a living cell, but at the same time, viral load is the consideration for immucompromised people. Why? Because the risk of a pseudovirus mutating is real also once it enters a living organism.

Influenza A has mutation 'shifts' regularly. That means small changes in the antigenic makeup of the surface antigens. It needs no other virus or viral strain to do this. And migratory birds are monitored all year round to produce the vaccine. It is a well practised process.

'Drift' however is what leads to pandemics, needs an intermediate host usually, and involves a mutation between two strains of the same virus or two completely different viruses to create a novel (new) virus. This is much rarer for obvious reasons.

[TE44]

Blah blah, i appreciate your knowledge but I cannot pretend I do not have a problem with many of the organisations in this industry. Since the beginning of this pandemic many things have made no sense. Doctors on the front line have made there own videos asking other doctors and scientists to speak out, doctors being asked to treat patients in a way that does not make sense, to there teaching. There has been a rise in suicide helplines by NHS numbers. Doctors, scientists and anyone who has spoken out about the contradictive information given has been silenced. I welcome change but it is a scary thought whilst in the hands of such corrupt powers.

[TE44]

https://youtu.be/1l5354hYmtk

An interesting vid done couple of days ago from a whistleblower.

[JohnL]

TE44 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> https://youtu.be/1l5354hYmtk

>

> An interesting vid done couple of days ago from a

> whistleblower.

Video removed as it breaches guidelines ?

Have a guess which one from the page https://www.youtube.com/about/policies/#community-guidelines