Cable Forum - Coronavirus (OLD)

Cable Forum (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/index.php)

- Current Affairs (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/forumdisplay.php?f=20)

- - Coronavirus (OLD) (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/showthread.php?t=33708712)

Reasonably balanced article in the Times today.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/d...TM_1Imag_CR1_2

Quote:

Each day’s deaths represent infections from almost a month ago. Since a revolutionary treatment is not on the short-term horizon, it seems plausible that we will pass Italy and Spain in absolute numbers and possibly pass Italy in proportion, too.

That would not necessarily be proof that we had done the wrong thing. Each country is different. London is a global hub with a large, dense population: it was always going to risk a big outbreak. On the other hand, we are also an island. Germany, which isn’t, has managed to control the disease better than any large country in Europe.

Ultimately, it may be that the reason for our death toll is simple. The countries that have done the best, so far, engaged in massive testing and isolation early on. We tried to do that, but did not have the capacity.

Washington Post view

https://s2.washingtonpost.com/camp-r...m=4&linktot=78

Quote:

Haber pointed to a number of key factors that gave Germany an advantage in its preparations: the widespread mass testing program; a relatively young population that made up the initial bulk of covid-19 cases, and mostly survived; and the benefit of time to expand intensive care facilities and build up stockpiles of medical equipment.

“We were able to prepare because we were not the first country in Europe affected, and we saw and could analyze developments elsewhere,” Haber said, adding that the “well-oiled machinery” of the country’s universal health-care system and effective coordination between the federal government and local and state agencies helped. Germany’s hospitals still have a surfeit of available beds for coronavirus-positive patients and may not face the same pressures that buckled health-care systems in other European countries.

Compared with Britain, Germany gave itself a real head start in testing. “The people [they were in contact with] were also traced and tested repeatedly and they were isolated as well,” Evangelos Kotsopoulos, spokesman for the German Association of Accredited Laboratories, told the BBC, adding that it helped “flatten the curve a bit and slowed down the rate of infection.”

“Rather than following countries like South Korea in taking immediate draconian action to stop the disease — including the use of mass testing — Johnson’s team thought a more modulated approach would ultimately save more lives and cause less economic harm,” the Financial Times detailed in a piece on the government’s early missteps.

Now, Britain finds itself playing catch-up while lacking key German advantages: a sophisticated and sizable biotech industry that helped fast-track widespread testing, and a decentralized political structure that — unlike, say, its equivalent in the United States — effectively enabled private laboratories and local and state-level agencies to take the lead on implementing testing. “While Germany broadened its testing strategy to cover all those with mild symptoms — the core of a strategy to test, trace and isolate people infected with the virus — by March, Britain was struggling to scale up,” the FT noted.

“We have the best scientific labs in the world but we did not have the scale,” British Health Secretary Matt Hancock told the BBC. “My German counterpart, for instance, could call upon 100 testing labs ready and waiting when the crisis struck, thanks in large part to Roche, one of the biggest diagnostic companies in the world.”

At this time, I think the Government made decisions based on what they thought was best for the country at that time, then changed when evidence within and without the country showed differently - I hope we learn from this, but any witch hunt will only make that more difficult.

Quote:

Originally Posted by denphone (Post 36031408)

Its not a question of hate for the vast majority but more a question of trust.

Is there a single politician that you could call trustworthy?

As for the number of deaths from coronavirus, it is worth pointing out that an estimated 50,100 excess winter deaths occurred in England and Wales alone in 2017/18, according to ONS figures.

I do not recall as much newspaper reporting about that at the time.

Quote:

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36031460)

https://www.theguardian.com/society/...est-since-1976

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-46399090

https://www.itv.com/news/2018-11-30/...than-40-years/

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/a...-outbreak.html

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...e-ineffective/

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/w...-a4004521.html

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/f...ties-5pnxrrf5b

Well my mum is still in hospital, she has had Covid-19. But because of this and the fact the hospital has banned all vistors, and as such my mum is on a low.

She's not eating properly, to compound this she still has no movement below her knees, hopefully when the spinal cord swell calms down she can walk.

But at the moment the nurses are moving her postion every 2 hours.

But on a brighter notice, I'm very proud of my niece, she is working extra house in our Asda, she is putting the food on shelves.

Some people do respect her and keep a safe distance, but she spends a lot of time out the back .

Quote:

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36031460)

What’s your point, caller?

The Government’s own analysis puts Coronavirus at 250,000 without intervention, and that’s not counting indirect deaths caused by a lack of medical resources to treat them.

I cannot stress enough that this isn’t just a bad case of seasonal flu.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36031467)

Is there any evidence of deaths caused by a lack of medical resources?

---------- Post added at 11:18 ---------- Previous post was at 11:14 ----------

This article also explains why calculating the death toll, even of those that die in hospital, is complex.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/l...165-X/fulltext

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36031468)

If you read my post correctly you’ll find I made so such claim.

Unless you are claiming it’s possible for 250 000 people to die of Coronavirus (Government estimate that killed off the herd immunity idea) without having an adverse effect on other treatments/intensive care availability. That’d be truly quite astonishing.

The death toll may be challenging but the excess deaths is quite easy. Over the longer term we will find out if claims (without published evidence) that a sizeable proportion would have died anyway are reflected with less than expected death totals.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36031467)

Yes, it is. The difference being that currently there is no way we can treat it, because it is new. That was the government's concern, and that of governments around the world. The sudden heavy demand for hospital services, concentrated over a few short weeks, was the problem.

There is no doubt that the emergency measures have reduced numbers. I didn't claim that this was not the case. What I am saying is that so far at least, the number of recorded deaths is nowhere near those recorded for seasonal flu. Of course, they are still going up, but we appear to be reaching the peak now. It's a stretch to believe the final figure will be five times what we have now. Double, sure, maybe three times. But five times? Yeah, right!

So is Covid-19 in addition to the regular seasonal flu or a replacement for it? Given the later timing(ie post-winter) of it, it would seem to be an additional source of deaths.

The only "treatment" seems to be to keep people alive long enough for their own bodies to overcome it by themselves.

Quote:

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36031472)

Another one arguing about a point I didn’t actually make. 250 000 without intervention - that’s the analysis that drove the Government policy we have now so I’m amazed at you questioning it to be honest you are usually a keen and unquestioning follower.

The problem is far from it just solely being heavy demand for medical care over a few short weeks. It’s clearly more deadly and more easily transmitted than seasonal flu. As I’ve pointed out to you a million times if it was just the flu nobody would have noticed and it’d just get chalked up as a few extra deaths here and there or a particularly cold winter.

Quote:

Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 36031473)

Quote:

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36031474)

We are talking about the seriousness of the actual number of deaths recorded, jfman. Stop criticising points I did not make.

All a numbers game, which doesn't help those affected. I never really understood the '20,000 deaths' is a good result line one of the experts came out with. Seems like a crap result to me. Yes every country is affected, but compared to a similar sized country e.g
Germany, we've done very poorly. They got their act together with testing and tracing, we didn't and are unfortunately paying the price. Hopefully lessons will be learned about our lack of investment in public services and obsession with tax cuts, but it's going to be an expensive lesson in several ways.

Quote:

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36031476)

Yes, it is an additional cause of deaths. As a number, it is frightening people. I am merely making the point that a higher number of seasonal flu deaths happen in many years and people scarcely bat an eyelid.

---------- Post added at 11:57 ---------- Previous post was at 11:55 ----------

We are talking about the seriousness of the actual number of deaths recorded, jfman. Stop criticising points I did not make.

You are the one who incorrectly interpreted my post and questioned the 250,000 Government figure. That needed pointed out.

People literally don’t notice when seasonal flu causes more deaths because it’s over more months. Uncontrolled Coronavirus could achieve those figures in less than six weeks and continue to do so until it’s a quarter of a million.

On the question of why UK mortality stats are exceeding Italy's, are the following factors relevant?

1/
UK population is 68m; Italy is 60m.

2/
Italy stats don't include people who contracted the disease when ski-ing, who then left Italy, returned to the UK and infected others - so welling our numbers? That could be a 4 figure number returning from Italy each passing on to 5 people, etc.

There isn't any real way you can compare anything using population size. The nearest thing you can get to compare mortality rates is to compare those that require hospitalisation. Even then, there are so many other factors involved in survivability as to make comparison invalid and meaningless.