Cable Forum
Page 160 of 569 « First 60110150156157158159 160 161162163164170210260 Last »
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

Cable Forum (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/index.php)
-   Current Affairs (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/forumdisplay.php?f=20)
-   -   Coronavirus (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/showthread.php?t=33709417)

jfman 02-01-2021 21:12
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mad Max (Post 36064782)
Doesn't that just prove that they don't work?
They don’t work if you keep schools open, I think that’s now been proven.

The problem is the country has always decided to walk a tightrope opening up as much of the country as they can while having a tolerable level of infections. This carries it’s own risk - mutation - and now we are seeing a more virulent strain.

While the vast majority of people will not go on to develop severe illness the problem is the virus spreads quickly enough that the NHS would quickly become overwhelmed without intervention. If ONS are estimating that 600,000 people at any one time have it and 24,000 people are in hospital (not an estimate) then there isn’t much headroom for allowing the figures to rise. If ICU hits capacity the number of fatal outcomes will also disproportionately rise.

1andrew1 02-01-2021 21:13
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36064737)
Really? By whom? The usual suspects who disagree with anything positive?

I’m underwhelmed! :D
Hugh pointed out there are 17m vulnerable in the UK. Once you've removed people living with them and supporting them there's not many people left.

That's one area where your theory fails to work.

Another other area where it fails to work is hospital capacity. That can't be ramped up rapidly enough leading to non-covid patients being turned away and wards over-run.

It's simply a pipe dream, with a particularly strong brand of tobacco in that pipe!

denphone 02-01-2021 21:14
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mad Max (Post 36064782)
Doesn't that just prove that they don't work?
No as it just proves that those who are ignoring the rules are selfish bell-ends...

mrmistoffelees 02-01-2021 21:17
Re: Coronavirus
 
Iirc wasn’t it leaked that three London ICUs were at their capacities on New Year’s Eve ?

---------- Post added at 21:17 ---------- Previous post was at 21:15 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by denphone (Post 36064786)
No as it just proves that those who are ignoring the rules are selfish bell-ends...
I don’t think that’s 100% true. Certainly there will be a percentage of people who fit that, but there are some people who are genuinely weary/exhausted of living the best of two thirds of a year under some form of restrictions.

Sephiroth 02-01-2021 21:22
Re: Coronavirus
 
I've gotta say that the hospitals are a major problem.

In my day and before (so I'm told) whenever there was an epidemic, isolation hospitals were nominated so that people with other ailments were not infected.

This hospital malaise with was totally evident with the MRSA crisis not so long ago. I can't see what lessons the NHS has learned. I think the NHS is badly misdirected and hospitals are badly managed with appalling hygiene standards.

My poor brother-in-law paid that price.

Mad Max 02-01-2021 21:25
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36064789)
I've gotta say that the hospitals are a major problem.

In my day and before (so I'm told) whenever there was an epidemic, isolation hospitals were nominated so that people with other ailments were not infected.

This hospital malaise with was totally evident with the MRSA crisis not so long ago. I can't see what lessons the NHS has learned. I think the NHS is badly misdirected and hospitals are badly managed with appalling hygiene standards.

My poor brother-in-law paid that price.
I'm really sorry to hear that mate.

mrmistoffelees 02-01-2021 21:27
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36064789)
I've gotta say that the hospitals are a major problem.

In my day and before (so I'm told) whenever there was an epidemic, isolation hospitals were nominated so that people with other ailments were not infected.

This hospital malaise with was totally evident with the MRSA crisis not so long ago. I can't see what lessons the NHS has learned. I think the NHS is badly misdirected and hospitals are badly managed with appalling hygiene standards.

My poor brother-in-law paid that price.
To my knowledge hospitals are segregating with specific wards for c-19 patients, not only that, but also specific routes into hospitals for c-19 vs standard admissions.

Unless you have entire hospitals given over to c-19 I’m
Not sure how the NHS can’t stop aerosol transmission ?

And then factor in asymptomatic transmission

1andrew1 02-01-2021 21:32
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees (Post 36064787)
Iirc wasn’t it leaked that three London ICUs were at their capacities on New Year’s Eve ?
Yes, with London hospitals securing capacity in Yorkshire. From a few days ago
Quote:
Doctors in Covid hotspots say they will face 'horrendous choices over those who live and die' within DAYS, as London hospital staff triage patients queued up outside in ambulances
London's intensive care units have requested for critical care patients to be transferred to Yorkshire Hospitals
Data leaked to HSJ showed London's intensive care units were running at 114 per cent capacity Monday night
Some hospitals in Tier Four regions were dealing with queues of ambulances outside A&Es, medics say
One consultant said colleagues will soon face making 'horrendous choices' over who lives and who dies
England's hospitals are now busier than they were at the peak of the first coronavirus wave, figures show
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...run-Covid.html

This alone should help Old Boy appreciate his theory is fatally flawed.

Like a wine that's gone off, his theory doesn't improve no matter how many times it's re-opened.

jfman 02-01-2021 21:35
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 36064785)
Hugh pointed out there are 17m vulnerable in the UK. Once you've removed people living with them and supporting them there's not many people left.

That's one area where your theory fails to work.

Another other area where it fails to work is hospital capacity. That can't be ramped up rapidly enough leading to non-covid patients being turned away and wards over-run.

It's simply a pipe dream, with a particularly strong brand of tobacco in that pipe!
I actually find the cold sobering pessimism of the forum quite refreshing. If I wanted bombastic wishful thinking, not grounded in science, to make myself feel better in my ignorance I’d read the Daily Mail / Telegraph / Express articles from the “back to the office/summer holiday” push in July/August. Oh the Christmas we should be having :D

Carth 02-01-2021 21:39
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees (Post 36064781)
<snip>
Why was the first ‘national’ lockdown last year successful in suppressing the spread of the virus ?
Was it?

Perhaps if we only tested 400 people a day instead of the thousands we currently do, we could use the positive test figures to prove the recent lock downs worked too :p:

bloody statistics eh :rolleyes:


edit: oh, and according to Hughs graph I'm a vulnerable person . . . but nobody has informed me of such, and my place of work hasn't treat me any different :)

1andrew1 02-01-2021 21:47
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36064771)
Unfortunately, Max, certain posters on here seem unable to engage in discussion. They prefer ridicule and rudeness to get their point across, which normally means you’ve won the argument.
Sorry Old Boy, but you've forced me to ask the question - are you indicating Nomadking won this argument then? :D

Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36064746)
Or at any time, for that matter.
You just want to see chaos and disruption. I’m wondering if you are one of these ‘say it loud and say it proud’ anarchists. That would explain some of your outrageous views on this forum.

Paul 02-01-2021 21:50
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36064735)
By the way, this is a discussion forum, not a centre of expertise.
Really ?

Have you read this topic, its full of experts .... :rofl:

mrmistoffelees 02-01-2021 21:52
Re: Coronavirus
 
The start of many ?

https://apple.news/AfAhyTRpYTgK4OfwQpjxH9w

jfman 02-01-2021 21:58
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees (Post 36064799)
Almost inevitably. What court in the land is going to rule in the Government’s favour when it’s ignoring the science?

Sephiroth 02-01-2021 22:08
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees (Post 36064791)
To my knowledge hospitals are segregating with specific wards for c-19 patients, not only that, but also specific routes into hospitals for c-19 vs standard admissions.

Unless you have entire hospitals given over to c-19 I’m
Not sure how the NHS can’t stop aerosol transmission ?

And then factor in asymptomatic transmission

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fever_hospital

The link describes what they did in the past to isolate infectious diseases. The Guvmin built the Nightingale Hospitals which could have served that purpose.

If there is a genuine risk of aerosol transmission to non CV patients, then they shouldn't be taken to a general hospital.

The NHS is badly designed and thus badly managed, imo.


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:42.
Page 160 of 569 « First 60110150156157158159 160 161162163164170210260 Last »
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
All Posts and Content are © Cable Forum