Re: Coronavirus
 

Well you say it isn't going away but if we look to past pandemics they have done just that, hope for the best, plan for the worst might be best right now.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Everyone has their own view though on what the answer is, presumably based more on what they know.


So yes, if you ask people in the NHS what they think, they will say that you need lower levels to reduce hospital admissions so there's no-one in hospital with covid, so you need measures like social distancing, WFH, closing businesses, lockdown to achieve that. It'd be difficult to suggest how you can manage that though without having an impact somewhere else. But when you're working between 7-7 and have to do the same the next day you're either sleeping during the day or working with the other when you're not and probably don't have the schedule to go socialising in a pub nor are you aware of the impact there. They're not wrong but it's just one side of the die. And let's not forget how much there is militant unionism in these environments which don't really like any government let alone one which is right-wing by tory standards.


Ask a retailer or someone who owns a restaurant and they'll say they need more normality like no WFH, maximum table capacity, no face masks, so they're not restricted by who they can serve and don't need to reduce staffing or use furlough to cover the temporary issues. They are right too as if SD means you need to reduce your table capacity by 50% to keep them 2m apart then that's half the income you can make in an evening and also that means half the jobs...



People purely motivated by the impact on the public purse will say that restrictions cost us anyway whether it's furlough or in UC because people have been laid off, business rates holidays, less tax from alcohol sales, etc etc.


The media are jumping on this memo about invoking Plan B to the council leaders but is this not necessarily just an honest attempt to get feedback? Otherwise they might say the gov isn't listening to them. It's a case of damned if you do and damned if you don't.


But unlike a lot of the others, the government (who let's face it aren't clinicians, that's one reason why they have Whitty and Vallance) need to decide based on what everyone says on what the overall effect is, and if that necessitates within reason a trade off between the economy and controlling the virus, then they will have to decide how much each takes a hit.


Given that there is a possibility that over the next few days we may be over this peak, which I guess will naturally happen when it's ripped through enough of the kids anyway, you can see the benefit in actually sitting tight but making preparations to move into Plan B or whatever if it isn't doing that.

Re: Coronavirus
 

You also got to factor in the fact that the majority of the public think and act like it has all gone away.

So as things are no one really struggles except the NHS. They are not important are ? ICU is not really that crucial is it? Well no, not until you get really sick with Covid or have a serious fall and head injury or suffer a stroke, break your back or have some sort of heart attack. Some hospitals are reporting ambulance queues of course not important unless it happens to be you or someone you care for needing one urgently and might die waiting ( not aimed at you but at everyone )

Of course I get the flamed for this kind of emotive post, I have before in this thread but I care about others, not just those I know I do not want anyone to suffer when it can be avoided

---------- Post added at 21:05 ---------- Previous post was at 21:03 ----------

How many hundreds of years did Smallpox kill people ?? and what was it that ended that? it certainly was not sitting back hoping it will go away or hoping for herd immunity. It was vaccines and far too many are refusing to have it to beat it

Re: Coronavirus
 

Yes, but how far does this end up going? I get the point of saving lives but there is more to consider than that. And there is more to consider than covid pressures on the NHS, which always struggles due to seasonal viruses in winter, and with resources, waiting lists etc.



And how far do you lock down society because the NHS has issues doing its job (which aren't necessarily the fault of society but may be NHS internal politics) and where the actions taken or not probably won't have a huge impact on the NHS anyway.


Let's not forget that for now hospital admissions are nowhere near either the March/April 2020 peak, or the Oct-Feb peak, and are showing no signs other than flutter at the moment. Yes people will be going in with other things and yes partially this is a side effect of going back to normal as opposed to spending most of the time staying at home but it's down to the NHS to prioritise this.


If for example we have a hospital taking in a covid patient but they don't know it because they haven't tested them on admission and they're in for something else, or that they do have covid but don't isolate them, and they infect all the others around them, then the impact of this is not related to any actions or inactions taken outside the hospital, so any restrictions on the community in general would have done nothing to prevent this from happening, it was a failure in the admissions process not to have tested and isolated.


I think the reaction in general that it's largely over is totally understandable. Most people have supported measures, all 3 stay at home periods have been wholly justified, and disruptive on people's lives, livelihoods, mental health and who knows what else, for 18 months plus, and people have done the right thing following the rules (even though those setting them have been less keen to), staying at home, not socialising with their friends, not seeing friends and relatives at all, shopping from home, working from home, not visiting pubs and restaurants, wearing face coverings pretty much anywhere no matter how uncomfortable they are, acting like you have the virus to protect others, getting jabbed when it's your turn, all on the ticket of being sold freedom especially on the latter.



What you're saying isn't wrong at all - but it does fall under the trap of only looking at an isolated proportion of the response and its effects. Boris doesn't have that luxury.

Re: Coronavirus
 

You seem to be confusing pandemic with actual existance of the virus.
The virus is not going away, they never do (with one exception maybe).

It will no longer be a problematic pandemic as the masses become resistant to it.
At the risk of using the F word again, its becoming like the Flu, something you get a jab for every year.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I think what you're trying to say is "becoming endemic" ;)


100% agree with you though

Re: Coronavirus
 

At the moment I'm having to repeatedly visit my GP surgery to have a nurse change a dressing. The waiting rooms are pretty much empty, and is with what must be more than 6 GPs. I had to initially see a nurse-practitioner instead. What are they all doing?

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

raking in a fortune for making a few phone calls

Re: Coronavirus
 

So the vaccines are of no consequence to you?

Surely you can see the difference in the ratio of the number of infections compared with the number of hospitalisations?

The figures are exactly where they were forecast to be, so no need to panic, Mr Mainwearing.

Re: Coronavirus
 

How is sitting back and doing nothing hoping for the best but planning for the worst? I'd explain it as hoping it'll die our or mutate into something far less deadly in much the same way cow pox is less deadly than small pox to use your example whilst developing a vaccine and a sensible mandate for masks and distancing of course ymmv and you interpret it as sit back and do nothing.



I was thinking of all the different deadly flu strains like Russian, Asian and Hong Kong that are no longer with us, plus sars, H1N1, Spanish bird flu and the ones that whilst with us are controllable with drugs like aids and the plague.

---------- Post added at 00:52 ---------- Previous post was at 00:51 ----------

:zzz: whatever

Re: Coronavirus
 

From the information I have seen (I know it's Wikipedia so I'm sure there are other sources) 'Asian' flu turned into the Hong Kong flu so died out naturally, but both the 'Hong Kong' flu variant and the 'Russian' flu variant are still with us. However we have vaccines for them which will be part of the yearly programme.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1957%E..._and_aftermath
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1977_Russian_flu
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hong_K..._and_aftermath

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

There are two Ebola vaccines that have been approved so far, and a couple more in development (so, good news…).

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ebola_vaccine

Re: Coronavirus
 

I expect they are all working from home making phone calls.

This new system is driving residents in my neck of the woods up the wall. This is not the kind of service they want at all. But, hey, the doctors like it so I guess we can all get stuffed.

---------- Post added at 10:39 ---------- Previous post was at 10:36 ----------

Yes, I didn’t think you’d have an answer! :D

---------- Post added at 10:46 ---------- Previous post was at 10:39 ----------

Yes, but what is it in the figures that lead you to suspect that suddenly the virus is going to go back on the rampage? If you are just going to keep these measures ‘just in case’, we will never be free of them. It is ridiculous to compare the situation now with the situation we were faced with before the vaccines came along.

These figures were predicted, everything thus far is going to plan. Most new infections are amongst young people, who are not turning up to the hospitals with worrying symptoms. Most don’t even know they have it. Therefore, you don’t need to worry about the number of new infections. The number of hospitalisations is the figure to watch, and as long as these numbers don’t show signs of increasing exponentially, everything is under control.