When will this shit end?

[Fuzzy Afro]

25 minutes ago, BobWillis said:

That’s just not true. The definition of key worker has changed since lockdown 1. I wouldn’t class a McDonald’s employee as a key worker but they are in this lockdown. 
In lockdown 1 you needed both parents to be (real) key workers to be in school and numbers were really low. Between single figures and 30/40 for most schools I know of. This time around you only need 1 parent as a (not so) key worker and numbers are far, far higher, some schools are 2/3’s full. 
Some inner city schools are as empty as last time for obvious reasons but they are few and far between. 

Not true about lockdown 1. Children who have one parent as a key worker have always been legally allowed to access school. And the definition of a key worker hasn’t changed. It may just be that:

 

- More parents voluntarily kept children off in lockdown 1 (e.g. if one parent was WFH and the other was a key worker)

 

- Schools are being more flexible

21 minutes ago, stuartbert two hats said:

And that's the problem - military medics aren't some extra reserve we can call on, separate to the NHS doctors+nurses.  Most of them are already treating COVID patients.  The military assistance we can draw on is mainly logistical.

I don’t mean military medics, I mean ordinary soldiers that are first aid trained. Same way we’d call up soldiers when the firefighters go on strike, they aren’t “military firemen”, just soldiers. 

[DeanoL]

 

8 hours ago, Smeble said:

I’m surprised that they are allowing the family into the hospital, have the rules been relaxed? My mom had a fall in September and was in ICU for 4 days, my dad was asked if he wanted her resuscitated if it came to it and was told to be prepared for the worst, but he was absolutely not allowed into the hospital to see her, no if, no buts,  no maybes.

Yeah it surprised us too when we were given the option. You have to wear full PPE for the visit though (N95 mask, visor, gloves, protective clothing). And it's only done for end of life - no limits on time once there or when you can visit.

1 hour ago, xxialac said:

The London Nightingale treated IN TOTAL...(drum roll) 54 patients.

"Almost half (48.1%) died. Those who survived their spell at ExCeL typically spent 34.5 days in critical care, far longer than 12-day average seen among equivalent patients in hospital ICUs. That may have been because Nightingale was unable to give patients tracheostomy"

Got the PR they wanted and they 'built a new hospital' (sic) towards the tally.

If that saved 27 people who otherwise there wouldn't have been room to treat then its still worth it to me. 

47 minutes ago, xxialac said:

Think there will be big winners and losers and don't think you can have a boom with 99% of the world's population shut out.

London hotels for example will die on their arse.

I think London hotels are already dying on their arse due to lack of business travel, conferences and so on. There's a chance that if a proper "all clear" is given towards the end of the year, we'll see a backlog of conferences and company away days turning up again. In terms of holiday makers, if the theatres, museums, pubs and bars reopen, London could be seen as a city-break destination even for Brits. If I live in Newcastle and normally go holidaying to European cities, London could be a decent alternative. Plenty of people will never have actually done that, or had it on the bucket list but always put it off for nicer or more interesting destinations elsewhere. But the domestic holiday industry will be a drop in the ocean for most London hotels compared to those using them for business travel. Loads will be fucked long term because of more remote working anyway. 

[DeanoL]

3 hours ago, JoeyT said:

Got to love the difference in urgency between here and Australia.

They get an announcement with 5 hours or so notice.

We get one with about 3 weeks. Ridiculous.

Interesting festival-related story on this - much as we're commending Australia and wishing we could be like them, the huge multi-venue arts festival starting Friday in Perth is now fucked:  https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2021/feb/01/wa-lockdown-perth-festival-cancels-opening-night-as-fringe-world-put-on-hold

With what Glastonbury have said, it's likely even under Australian rules, it wouldn't have gone ahead this year, for fear of something like this meaning they have to pull the plug at the last minute. For similar reasons, you wouldn't get any large-scale arena tours or anything that needs significant investment and set up either. 

Edited February 2, 2021 by DeanoL

[topmarksbri]

44 minutes ago, Fuzzy Afro said:

Offices shouldn’t be open unnecessarily. If they are then the authorities need informed. Schools are only open for those who genuinely really need to be there (Closing them altogether would mean millions of key workers having to take time off work to be with their kids)

 

We are currently under a stay at home order meaning we can only leave for work, food shopping, exercise or for medical reasons. You cannot socialise with anyone outside your household/bubble and if you do meet someone outside, it’s for exercise reasons only and strictly one other adult. That’s less strict than the France/Italy/Spain lockdowns of last spring, but it’s the strictest CURRENT lockdown in Europe and might well be the strictest in the world. 

The actual guidance on offices and work in general is decidedly vague:

"Work - you can only leave home for work purposes where it is unreasonable for you to do your job from home"

You could read this in so many ways that would allow you to go to the office. 

[eFestivals]

21 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

Covid mortality down dramatically since start of pandemic, study finds

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/feb/02/covid-mortality-down-dramatically-since-start-of-pandemic-study-finds

it's cos the 'treatment' many early patients received was what killed them. The whole ventilators thing was a red herring.

 

[stuartbert two hats]

9 minutes ago, Fuzzy Afro said:

Not true about lockdown 1. Children who have one parent as a key worker have always been legally allowed to access school. And the definition of a key worker hasn’t changed. It may just be that:

 

- More parents voluntarily kept children off in lockdown 1 (e.g. if one parent was WFH and the other was a key worker)

 

- Schools are being more flexible

I don’t mean military medics, I mean ordinary soldiers that are first aid trained. Same way we’d call up soldiers when the firefighters go on strike, they aren’t “military firemen”, just soldiers. 

We don't need first aiders, we need ICU nurses.

[eFestivals]

26 minutes ago, Ryan1984 said:

We’ve lost a lot of the army personnel here in Aldershot but there are still some around (as an aside, the Cambridge is being converted into luxury flats). I know they are still here as I run past the barracks and the soldiers are still out doing their drills etc.

Last couple of times people I know have been in Frimley Park hospital, they’ve been treated by a mixture of NHS and army nurses.

ahh, OK, there's some still there, then. Does make sense as some of the Army are too.

A friend had her first kid in Frimley Park (1990-ish), attended to by Army docs (she wasn't military) - freaked her right out. As it happens kids father sometimes posts here.

I was born in the Cambridge's sidekick of the Louise Margaret (which took non-military patients). 

Edited February 2, 2021 by eFestivals

[km9]

5 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

 

...

If that saved 27 people who otherwise there wouldn't have been room to treat then its still worth it to me. 

...

I'm sorry but I disagree. That money could have been used much more effectively and easily helped to save well in excess of 27 lives. Hundreds of times that figure in fact.

[Ryan1984]

2 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

ahh, OK, there's some still there, then. Does make sense as some of the Army are too.

A friend of mine had her first kid in Frimley Park (1990-ish), attended to by Army docs (she wasn't military) - freaked her right out. As it happens kids father sometimes posts here.

I was born in the Cambridge's sidekick of the Louise Margaret. 

So was I! And now live a stone’s throw away from it. 

[stuartbert two hats]

We've heard a lot about how the mRNA (and I think the modified adenovirus) vaccines could reformulated very quickly to deal with new variants that don't respond as well to current vaccines should they arise. These new variants have arisen - so are the new formulations being  developed now?  Has anyone heard if this is happening?

[steviewevie]

 

[eFestivals]

2 minutes ago, km9 said:

I'm sorry but I disagree. That money could have been used much more effectively and easily helped to save well in excess of 27 lives. Hundreds of times that figure in fact.

I don't think the spend is of much relevance. During the pandemic if money has been needed it's been found so I don't think the Nightingales can be thought of as displacement spending.

However, who knows how those 27 patients (or even all 54) would have faired if they'd been refused hospital admission. Given the high number of deaths the 27 survivors might have been the going-to-survive proportion, and might have survived without hospital treatment. 

[km9]

4 minutes ago, stuartbert two hats said:

We've heard a lot about how the mRNA (and I think the modified adenovirus) vaccines could reformulated very quickly to deal with new variants that don't respond as well to current vaccines should they arise. These new variants have arisen - so are the new formulations being  developed now?  Has anyone heard if this is happening?

I would say it's a pretty safe bet that they are being worked on.

[km9]

1 minute ago, eFestivals said:

I don't think the spend is of much relevance. During the pandemic if money has been needed it's been found so I don't think the Nightingales can be thought of as displacement spending.

However, who knows how those 27 patients (or even all 54) would have faired if they'd been refused hospital admission. Given the high number of deaths the 27 survivors might have been the going-to-survive proportion, and might have survived without hospital treatment. 

What I'm saying is, if you could go back and use that same amount of money to save 27 lives, would you do the same again, or would you do something differently?

It's all hypothetical anyway because we can't go back, but would the excel nightingale be kitted out in the same way to save 27 lives? I would argue no.

Maybe a better way of using that investment would have been to use the capacity to allow cancer treatments to go ahead as planned, or another branch of medicine which has been put onto the back burner.

[Oboy82]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-55900625

[eFestivals]

5 minutes ago, km9 said:

What I'm saying is, if you could go back and use that same amount of money to save 27 lives, would you do the same again, or would you do something differently?

It's all hypothetical anyway because we can't go back, but would the excel nightingale be kitted out in the same way to save 27 lives? I would argue no.

Maybe a better way of using that investment would have been to use the capacity to allow cancer treatments to go ahead as planned, or another branch of medicine which has been put onto the back burner.

do something different, of course.

But I don't think the Nightingales are something for criticism. The govt went all out for these in a crisis with the best intentions.

That's so rare we shouldn't throw rocks at it.

[zahidf]

https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2021/feb/02/monoclonal-antibodies-great-hope-in-covid-treatments-fails-against-variants?__twitter_impression=true

[zahidf]

 

[xxialac]

6 minutes ago, km9 said:

What I'm saying is, if you could go back and use that same amount of money to save 27 lives, would you do the same again, or would you do something differently?

It's all hypothetical anyway because we can't go back, but would the excel nightingale be kitted out in the same way to save 27 lives? I would argue no.

Maybe a better way of using that investment would have been to use the capacity to allow cancer treatments to go ahead as planned, or another branch of medicine which has been put onto the back burner.

Yeah, I'm all for saving lives but you have to think about what-would-have-happened-anyway/additionality.

And the amount of money, resource and PR was greatly disproportionate to the result.

115,000 people have died and the Nightingale saved fewer than 27.

[st dan]

Surely though, with all these new variants we can’t just keep locking down, developing a new vaccine and rolling it out can we? What is the plan if the vaccines aren’t effective against these?

[eFestivals]

Just now, st dan said:

Surely though, with all these new variants we can’t just keep locking down, developing a new vaccine and rolling it out can we? What is the plan if the vaccines aren’t effective against these?

Me, I think once covid-19 has lost it's novel status, it's not really a fatal illness.

Could i be in the right ballpark @toiletduck?

[steviewevie]

9 minutes ago, st dan said:

Surely though, with all these new variants we can’t just keep locking down, developing a new vaccine and rolling it out can we? What is the plan if the vaccines aren’t effective against these?

zero covid

or

covid secure

[Euphoricape]

Ffs.....

 

 

http://news.sky.com/story/covid-19-mutation-of-kent-variant-detected-in-samples-could-help-virus-evade-immune-system-12206375

[DeanoL]

22 minutes ago, km9 said:

What I'm saying is, if you could go back and use that same amount of money to save 27 lives, would you do the same again, or would you do something differently?

It's all hypothetical anyway because we can't go back, but would the excel nightingale be kitted out in the same way to save 27 lives? I would argue no.

Maybe a better way of using that investment would have been to use the capacity to allow cancer treatments to go ahead as planned, or another branch of medicine which has been put onto the back burner.

How? The problem isn't lack of space, it's lack of staff. You can't just magic up more doctors and nurses by throwing money at it. 

You can argue that the 27 lives (or the proportion of them that wouldn't have survived anyway) wasn't worth the spend, and that we could have spent that money on more laptops for kids or something, because that's worth more than those lives.

But I don't see what the plan for saving more lives with that money would be? I don't see how throwing the money at it somehow "allows cancer treatments to go ahead". 

[zahidf]

13 minutes ago, st dan said:

Surely though, with all these new variants we can’t just keep locking down, developing a new vaccine and rolling it out can we? What is the plan if the vaccines aren’t effective against these?

im sure toilet duck will confirm, but there arent any vaccines which seem to be completely useless against the variants, and a 1 shot booster rather than 2 shots would be enough to go around the variants in theory?