Jump to content

When will this shit end?


Chrisp1986

Recommended Posts

18 minutes ago, FestivalJamie said:

The use of local lockdowns is very flimsy. Our local lockdowns have not been lockdowns, simply asking people to not mix households. The lockdown in Leicester was a genuine lockdown, the rest have just been half arsed attempts to try and stop the public socialising, and it’s not working.

Dont get me wrong, we are in a much better position than march/April. We have masks, better cleaning, testing etc. But at the same time I think it takes less covid hospitalisations to overwhelm the NHS this winter when we have the flu+ a backlog of patients from this spring. We cannot cancel routine appointments like we did last time. People will argue the nhs wasn’t overwhelmed in April because the nightingale was empty- but it was!! All other routine appointments such as cancer treatments got cancelled. This CANNOT happen again.

Most likely covid deaths this winter will be lower than in the spring, but we need to make sure everyone can get access to the treatments they need this winter, not just covid patients.

The NHS wasn't overwhelmed because of all the things it did, like cancelling other treatments rightly or wrongly that was deemed the best way to go and it did work - fortunately we were spared the scenes of northern Italy where decisions on who lives and who dies were reported to having to be made. That's the problem with having a system with such little redundancy, but redundancy doesn't come for free. 

If you want a functioning national health service you need a functioning economy - as it has to be paid for. Which lets not forget constantly has waiting lists and misses it's A&E waiting times targets... Due to being at capacity already. Given the circumstances I personally believe it's testament to the NHS we didn't see scenes like this in Italy. 

Of course in an ideal world it would have been business as usual and have space for Covid patients... But that just isn't possible and never will be. 

Edited by RobertProsineckisLighter
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, RobertProsineckisLighter said:

The NHS wasn't overwhelmed

 cancelling other treatments 

First of all, you say the nhs wasn’t overwhelmed, but then you empathise the point I made that all other treatments were cancelled.

The only reason Italy had those scenes on the media is because they didn’t cancel other essential healthcare. We cancelled all of ours meaning people will die from other causes sooner. So by definition our healthcare system was overwhelmed. Our government cancelled all other treatments because our healthcare system would have been so stretched had they kept them going, people would have been dying in corridors, so they took away all other treatments to avoid bad images in the press. But the long term effects are worse on people’s livelihoods.

You are looking at everything back to front. If you want a functioning economy you need to prioritise the health of the people. As you say the two are linked. Let health suffer, the economy will fall with it. If you just focus on economy, health will suffer and then that drags down the economy with it. Health takes priority and that’s what upholds the economy.

With the flu and backlog of patients from the spring, it’s going to take even less for the NHS to be overwhelmed this time and other essential care and  treatments to be cancelled. Leave it too long, it’s too late. Just look at Marseille right now- all intensive care beds are full.

Edited by FestivalJamie
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, FestivalJamie said:

First of all, you say the nhs wasn’t overwhelmed, but then you empathise the point I made that all other treatments were cancelled.

The only reason Italy had those scenes on the media is because they didn’t cancel other essential healthcare. We cancelled all of ours meaning people will die from other causes sooner. So by definition our healthcare system was overwhelmed. Our government cancelled all other treatments because our healthcare system would have been so stretched had they kept them going, people would have been dying in corridors, so they took away all other treatments to avoid bad images in the press. But the long term effects are worse on people’s livelihoods.

You are looking at everything back to front. If you want a functioning economy you need to prioritise the health of the people. As you say the two are linked. Let health suffer, the economy will fall with it. If you just focus on economy, health will suffer and then that drags down the economy with it. Health takes priority and that’s what upholds the economy.

With the flu and backlog of patients from the spring, it’s going to take even less for the NHS to be overwhelmed this time and other essential care and  treatments to be cancelled. Leave it too long, it’s too late. Just look at Marseille right now- all intensive care beds are full.

How much stricter are you wanting measures to be exactly? A lockdown again like March can't happen imo, it is not worth it i don't think.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, fraybentos1 said:

How much stricter are you wanting measures to be exactly? A lockdown again like March can't happen imo, it is not worth it i don't think.

Erm. Being completely honest what I would do in my gut instinct at this current moment.

National: Remove the ridiculous curfew. Keep bars and pubs open until a reasonable time and encourage people to socialise in a controlled environment rather than have house parties (masks, table service only! Rule of 6 still applies). Stricter fines and enforcement on those having house parties and breaking the rules as there is an adequate alternative. Hopefully masks and mandatory table service is enough to make these places a lot safer than people mixing standing up with no masks on.

Local: Local restrictions I’m sorry but they need to be so so much tougher! Any areas in “local lockdown” actually need to be in lockdown. Borders need to be closed of areas in local lockdown to prevent the virus spreading out of the contained area (what they are trying to do in Wales). Hospitality to close down for a couple of weeks to allow cases to drop before a review (along with proper financial support provided) and if cases are down to a reasonable level returns back to normal restrictions(rule of 6 and no curfew). People wouldn’t be able to socialise at all during short, but strict periods of lockdown. The stricter they are, and the more contained they are, the shorter they can be.

What we are seeing at the moment is flimsy restrictions in local lockdown areas where cases continue to escalate and people continue to socialise and break the rules. For instance, Blackpool is in “local lockdown” yet I could travel there with some friends and go to the theme park and illuminations. Sorry that’s not a local lockdown. I might then pick up the virus in Blackpool and bring it back to London, increasing transmission rates in london.

I know everything is so hard right now and we need to do everything we can to avoid another national lockdown. I’m not in favour of banning mixing households nationwide as it’s bad for mental health. I’m not in favour of a nationwide curfew as it just encourages illegal raves and parties. But I am in favour of strict local measures to contain local outbreaks. This is what the government promised in the beginning but never delivered on, and now we have national escalation. The way I see it, the UK is now on a slippery slope and if this doesn’t get turned around, then we could well end up back in some form of national lockdown. It will never be like March because it’s simply not economically viable and the schools must stay open, but I could see banning mixing households (what I don’t want) nationwide and also potential short closure periods of hospitality.

I also would have only sent back students to uni who absolutely must go (vet science, medicine, dentistry, Engineering etc- practical subjects) and reduce the capacity of halls to about a 1/3 to allow for better social distancing. Everyone who can do their course online would do it from home and pay a reduced rate. Would prevent all the outbreaks we have in halls right now and potential spread to vulnerable local communities and staff and vulnerable students.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, stuartbert two hats said:

That's the thing. Once you start being a member of a non-exclusive bubble, it's not a bubble, it's a network.

I think it's probably a more realistic representation of how the bubbles would work in practice anyway. The network it creates is smaller than the one now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, dotdash79 said:

When people think of bubbles, they only think of there own and not about other people’s. Is diagram sums it up nicely 

 

58EF7D0B-2288-428C-8670-ACED6F504097.jpeg

That's not how the bubbles are supposed to work at all. A household is only allowed to form an extended household with a single person (or single adult with kids) household and then neither of those households can bubble with anyone else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, FestivalJamie said:

Erm. Being completely honest what I would do in my gut instinct at this current moment.

National: Remove the ridiculous curfew. Keep bars and pubs open until a reasonable time and encourage people to socialise in a controlled environment rather than have house parties (masks, table service only! Rule of 6 still applies). Stricter fines and enforcement on those having house parties and breaking the rules as there is an adequate alternative. Hopefully masks and mandatory table service is enough to make these places a lot safer than people mixing standing up with no masks on.

Local: Local restrictions I’m sorry but they need to be so so much tougher! Any areas in “local lockdown” actually need to be in lockdown. Borders need to be closed of areas in local lockdown to prevent the virus spreading out of the contained area (what they are trying to do in Wales). Hospitality to close down for a couple of weeks to allow cases to drop before a review (along with proper financial support provided) and if cases are down to a reasonable level returns back to normal restrictions(rule of 6 and no curfew). People wouldn’t be able to socialise at all during short, but strict periods of lockdown. The stricter they are, and the more contained they are, the shorter they can be.

What we are seeing at the moment is flimsy restrictions in local lockdown areas where cases continue to escalate and people continue to socialise and break the rules. For instance, Blackpool is in “local lockdown” yet I could travel there with some friends and go to the theme park and illuminations. Sorry that’s not a local lockdown. I might then pick up the virus in Blackpool and bring it back to London, increasing transmission rates in london.

I know everything is so hard right now and we need to do everything we can to avoid another national lockdown. I’m not in favour of banning mixing households nationwide as it’s bad for mental health. I’m not in favour of a nationwide curfew as it just encourages illegal raves and parties. But I am in favour of strict local measures to contain local outbreaks. This is what the government promised in the beginning but never delivered on, and now we have national escalation. The way I see it, the UK is now on a slippery slope and if this doesn’t get turned around, then we could well end up back in some form of national lockdown. It will never be like March because it’s simply not economically viable and the schools must stay open, but I could see banning mixing households (what I don’t want) nationwide and also potential short closure periods of hospitality.

I also would have only sent back students to uni who absolutely must go (vet science, medicine, dentistry, Engineering etc- practical subjects) and reduce the capacity of halls to about a 1/3 to allow for better social distancing. Everyone who can do their course online would do it from home and pay a reduced rate. Would prevent all the outbreaks we have in halls right now and potential spread to vulnerable local communities and staff and vulnerable students.

I entirely agree with all of this, I think the national measures for England right now are a fair compromise so they they need to make the local lockdowns stricter and enforced because if not the rest of the country will probably suffer because of it. I also agree about the Welsh rules about not being able to leave your home county without  a valid excuse or reason if it's in a lockdown, it should really stop any kind of spread around thr country then. the migration of students should have been thought about months ago, not a last minute rash decision. They have already been treated so poorly and if they decided to strike or withhold payments I totally support them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Morning. For comparing the numbers with last time then we do want to look at hospitalisations and deaths...but we can't just ignore the direction of travel with number of cases. And as FestivalJamie says, they need NHS resources available incase of a large number of flu patients, and they also do not want to close of NHS availability to other people with other problems like they did last time. So, in the end it's finding a balance for keeping NHS able to operate as well as possible, and not damaging the economy and people's lives through restrictive measures....which obviously isn't easy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, FestivalJamie said:

First of all, you say the nhs wasn’t overwhelmed, but then you empathise the point I made that all other treatments were cancelled.

The only reason Italy had those scenes on the media is because they didn’t cancel other essential healthcare. We cancelled all of ours meaning people will die from other causes sooner. So by definition our healthcare system was overwhelmed. Our government cancelled all other treatments because our healthcare system would have been so stretched had they kept them going, people would have been dying in corridors, so they took away all other treatments to avoid bad images in the press. But the long term effects are worse on people’s livelihoods.

You are looking at everything back to front. If you want a functioning economy you need to prioritise the health of the people. As you say the two are linked. Let health suffer, the economy will fall with it. If you just focus on economy, health will suffer and then that drags down the economy with it. Health takes priority and that’s what upholds the economy.

With the flu and backlog of patients from the spring, it’s going to take even less for the NHS to be overwhelmed this time and other essential care and  treatments to be cancelled. Leave it too long, it’s too late. Just look at Marseille right now- all intensive care beds are full.

That's not being overwhelmed though is it? There's were not the scenes of northern Italy where drs were having to decide who lives and who dies like battlefield triage. 

If you needed an ambulance you could get one, if you were in a accident and needed surgery you still got it - it was a balancing act, if they got it right who knows we will only know years down the line but at that moment in time the objective was to avoid situations like happened in Italy and they achieved that objective. Weather you agree with how they did it isn't the point here, it's about the fact that the NHS was not over whelmed - because of these awful decisions people had to make - but they are less awful than deciding who you admit to hospital and who you leave to die. 

 

 

 

  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

I'm in Manchester which is in the eye of the storm, and I have to go into the office today as our dear leader does not like spending money on an office that is not being used.

He/she could always use it to give a few homeless souls a place to get out of the cold.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, RobertProsineckisLighter said:

That's not being overwhelmed though is it? There's were not the scenes of northern Italy where drs were having to decide who lives and who dies like battlefield triage. 

If you needed an ambulance you could get one, if you were in a accident and needed surgery you still got it - it was a balancing act, if they got it right who knows we will only know years down the line but at that moment in time the objective was to avoid situations like happened in Italy and they achieved that objective. Weather you agree with how they did it isn't the point here, it's about the fact that the NHS was not over whelmed - because of these awful decisions people had to make - but they are less awful than deciding who you admit to hospital and who you leave to die. 

 

 

 

but a lot of operations etc were postponed, and there is still a backlog. And they did ship off a load of old people to care homes without being tested. But yes, NHS was not overwhelmed in the end and the lockdown did work...possibly better than they expected as they built those nightingale hospitals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, steviewevie said:

but a lot of operations etc were postponed, and there is still a backlog. And they did ship off a load of old people to care homes without being tested. But yes, NHS was not overwhelmed in the end and the lockdown did work...possibly better than they expected as they built those nightingale hospitals.

Exactly that - in an ideal world they would have just been able to soak up the extra demand but that just isn't possible here it anywhere in the world. You don't just have spare hospitals and the thousands of staff needed lying around waiting for these doomsday scenerios to happen. 

Lets not forget that this time round there has been more time for planning, more understanding lessons will have been learnt remember the NHS isn't the governement - also I wonder if average hospital stay has reduced as more has been learnt about treatment meaning a quicker turnaround in hospital 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

 

As controversial as this will be, I think this is the way forward. The country needs to function and a March style lockdown would bring the country to its knees economically. I think they need to try and make it a more circuit break approach as if it's an indefinite amount of time it's less likely people would take heed to the rules so hopefully this will benefit us more in the long run 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

Morning. For comparing the numbers with last time then we do want to look at hospitalisations and deaths...but we can't just ignore the direction of travel with number of cases. And as FestivalJamie says, they need NHS resources available incase of a large number of flu patients, and they also do not want to close of NHS availability to other people with other problems like they did last time. So, in the end it's finding a balance for keeping NHS able to operate as well as possible, and not damaging the economy and people's lives through restrictive measures....which obviously isn't easy.

Using hospitalisations is all fine but it doesn’t take into account the dangers felt by people that pick up the virus and then difficulties but don’t need hospital. I think it’s something like 20% of cases end up with Long Covid. So we can’t just be like ‘oh hospital admission aren’t as high as before so it’s not as bad’, if more people are picking up the virus then it means potentially more people having a form of Long Covid. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, RobertProsineckisLighter said:

Exactly that - in an ideal world they would have just been able to soak up the extra demand but that just isn't possible here it anywhere in the world. You don't just have spare hospitals and the thousands of staff needed lying around waiting for these doomsday scenerios to happen. 

Lets not forget that this time round there has been more time for planning, more understanding lessons will have been learnt remember the NHS isn't the governement - also I wonder if average hospital stay has reduced as more has been learnt about treatment meaning a quicker turnaround in hospital 

maybe...I just think we need to trust those in charge are making the right decisions with these restrictions etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Ozanne said:

Using hospitalisations is all fine but it doesn’t take into account the dangers felt by people that pick up the virus and then difficulties but don’t need hospital. I think it’s something like 20% of cases end up with Long Covid. So we can’t just be like ‘oh hospital admission aren’t as high as before so it’s not as bad’, if more people are picking up the virus then it means potentially more people having a form of Long Covid. 

aren't people who get long covid those who need hospital anyway?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Chapple12345 said:

As controversial as this will be, I think this is the way forward. The country needs to function and a March style lockdown would bring the country to its knees economically. I think they need to try and make it a more circuit break approach as if it's an indefinite amount of time it's less likely people would take heed to the rules so hopefully this will benefit us more in the long run 

What if two weeks isn't enough though? You have nowhere to go at that point - lockdown 2.0 should be the last resort because it won't just be two weeks, it took more than 2 weeks before for cases to start to fall significantly and as you say you will destroy the economy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...