Corona Virus

The true 'excess deaths' cannot be calculated properly until we have had a year or two of data collection. There will obviously be a surplus death figure at any one moment but by how much this is due to the virus and how much due to normal deaths, nobody knows. The virus has brought forward deaths that were likely imminent anyway - and so there will be a hump in the figures. To call these instantaneous percentages 'excess deaths' (due to the virus) is erroneous as the figures averaged out over a longer period may be much less. In March of 2021 we will have a better handle on it but we will not have a proper grasp for some time after that. It is likely that we'll see that a significant number of vulnerable people with underlying health issues who died with Corona Virus but not of it.

 

Know how to run a country? You seriously overestimate the professional capabilities of most politicians. The PM is a journalist by trade with a fairly stereotyped output. He is the noisy, front of house, cocktail party type who constantly tries to amuse and ingratiate. Those are all his positive qualities. He is supported by lawyers and bankers who have skills of their own but their professional training in running something? Minimal. On the opposite benches you mostly have time served committee members......

The first principle of war - selection and maintenance of the aim. It is shorthand for ‘think bloody hard about what you want to do and, above all, why. ‘Save the NHS’ is fundamentally flawed as an objective. The NHS an inanimate object with soft edges. The death toll in care homes was the direct result of a crass policy to ‘save the organisation ‘ rather than ‘save lives’. You can blame various administrations for wrong headed ‘peace dividends’ that ‘saved money’ emptying PPE stocks in favour of call off contracts and the dismantling of public health surveillance. The government has compounded that error by hiring accounting firms, also with ZERO expertise, to run the intelligence function of track, test and trace.

They are incompetent. I held my nose voting Boris given the alternative but he has exceeded all my gravest doubts. I hope once Brexit is resolved his party revolts and ejects him.

In present circumstances the role of government is to lead by standing at the elbow of clinicians (real clinicians not social psychologists) to ensure they have the requisite resources. We have ‘Dr’ Matt Hancock and ‘Dr’ Dido Doo-Dah spouting off about matters waaaay beyond their ken. It is NOT time for amateur hour. Oh and spare me all the martial metaphors. Hancock was spouting off yesterday about Nelson. He was wrong in most material respects about him too!

 

It is a real challenge for the governments around the world on how best to deal with the virus. One thing for sure is we are going to be dealing with this for a very long time unless they can find a vaccine ......

 

I would suggest one of the problems with governments is the intrusion of politics, blame and personal vanity into a public health problem with huge economic ramifications. Ironically, epidemiologists understand that too.
For my money the governmental error of ‘save the NHS’ is compounded by endless talk of front lines in hospitals. The true front line is in the community. This thing will be beaten by changes in personal behaviour (or innoculation) to inhibit transmission - not by treatment of the already infected. It’s that selection and maintenance of the aim thing again.

 

In a nutshell....yes. They didn't know at the outset whether this was going to be a cataclysmic event (and we still don't know whether it might mutate or have other unknown effects). They had to therefore plan as if it might turn out to be cataclysmic. Who can blame them? As it turns out, it looks as though it isn't. Let's be thankful for that.

 

A splendid response Cal and I wouldn’t want to try and deny any of it, but unfortunately you missed the sarcastic intent of my post... I was referring to the keyboard political types who prefers a good political argument... not the actual “professionals” we pay to look after our needs!

@Thripster - I understand that the full dataset won’t be ready until the long lasting effects are also accounted for, I was just countering a statistic that doesn’t show the situation we have been in and could potential be in again with a more representative static using what data we have currently.

 

It got lost when you mentioned ‘business continuity planning’. That set my teeth grinding! The NHS isn’t a business and certainly isn’t run like one!!

 

But it's full to the brim with tossers (management) who think they are the best thing since sliced bread, or probably better.

 

I agree with most of what you have written @Callumity however isn’t the point of ‘standing at the elbow of clinicians’ the purpose of the SAGE Committee who were giving scientific and clinical advise? Now if it can be proved that Government acted against their advice, Boris would be gone in a shot!
I think your right about the current messaging and primary objective which is so vague now I’m not sure what it is
However the initial message of save the NHS was clear concise and something everyone could relate to and understand, whereas Save Lives would have been too vague albeit the actual required objective!

 

The ward Sister/Charge Nurse/Unit manager enjoys these exercises... it’s a vital (if untrained) part of their role!

note - the above statement contains sarcasm

 

I think ‘Break the Chain (to save lives)’ would be nearer the mark. Followed by Keep clean/distant/etc.,

 

While that may be the case, ODA, this morning's local paper reported the case numbers for my county by age as follows. (Keep in mind that this is cases, not deaths.)

Pima County, Arizona as of 8/2/2020:
Less than 20 years: 1,963
20-44 years: 7,751
45-54 years: 2,469
55-64 years: 2,029
65 years and older: 2,214
Unknown: 49

The total of all age groups minus the 20-44 years group is 8,675. Even if you divide the 20-44 group in half to account for the 45-54 and 55-64 year groups representing fewer years, cases are still higher than the 20-44 age group. Or looked at another way, if the you combine 45-54 and 55-64 age groups for a total of 4,498, the 20-44 years age group numbers are still higher. I know this is only for one county in one state but I think we probably still function under particular perceptions regarding COVID such as "it primarily affects older people".

Another example of that is the belief that "it's only people with poor health or preexisting conditions". Marty provided an example of that with his friend's wife who is a triathlete sounds like an exceptionally healthy person. I had a recent conversation with a woman in her 30's who I've known for some time. She told me that she believes that if you are healthy and fit you don't have to worry.

Perhaps this is a way for people to manage their anxiety or worries and/or believe that COVID only happens to "other people". We as a species are very inclined to think that things like COVID, cancer, automobile accidents, etc. happen to others, not ourselves. We ARE the other people.

 

Very true @Sandi T. Our ability to ignore risks and pretend that it will always be someone else whose name is on the bullet is how we manage to move on as a species. There will always be those who are prepared to run into the burning building, towards the gunfire etc. etc. and we need them ( Just like an ant colony needs it's soldiers) At the same time, there are those who hang back, play it safe and let the 'dafties' get their heads blown off only coming out when it's all over. Unfortunately when it comes to a virus we have a situation where those willing to take the risks will also come into contact with those who don't want to or can't afford to take the risks and spread the infection raising the death toll.

I do also think that there is a certain degree of willingness in the young, and some of the not so young, to catch the virus and 'get it over with' expecting it to do little harm to them even if it knocks them off their feet for a week or two in the expectation that, that will be an end to it and they don't have to worry about it any more.

 

@Sandi T.

Thing is Sandi those figures represent cases. Typically, of those, 10% will need hospitalisation. Of those 10% may die (not exact but good enough for our purposes). The serious cases of those of a young age are vanishingly small. So, perhaps 'they' mean 'serious cases primarily affect older people' - in which case they would be correct.

 

That’s a very risky strategy when we are still unsure as to whether there is a lasting immunity once you’ve survived being infected.

 

Not forgetting any long term effects, reports of memory loss and organ functionality

 

I'm not sure that's necessarily any worse than it being full to the brim with clinicians trying to manage the business side of a medical facility.

I worked in the NHS at a time when, for example, (medical) consultants were responsible for procuring everything from a scalpel to a switchboard and it was an utter financial disaster.

There has long been an overwhelming need for a true and complete separation - but with full co-operation - of the clinical and "business" sides of the NHS. Unfortunately, in practice, this seems nigh on impossible.

Interestingly, a huge attempt to achieve this was started by Tony Blair's administration under the guise of the "Modernising the NHS" programme.

 

I agree, stollydriver. We seem to know far too little about this virus at this point for me to make assumptions about what the long term ramifications might be. We don’t even know whether those who are asymptomatic will avoid any long-term effects. And we still don’t yet know with certainty whether contracting the virus provides immunity for the future. I read a piece in a dive publication about a man who had a mild version of Covid but had permanent lung problems that preclude him from ever diving again. I absolutely love to scuba dive and reading about that case left a lasting impression on me. I know that is a single case but no one ever thinks they will be “that” case...and someone always is.

 

Well, I for one do not think 'I will not be that case' and I am sure most reasonable folks don't. I may well be vulnerable through having survived a ruptured aortic aneurysm. Therefore, I avoid unnecessary risks (for other people's sakes as well as my own). With that in mind is the realisation that I have/will confront the virus eventually. Therefore we have to get on living but manage the risk whilst accepting, frighteningly, that we may become a victim. We cannot live in stasis for an undetermined period for fear of contracting a disease which, at the moment, has such a low impact. The effects of crippling the world economy far outweigh the current perceived risk of this virus.

 

It’s also a pretty thankless task, those who drive quality vs those who drive economic value. Both necessary, both feel more important than the other... The problem is that as the potential for care expands in newer diverse realms, the more the healthcare cash has to cover. Add into this a people boom and a longevity increase, the pressure on the system is worsening... we will come to a stark decision, increase nhs revenue or reduce free to all services...