Interesting book

[MinniMouse]

Originally Posted by YorkshireT

Infectious disease expert wrote this.

To sum up, the 4 Coronavirus we have now which form part of the common cold started off very similar to Covid 19.

What happens is via a combination of factors, we develop ‘herd protection’ and it becomes endemic and less deadly.

Interestingly it’s clear from this that lockdowns are a total waste of time save for trying to prevent the hospitals being overwhelmed or kicking the can down the road in the hope a vaccine will save you.

Otherwise without a vaccine it’s inevitable 60-80% will be naturally infected- before we get herd ‘protection’- there is no escaping it unless you live in a bubble the rest of your life and isolate your country forever.

Well worth a read.

Not all good news though from him, but it’s a view and interesting particularly in the development of Coronavirus.

See more...

Originally Posted by YorkshireT

I think you are misunderstanding.

The book is about what happens when a new coronavirus gets into the population has becomes endemic.

It’s how it works it’s way through a population, you can’t stop it, then eventually we get to a stage where it becomes less deadly.

So if you read my post, I said this means that UNLESS you get a vaccine or UNLESS you use them to stop overflowing of hospitals, then lockdowns are useless as you cannot eradicate the disease and you must let nature take its course.

So for example, if we didn’t have a vaccine coming, which 20 years ago we may not have done, the only outcome would be for 60-80% of the population to get it. You may turn lockdowns on and off to try and mitigate hospitals being overrun (which none ever have been) but lockdowns don’t save lives unless you delay matters long enough to get the vaccine. Even then, you’ve ignored the mass of death and destruction from the lockdown which could last for decades.

So in otherwords, had we not had the vaccine coming, we’d have had to take it on the chin- people will die, that’s what pandemics do. And without the vaccine the end result will be exactly the same. In fact there’s plenty of research papers that show lock downs make it worse as it exposes the vulnerable population for a much longer period of time, and during this period more people enter the vulnerable group.

I am unsure what part of the sentence in my post

“ Interestingly it’s clear from this that lockdowns are a total waste of time save for trying to prevent the hospitals being overwhelmed or kicking the can down the road in the hope a vaccine will save you.” people are so upset about because that is surely a pretty logical conclusion unless you propose a permanent lockdown, forever. Fortunately in this case it’s looking like the vaccine will save us, which is why government has suddenly kicked into lockdown until then mode.

See more...

I don't know how you think I'm misunderstanding your post. You said "lockdowns are a waste of time for trying to prevent hospitals from becoming overwhelmed". There were no available beds last week where DD worked. Lock downs are the only way to slow the spread so hospitals can cope. The NHS does not have unlimited beds and staff to cope with this in some areas.

[YorkshireT]

Originally Posted by MinniMouse

I don't know how you think I'm misunderstanding your post. You said "lockdowns are a waste of time for trying to prevent hospitals from becoming overwhelmed". There were no available beds last week where DD worked. Lock downs are the only way to slow the spread so hospitals can cope. The NHS does not have unlimited beds and staff to cope with this in some areas.

See more...

Read your quote and read the actual statement I made- you’ll see you are misunderstanding. Clue- you missed the all important word ‘save’.

[tmwalsh]

@YorkshireT This isn't the early 20th century. There's three vaccines on the way that can rid us of this virus.

We aren't trying to "kick the can down the road" ad infinitum. The lockdowns are there to ensure there is enough hospital capacity. What's the alternative apart from accepting thousands more deaths on top of the nearly 60,000 we have now?

You're from/in yorkshire. You should know that the hospital trusts in these areas are stretched.

I would be interested to know what you would do right now as I don't see many solutions coming from the anti-restriction, anti-track&trace brigade

[YorkshireT]

Originally Posted by tmwalsh

@YorkshireT This isn't the early 20th century. There's three vaccines on the way that can rid us of this virus.

We aren't trying to "kick the can down the road" ad infinitum. The lockdowns are there to ensure there is enough hospital capacity. What's the alternative apart from accepting thousands more deaths on top of the nearly 60,000 we have now?

You're from/in yorkshire. You should know that the hospital trusts in these areas are stretched.

I would be interested to know what you would do right now as I don't see many solutions coming from the anti-restriction, anti-track&trace brigade

See more...

Don’t know about hospitals as getting correct information is very difficult- in fact hidden (read the MEN piece) and embellished.

I know one senior nurse in my local hospital who says ‘They should stop bloody testing’ to quote her this week.

I have seen hundreds of stories and headlines that hospitals are about to be overwhelmed, but you know what, I have never seen a story that they were overwhelmed.

I have no doubt hospitals are extremely busy and it is a serious situation though.

I did see stories that hospitals were so busy that people were on trolleys, all non essential surgery etc was cancelled. That was in the bad 2018 flu season. I wonder if in the ‘new normal’ we would now be locking down when that arises again? What do you think? Next really bad flu season, lots dying, NHS being pushed to breaking point- lock down? If no why not? It would be illogical for you not to take that stance now, surely?

Best.

2018:

[tmwalsh]

Originally Posted by YorkshireT

Don’t know about hospitals as getting correct information is very difficult- in fact hidden (read the MEN piece) and embellished.

I know one senior nurse in my local hospital who says ‘They should stop bloody testing’ to quote her this week.

I have seen hundreds of stories and headlines that hospitals are about to be overwhelmed, but you know what, I have never seen a story that they were overwhelmed.

I have no doubt hospitals are extremely busy and it is a serious situation though.

I did see stories that hospitals were so busy that people were on trolleys, all non essential surgery etc was cancelled. That was in the bad 2018 flu season. I wonder if in the ‘new normal’ we would now be locking down when that arises again? What do you think? Next really bad flu season, lots dying, NHS being pushed to breaking point- lock down? If no why not? It would be illogical for you not to take that stance now, surely?

Best.

2018:

See more...

Would that be a flu plus covid scenario?

[Andy C]

I can't see how stopping testing will stop covid. It's still there, whether you've tested or not.

If anything, by removing the knowledge of who in hospital is infectious, the rate of hospital-acquired covid (already painfully high) would go up, making it worse.

Let's face it: The death rate over the subsequent 28 days in people with a positive covid test is way, way too high to be deaths by mischance or other causes, so something is killing people, and it has the symptoms of an infectious respiratory disease and the exact aetiology of covid-19.

"It would be illogical for you not to take that stance now, surely?"

R0 of flu: around 1.5. R0 of covid: around 3.0
IFR of covid: several times higher than flu
Flu: vaccine routinely available.
Covid to date: no vaccine yet administered

Not at all the same scenario. If flu had an R0 of 3, no vaccine available, and an IFR of 0.5-1.0%, then, yes. But in that case, we'd have followed the same scenario.

[YorkshireT]

Originally Posted by tmwalsh

Would that be a flu plus covid scenario?

See more...

Maybe now it would but if it was 2018 again- big spike in just flu deaths, do we now start locking down? Maybe that’s what will happen I don’t know. A lot died in 2018. I presume (hope) Covid is not an issue when we get a bad Flu season again as it seems to crowd Flu out.

[MinniMouse]

Originally Posted by YorkshireT

Read your quote and read the actual statement I made- you’ll see you are misunderstanding. Clue- you missed the all important word ‘save’.

See more...

I have read the statement. The statement makes no sense, without lock downs the hospitals would be over run.

You've also stated in another post that you don't believe any hospitals are overrun and are just extremely busy. DD worked an extra 3 hrs on this particular difficult set of shifts (she often works beyond her hours). The registrar had to leave as was told to self isolate, she had to take over his position (she's a junior doc), and had to cover the reg the following day, on what was meant to be her day off. She could have said no and let the ward become over run but like other nurses and docs are having to go above and beyond, on a regular basis.

[Bozza]

Originally Posted by YorkshireT

that lockdowns are a total waste of time save for trying to prevent the hospitals being overwhelmed or kicking the can down the road in the hope a vaccine will save you.

See more...

So, in summary: there are two very good reasons for lockdown.

Thanks for clearing that up.

[Bozza]

Originally Posted by sam_b

Sounds like two really good reasons right there... I watch nbc nightly news and some of the hospitals in the US are in a horrifying place right now... and it’s going to get worse there.

See more...

Indeed. It's going to get really grim in the US once the Thanksgiving mixing plays out. It's going to be a horrible Christmas for those giving care in many US hospitals.

“We are on an absolutely catastrophic path,” said a COVID-19 doctor at America’s best-prepared hospital >>> theatlantic/health/a...PE047b-smgJypM