Covid - coming out of Lockdown 3 - no politics, less opinion and more facts and information.

[beast66606]

45 minutes ago, Hobby said:

I joined the school special where the train gets packed out at Hagley with kids... I'm now waiting to see if I've got the damned virus or not...

 

I've been working in school - exams - all week with (on most days) 100 kids packed into a hall, for several hours at a time - life has to continue, I test frequently.

[iL Dottore]

Yesterday‘s I had dinner with my GP friend which left me absolutely furious: not, I hasten to add, with my GP friend but with what he told me. Although my GP friend has retired, he volunteers his time at the local vaccination centre and keeps up with the most important medical news and developments of the day. What he told me about the current Covid situation made me incredibly angry:

• The majority of Covid patients in ICU/ITU have not been vaccinated!
• The average stay in ICU/ITU for a Covid patient is around 15 days, the average “normal” ICU/ITU stay averages 3 to a maximum of 5 days.
• For normal patients, the ratio of nursing staff to patients in an ICU/ITU is 1:1; for Covid patients the ratio is  1:1.5 (1.5 nurses to 1 Covid patient).
• This in turn means that for every one Covid patient treated in ITU, treatment for nine non-Covid patients is blocked!
• That means for every 1 Covid patient, 9 patients are effectively prevented from getting life changing/life saving surgery (e.g. surgery to remove a breast cancer requires a post-op stay in ICU/ITU)
• And God help you if you get smashed up in a car accident and need ICU/ITU care!
• Even more frighteningly, the number of available ICU/ITU beds are actually decreasing as specialised nursing and medical staff decrease in numbers for many reasons: including refusing to be vaccinated (which prevents them from working in ICU/ITU) or by becoming infected with Covid (a high risk, even with PPE, with such a contagious disease).
• Even if an impossible miracle happened and Covid were to disappear overnight, it would still take at least 6 months to clear the backlog of cases requiring ICU/ITU post-op stays!
• Due to having to take precautions because of the unvaccinated, the whole process of patients being seen and being referred to specialists for specific treatment has slowed down so much that it means that oncology patients (amongst others) are now frequently seen when the disease is too advanced for meaningful treatment!
• So, thanks to the actions of a very-selfish few, a hell of a lot of people are being denied proper treatment or even the chance to live!

For some reason the above is never mentioned by anti-vaxxers proclaiming their “freedoms”

And something else to chew on:

• A common “reason” given by anti-vaxxers for not getting vaccinated is that the mRNA vaccines are “new and unproven technology”, so at great expense the Swiss Health Ministry bought 150,000 doses of Johnson & Johnson’s viral vector Covid vaccine (viral vector is an old, well proven, well established vaccine technology) and these anti-vaxxers STILL won’t get vaccinated.

Although the above is the Swiss experience, there’s no reason to suppose that it’s much different anywhere else in the Western World (and the situation is probably even worse in some places).
 

The Covid mortality rate for the various over 40 age-bands is being revised upwards, but the problem is that Covid is not lethal enough in the under-40s. Were Covid as lethal in the under 40s as it is in the over 60s, vaccination centres would be overwhelmed by people demanding to be vaccinated.

 

Finally, given the huge impact the unvaccinated are having on health systems and especially on ICU/ITUs, some are talking very seriously about adopting a “no vaccination, no ITU treatment” approach.

[Nearholmer]

15 minutes ago, hayfield said:

Simple wanton disorder for the sake of it. If this is condoned then society is lost.

I don’t think anyone is condoning rioting against getting vaccinated; this OT diversion began with me contesting your statement that rioting can never be justified.

 

Way back in about March last year, i said that pandemic precautions would lead to conflict, but I thought it would be ‘simple’ inter-generational conflict, with mostly-youngsters getting hacked-off about having their lives curtailed to protect the elderly. What I didn’t foresee at all was vaccination itself becoming part of a battleground; I thought that would be fairly uncontroversial. Now we have the situation where we have an emerging vaccinated vs not-vaccinated divide in some places, I can’t quite see how that will be resolved ……. Sure as heck that heavy enforcement of the lockdowns and Covid-passports won’t cure it, more likely inflame it.

[Dunsignalling]

It's getting to the point where I am ceasing to give a toss about the "rights" of these morons.

 

I'm frankly more concerned at the diversion of health-care resources that should be employed in saving people from other serious illnesses rather than from the consequences of their own stupidity.

 

John

Edited November 21, 2021 by Dunsignalling

[beast66606]

23 minutes ago, iL Dottore said:

Due to having to take precautions because of the unvaccinated, the whole process of patients being seen and being referred to specialists for specific treatment has slowed down so much that it means that oncology patients (amongst others) are now frequently seen when the disease is too advanced for meaningful treatment!
So, thanks to the actions of a very-selfish few, a hell of a lot of people are being denied proper treatment or even the chance to live!

 

Given that being vaccinated does NOT remove the risk of spreading the virus, not does it 100% prevent anyone catching it - what would your GP friend do differently ? - after all, people can prove they are vaccinated so why don't they (for example) run clinics for vaccinated one day - and have a free for all - and run clinics for non-vaccinated the next day - and have a tightly controlled regime.

 

35% of people in hospital are double jabbed (source -full fact) so presumably they are very-selfish too.

 

PS - I'm fully jabbed for both Covid and flu, so I'm not anti-vax

[Nearholmer]

56 minutes ago, iL Dottore said:

Although the above is the Swiss experience, there’s no reason to suppose that it’s much different anywhere else

I think there are strong indicators that the U.K. situation is not exactly as you describe.

 

The stats in the U.K. show that, at least until recently, when we last looked at them in this thread, that the real problem was fully-vaccinated elderly people catching the illness, leading to their deaths. Now that the third-vaccination campaign is well on, hopefully that should reduce.

 

Also, from what I can work out, the average hospital stay is about a week, not longer.

 

That doesn’t alter the fact that consumption of scarce ICU resources due to Covid is significant (it’s using about a quarter of U.K. ICU capacity currently), but it does suggest that not every country has precisely the same problems.

 

Touch-wood, and hope I’m not tempting fate here, but we don’t currently have a problem of rioting anti-precautionists in the U.K. either, although we do have some very heavy attempts to influence school children against vaccination by a tiny minority.

 

 

 

 

Edited November 21, 2021 by Nearholmer

[APOLLO]

I had third jab on Tuesday (Pfizer after two AZ). I just looked the NHS app and the third jab details are now shown.

 

Brit15

 

 

[Dunsignalling]

27 minutes ago, beast66606 said:

 

Given that being vaccinated does NOT remove the risk of spreading the virus, not does it 100% prevent anyone catching it - what would your GP friend do differently ? - after all, people can prove they are vaccinated so why don't they (for example) run clinics for vaccinated one day - and have a free for all - and run clinics for non-vaccinated the next day - and have a tightly controlled regime.

 

35% of people in hospital are double jabbed (source -full fact) so presumably they are very-selfish too.

 

PS - I'm fully jabbed for both Covid and flu, so I'm not anti-vax

There's a massive difference between those who get Covid despite taking precautions, and those who refuse to help themselves. If they don't care what happens to them, why should the rest of us?

 

Normal GP surgeries should be for the vaccinated with a dedicated one laid on for the vaccine refuseniks to be held every 29th February.

 

More seriously, your idea of separating out the unvaccinated to avoid the rest coming into contact with them at GP surgeries has great merit. However, with around 80% of the adult population now vaccinated, any surgeries reserved for the rest should be in proportion to their numbers, so maybe once a week? 

 

John

Edited November 21, 2021 by Dunsignalling

[AY Mod]

16 minutes ago, beast66606 said:

35% of people in hospital are double jabbed (source -full fact) so presumably they are very-selfish too.

 

They've done what they can (in that regard) and none of us know whether the need for hospitalisation is down to waning effectiveness, lack of antibodies or lack of precautions etc. But that 35% comes from 80.2% of the eligible UK population whereas the other 65% is from 19.8% of the eligible population. No-one realistically expects it to be eliminated now but I think there's a fair assumption the majority would like to see it minimised more than it still is.

 

As the government know who has been vaccinated and it's recorded with the NHS they surely must know who hasn't. Is there any direct marketing towards those people detailing in fag-packet graphic terms the potential outcomes of not being vaccinated?

[AY Mod]

1 hour ago, Hobby said:

Most people on the train in the "North" where I was on Friday didn't wear masks either... It's not compulsory. 

 

Did you choose to? If so, you did what you could.

[Hobby]

26 minutes ago, AY Mod said:

Did you choose to? If so, you did what you could.

 

I can't wear a mask, Andy, hence I wear the lanyard.

 

I took a view on that train, it was fine 'til we arrived at DON and I'd have missed two connecting trains had I got off, with no guarantee that the next would be any different and I'd have ended up in the rush hour in Brum. So I took the risk for a twenty minute journey. 

Edited November 21, 2021 by Hobby

[Andy Hayter]

58 minutes ago, beast66606 said:

 

Given that being vaccinated does NOT remove the risk of spreading the virus, not does it 100% prevent anyone catching it - what would your GP friend do differently ? - after all, people can prove they are vaccinated so why don't they (for example) run clinics for vaccinated one day - and have a free for all - and run clinics for non-vaccinated the next day - and have a tightly controlled regime.

 

35% of people in hospital are double jabbed (source -full fact) so presumably they are very-selfish too.

 

PS - I'm fully jabbed for both Covid and flu, so I'm not anti-vax

 

 

So something that helps improve the situation is to be thrown out because it fails to provide 100% protection.

 

I assume you don't approve of seat belts - after all nearly 100% of people killed in a car due to an RTA are wearing one!

[beast66606]

1 hour ago, Neil said:

Oh dear, it's that man again.

 

Interesting full fact look at an article in the Gruniard (and others) regarding mask wearing and it's effectiveness

 

https://fullfact.org/health/mask-wearing-study-edinburgh-guardian/

[AY Mod]

22 minutes ago, beast66606 said:

 

Interesting full fact look at an article in the Gruniard (and others) regarding mask wearing and it's effectiveness

 

https://fullfact.org/health/mask-wearing-study-edinburgh-guardian/

 

All that says is that it's difficult to determine absolute protection levels due to other factors in observational studies. It doesn't say they don't work and there's no point wearing them.

 

Neil's point comes back to leadership and example-setting. If he has to tell us that it is what we should do if Plan B is deemed necessary it plays into the hands of those that don't want to.

[hayfield]

1 hour ago, beast66606 said:

 

Given that being vaccinated does NOT remove the risk of spreading the virus, not does it 100% prevent anyone catching it - what would your GP friend do differently ? - after all, people can prove they are vaccinated so why don't they (for example) run clinics for vaccinated one day - and have a free for all - and run clinics for non-vaccinated the next day - and have a tightly controlled regime.

 

35% of people in hospital are double jabbed (source -full fact) so presumably they are very-selfish too.

 

PS - I'm fully jabbed for both Covid and flu, so I'm not anti-vax

 

 

Here we go again, yes 35% are double jabbed, but they come from a group which is a group at least 80% of  their age range

 

The 65% in hospital who are unvaccinated come from less than 20% of their age group, a massive percentage differential

 

Next whilst the effect of being double jabbed wanes over time getting a booster increases ones chances of not catching covid to an extremely high level

 

If someone who is fully vaccinated have a much better chance of only getting a mild infection, my in-laws who are in their early 90's were double jabbed, but caught covid in August, both recovered quickly.

 

In my view to protect the most vulnerable, its everybody's responsibility to take all steps to minimise infection transmission. Those unwilling to do so must expect restrictions if necessary  

Edited November 21, 2021 by hayfield

[Reorte]

1 hour ago, Dunsignalling said:

It's getting to the point where I am ceasing to give a toss about the "rights" of these morons.

 

I'm frankly more concerned at the diversion of health-care resources that should be employed in saving people from other serious illnesses rather than from the consequences of their own stupidity.

 

It's when your principles are tested that you know whether or not you truly hold them. So whilst I firmly believe that the anti-vax campaigners (as in shouldn't have it, not as in shouldn't be made to have it - an important and big difference) are idiots I am not prepared to reject the concept of rights for people because I happen to disagree with them. Doing otherwise is a very dark path to head down.

[iL Dottore]

1 hour ago, beast66606 said:

 

Given that being vaccinated does NOT remove the risk of spreading the virus, not does it 100% prevent anyone catching it - what would your GP friend do differently ? - after all, people can prove they are vaccinated so why don't they (for example) run clinics for vaccinated one day - and have a free for all - and run clinics for non-vaccinated the next day - and have a tightly controlled regime.

 

35% of people in hospital are double jabbed (source -full fact) so presumably they are very-selfish too.

 

PS - I'm fully jabbed for both Covid and flu, so I'm not anti-vax

To your first point, you do realise that being vaccinated also significantly reduces morbidity and mortality? So whilst the first part is undoubtedly true, it is only part of the picture.

As for your second point about the double-jabbed - of course they aren’t selfish (and I think that your comment is a wilful misinterpretation of what I was saying), but unlike the anti-vaxxers, they’ve taken the necessary precautions and by whatever vagaries of their genome have become infected. And whilst they may be infected and hospitalised the course of the disease and outcome will be much, much better than in the non-vaccinated.

1 hour ago, Nearholmer said:

…..The stats in the U.K. show that, at least until recently, when we last looked at them in this thread, that the real problem was fully-vaccinated elderly people catching the illness, leading to their deaths. Now that the third-vaccination campaign is well on, hopefully that should reduce.

 

Also, from what I can work out, the average hospital stay is about a week, not longer.

As to your first point, this is also true for influenza. Some of the vulnerable elderly who get the influenza vaccine also die from influenza after vaccination. Yet that fact is not being weaponised against influenza vaccinations, unlike with Covid. The fact is elderly people (> 75) will die no matter what, as the body quite literally wears out and cardiovascular, central nervous and immune systems no longer function sufficiently well to keep the owner alive. All anyone can do is give the elderly the best fighting chance possible.

 

From my reading of the medical literature, duration of stay in the ICU for patients with severe Covid requiring intubation is pretty much comparable across countries, whereas the average hospital stay will be affected by how long patients with mild Covid requiring medical intervention are treated in hospital. Vaccinated individuals have shorter stays with fewer complications.

 

But no matter how you slice it, no matter what statistics you use or what age group you focus your attention on to bolster your particular argument - the bottom line IS that SARS-CoVID-19 is undeniably placing an almost system breaking burden on health services worldwide, denying patients with other than Covid conditions treatment. And still you have people who deliberately and wilfully do their best to undermine the government’s (any government) best efforts to bring the pandemic down to manageable levels.

[WessexEclectic]

20 hours ago, Bernard Lamb said:

There are situations where the end justifies the means.

 

Said by statisticians everywhere....

 

Now back to that Covid data...

[durham light infantry]

18 hours ago, Neil said:

She was told by them that they were there because of the level of abuse from the anti-vax brigade directed at the local staff.

 

I don't know what the situation is in other areas of the country. But Northumbria Police and Police staff are advised not to live in the same area that they police, for safety reasons including harrassment. Since the recent raising of the terrorist threat level, police and police staff are advised to travel to work out of uniform and to vary the times and routes they take. Reminiscent of the  Raoul Moat incident over 10 years ago https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Northumbria_Police_manhunt&ved=2ahUKEwi3lbzRr6n0AhVP_7sIHYRSBksQmhN6BAgIEAI&usg=AOvVaw0VOkbIa-bo5tsoHRs2xhls

[hayfield]

1 hour ago, AY Mod said:

 

They've done what they can (in that regard) and none of us know whether the need for hospitalisation is down to waning effectiveness, lack of antibodies or lack of precautions etc. But that 35% comes from 80.2% of the eligible UK population whereas the other 65% is from 19.8% of the eligible population. No-one realistically expects it to be eliminated now but I think there's a fair assumption the majority would like to see it minimised more than it still is.

 

As the government know who has been vaccinated and it's recorded with the NHS they surely must know who hasn't. Is there any direct marketing towards those people detailing in fag-packet graphic terms the potential outcomes of not being vaccinated?

 

The clear point you are making is , had everybody been vaccinated, the number needing hospital treatment would have been greatly reduced, not only that but they would have infected far less people, reducing the outbreak. 

 

Whilst I think Austria's solution is perhaps over the top, its been brought on by their societies inaction which has created a medical emergency. Sadly for many of its people its too little too late 

Edited November 21, 2021 by hayfield

[Reorte]

7 minutes ago, hayfield said:

In my view to protect the most vulnerable, its everybody's responsibility to take all steps to minimise infection transmission. Those unwilling to do so must expect restrictions if necessary  

 

Generally speaking I reject the idea of restricting others in order to protect me. There are limits of course but that's my general position. And I think that is a fairer way of looking at it, because if you re-word it to "others" then it's far too easy to reject someone's opinion of the matter with a simple "selfish" - this happens too often, and often comes across as being equally selfish ("I really expect everyone else to change just to accommodate me, but it sounds better if I make someone sound selfish for not doing so.") Actual coercion crosses the line completely for me.

 

We're all "others" to someone else. Of course I'm not actually particularly vulnerable to Covid so I can't say for certain how I'd feel if I was.

[AY Mod]

12 minutes ago, hayfield said:

Next whilst the effect of being double jabbed wanes over time getting a booster increases ones chances of catching covid to an extremely high level

 

Should I cancel my booster this week?

[iL Dottore]

50 minutes ago, Reorte said:

I am not prepared to reject the concept of rights for people because I happen to disagree with them. Doing otherwise is a very dark path to head down.

Correct me if I am wrong, sir. But I think you may be making the assumption that “rights” are immutable and universal.

History says otherwise.

 

For example: up until 1800 or so (when the various abolitionist movements gained traction and took off), in most of Western Europe there was the right to own slaves (and much resistance on the part of slave-owners to having their “rights” taken away); in 1938 saying “that nice Mr Hitler was doing a great job of running Germany and wouldn’t it be nice to have him as our friend” could land you some exclusive invitations, saying the same thing in 1943 could land you in prison.

 

The fact is, “rights” are very much dependent on the needs of society as a whole and in response to the situations in which a country may find itself. And, more and more, in this overcrowded world, will the “needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one”

 

And whilst I would agree that any sane society should very, very carefully consider what “rights” should be removed or curtailed (and how) before doing so; equally, any sane society should also very, very carefully consider what “rights” should be adopted or promoted (and how) before doing so.

Edited November 21, 2021 by iL Dottore

[Nearholmer]

20 minutes ago, iL Dottore said:

But no matter how you slice it, no matter what statistics you use or what age group you focus your attention on to bolster your particular argument -

You are on grave danger of perceiving an argument where there is none.

 

I’m not “weaponising” anything, merely pointing out numerically supported facts.

 

Im not opposed to vaccination, nor am I very patient with those who decline it for no good reason, and thereby act as spreaders. I merely sought to counter your point about the Swiss experience likely being universal, because it doesn’t seem to be currently.

[Reorte]

2 minutes ago, iL Dottore said:

Correct me if I am wrong, sir. But I think you may be making the assumption that “rights” are immutable and universal.

History says otherwise.

 

For example: up until 1800 or so (when the various abolitionist movements gained traction and took off), in most of Western Europe there was the right to own slaves (and much resistance on the part of slave-owners to having their “rights” taken away); in 1938 saying “that nice Mr Hitler was doing a great job of running Germany and wouldn’t it be nice to have him as our friend” could land you some exclusive invitations, saying the same thing in 1943 could land you in prison.

 

The fact is, “rights” are very much dependent on the needs of society as a whole and in response to the situations in which a country may find itself. And, more and more, in this overcrowded, will the “needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one”

 

And whilst I would agree that any sane society should very, very carefully consider what “rights” should be removed or curtailed (and how) before doing so; equally, any sane society should also very, very carefully consider what “rights” should be adopted or promoted (and how) before doing so.

 

I'm never absolutely black and white about anything. However the very concept of rights suggests that they should be as immutable and universal as you can get with that  Yes, society changes its view over what should be rights over time, so they do evolve, but the very concept rejects throwing the idea out of the window because it feels convenient right now, or a group you happen to disapprove of appears.  A situation appears, people get scared (sometimes legitimately, sometimes not), and before long there's always a clamour to chuck out the rights of a group perceived (again, sometimes legitimately, sometimes not) to be responsible.

 

One test of a civilised society is how well it resists those calls.