Chit Chat
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
These 81 comments are related to the topic:
CANCER DELAYS COULD LEAD TO MORE YEARS LOST THAN COVID19
CANCER DELAYS COULD LEAD TO MORE YEARS LOST THAN COVID19
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 81
|
By:
Imperial also told us we follow there plan expect 20k deaths. Well we are clearly well over that so the model was wrong there as well and the do not include deaths from cancer etc as a consequence.
Well, people were being a disgrace and still ventured outside against Boris' advice. Did you answer what mission it was creeping into btw.? I'm not quite sure what the phrase "mission is creeping into something else." meant to be honest...  What does it mean? |
|
By:
edy, the mission is no longer about just protecting the NHS from being overrun.
I think they want to optimise it for minimum deaths from people who test positive for the virus. That was not the original mission. |
|
By:
the nhs is protected because no one is using it and 800 a day are dying of virus,we,re losing at both ends a 2 yr old could have come up with a plan that doesn't stop 40,000 dying of virus and everyone is to scared to use hospitals, like itlay in new York over 90% of those put on a ventilator are dying,
|
|
By:
IT do you realise that being at or near peak is not the end of the surge, it's only the middle of it?
|
|
By:
|
|
By:
Either way, as e.g jolly has said, with the government being too incompetent to organise sufficient testing capacities after even all this time, you can't really just unleash the lockdown as this stage. If you did, the entire lockdown would've completely for nothing.
|
|
By:
*would've been completely for nothing.
|
|
By:
It was never the plan to release lockdown when at the peak of the surge. It was the plan to release it when cases return to a manageable level and you can track them. You are weeks away from that. And all of this was a given once you did nothing at the start. These restrictions have been set in stone since then.
|
|
By:
edy, what is the mood in germany? are people happy with your approach to covid?
any views generally of uk approach? and what is your own view of our approach? thank you |
|
By:
good training for NO DEAL,NO PROBLEM
|
|
By:
lurka
23 Apr 20 10:17 Joined: 25 Oct 10 | Topic/replies: 15,272 | Blogger: lurka's blog IT do you realise that being at or near peak is not the end of the surge, it's only the middle of it? ^ Surely what matters is the number of patients in hospital in England and Wales in declining? They peaked at 20184 on 12th April. Now 17477. |
|
By:
Why are new infections not going down much after 4 weeks of lockdown?
Why are 15,000 people a day allowed to come into the country? |
|
By:
"one day, it's like a miracle, it will disappear."
|
|
By:
oh dear insider trader is off again
a dangerous whack job wanting to kill british citizens so he can go down the pub. |
|
By:
So you are at 17.5k of a peak of 20k and you want to release a lockdown at almost 90% of peak. How long do you think it would take for that figure to go above 20k and a lot higher? Not very long.
Again, it was never the plan to release lockdown at or near peak. It was the plan to release it gradually when cases return to a level where you can track and trace, like you should have done from day 1. You are nowhere near that level and you risk overwhelming hospital capacity in jig-time releasing it now, undoing all the benefit of the current lockdown and having to enter another, possibly longer, lockdown within a month if you release it now. Anyway the thread is about people not seeking treatment for other life threatening illnesses and you've already pointed out that the capacity is there to take them now, so it's not a reason to release lockdown. It's a consequence of there being a pandemic floating around the place while the spread is not yet under control. And as in every pandemic, deaths from all illnesses tend to rise. |
|
By:
How would I know the mood? Fascists ain't allowin' me to go outside?
 I think people are mostly fine with the approach taken by the respective federal states (in coordination with each other). I think I already told you the other day that it's a bit different everywhere because disease control is first and foremost the constitutional responsibility of the states. So there are some differences like when schools open again, if and when graduation exams are held, what shops are allowed to open, whether and at which places there is a mandatory mouth-and-nose-guard, if people are allowed to enter a state and so on. Obviously mood will also depend on how much your existence is at stake. Whether e.g you think the government helps enough to keep your holidaygoer business alive. Overall, Germans are disciplined fellas. With our strong written constitution, strong constitutional court and us being a member of the EU and the European Charter of Human Rights, we also rest assured that there are plenty mechanism to protect us from any overboarding, permanent infringements of our rights. As for the UK: I haven't really seen much coverage of it, so wouldn't really know how the media view your approach. There was coverage when you were meant to go for herd immunity. I think that was deemed a gamble at the time. My personal view: Obviously I don't live in the UK so I don't know what's going on exactly. From my point of view it's a massive shame that, even after all this time, you only test in hospitals unless someone is more equal than the rest, i.e part of the ruling class or relatives. I mean, these tests aren't rocket science (and no, they do not just look for exosomes). Labs that are e.g specialised in veterinary medicine could easily help if they aren't already. Surely the UK with its history of animal plagues has some existing capacities there. It frankly bamboozles me that the UK can't ramp up the testing. As for some other things: I'm grumpy that your lame approach has cost us Wimbledon this year, even if generally I agree with Marat Safin that grass is for cows. I'm not quite sure what the one exercise a day thing is meant to do. I think that it would've been smarter and reasonable to allow people to go outside as much as they want, but make them keep a distance and urge them to not come together in big groups. Personally, I think the lockdown in general is the right decision now after politicians had been criminally neglective before, often in the name of profits or entertainment. Anything else more specific you'd like to know? |
|
By:
lurka
23 Apr 20 10:59 Joined: 25 Oct 10 | Topic/replies: 15,277 | Blogger: lurka's blog So you are at 17.5k of a peak of 20k and you want to release a lockdown at almost 90% of peak. How long do you think it would take for that figure to go above 20k and a lot higher? Not very long. Again, it was never the plan to release lockdown at or near peak. It was the plan to release it gradually when cases return to a level where you can track and trace, like you should have done from day 1. You are nowhere near that level and you risk overwhelming hospital capacity in jig-time releasing it now, undoing all the benefit of the current lockdown and having to enter another, possibly longer, lockdown within a month if you release it now. Anyway the thread is about people not seeking treatment for other life threatening illnesses and you've already pointed out that the capacity is there to take them now, so it's not a reason to release lockdown. It's a consequence of there being a pandemic floating around the place while the spread is not yet under control. And as in every pandemic, deaths from all illnesses tend to rise. ^ Have you got a link to when they announced this as the plan? |
|
By:
edy
uk to begin contacting housholds to engage in random sampling. about time too. |
|
By:
edy, thank you
|
|
By:
A professor at King’s College London has warned that there will be more excess cancer deaths over the next 5 years than the number of people who die from coronavirus in the UK due to the disruption caused by the coronavirus lockdown, which is preventing cancer victims from getting treatment.
Richard Sullivan, professor of cancer and global health and director of its Institute of Cancer Policy, said: “The number of deaths due to the disruption of cancer services is likely to outweigh the number of deaths from the coronavirus itself over the next five years.” Many people are avoiding hospitals, partly due to fear of coronavirus and partly due to the NHS implying that people should stay away so as not to burden doctors and nurses. This means that routine cancer screenings have all but stopped and there will be a massive backlog once normality resumes. “The cessation and delay of cancer care will cause considerable avoidable suffering,” said Sullivan. “Cancer screening services have stopped, which means we will miss our chance to catch many cancers when they are treatable and curable, such as cervical, bowel and breast.” People didn’t suddenly stop getting cancer when the coronavirus outbreak started, but now they are not getting treatment. One wonders what the point is in allowing such disruption in the name of saving lives, only to lose more lives to cancer in the long run. “Some stroke and heart attack patients are routinely waiting more than two hours for an ambulance, while 2,300 cancer diagnoses are being missed each week because patients are not going to see their GP or because they are not being referred for urgent tests and scans at hospital,” reports the Daily Mail. “Another 400 cancers a week are, it is estimated, being missed because breast, cervical and bowel cancer screening has been suspended. For any of these patients, delay can be a death sentence.” As we previously highlighted, despite many predictions that the NHS would be “overwhelmed” by coronavirus, acute hospital beds across the United Kingdom are four times emptier than normal. One of the overspill hospitals built to handle with an excess of patients due to coronavirus in the north east remains empty and will never be used. In addition, the temporary Nightingale hospital in London has “remained largely empty since it opened,” according to HSJ. Despite all this, the UK government has refused to even suggest when lockdown measures may end. Chief Medical Officer Chris Whitty also said that social distancing measures will have to remain in place until a vaccine is available, something that could take more than a year. A graph also shows that, when population differences are factored in, Sweden, which hasn’t imposed any mandatory lockdown measures, has virtually the same death rate as England, which has been under lockdown for over a month. https://summit.news/2020/04/23/professor-warns-cancer-deaths-due-to-covid-disruption-will-be-greater-than-deaths-from-coronavirus/ |
|
By:
Vietnam eased social distancing measures Thursday, after reporting no new coronavirus infections for six consecutive days.
After a decisive - and early - response to the pandemic, including mass quarantines and aggressive contact tracing, the Southeast Asian nation has recorded just 268 virus cases and zero deaths, according to official tallies. Vietnam was one of the first nations to ban flights to and from mainland China and in early February, when it had barely more than a dozen cases, villages with 10,000 people close to the country’s capital Hanoi were placed under quarantine. |
|
By:
Yep.
Government has so much tunnel vision to 'do whatever it takes' to reduce covid deaths it is ignoring everything else. |
|
By:
One of the cancer centres near me has been closed for weeks, however the one I attend is still open although I have been warned that could change at any time. The centre still seems to be busy when I attend, of course temperature checks on anyone entering and social distancing but, fingers crossed, I'm still getting my chemo. As for the 'angels' that work there. Words can't describe just how lucky we are to have'em.
|
|
By:
no. Have you got a link to when they announced they would release it at or near the peak?
|
|
By:
Got for Vietnam. Another communist country where numbers mean nothing and civil liberties are limited.
|
|
By:
lurka
23 Apr 20 11:16 Joined: 25 Oct 10 | Topic/replies: 15,279 | Blogger: lurka's blog no. Have you got a link to when they announced they would release it at or near the peak? ^ No I have no link when they announced anything about when they will end house arrest. All I have to go in policy changed after a flawed report was put out and Boris said we had to do this to stop NHS being over run. NHS is no where near being overun |
|
By:
so plan worked so far then
|
|
By:
|
|
By:
|
|
By:
Relaxation has to come at some point, but some things need to be in place first imo.
1) Numbers need to be far lower than they are now. Some people seem to be wilfully confusing being past the peak with being out of the woods. 2) Effective plan for shielding the vulnerable. Frankly, based on the evidence so far you can put another tick in the Massive Government Failures column regarding this. Come up with a plan about how to isolate care homes and also how you will segregate and isolate working age vulnerable people and protect them economically too. 3) Have an effective plan to stop the virus spiking again. Stop talking in the future tense about testing numbers and actually deliver for once in your miserable, feckless lives. We will need to be on top of any new infection breakouts and be able to test, contact trace and isolate quickly. Equally, maybe think about testing people entering our shores from elsewhere might be an idea too y'know. 4) Come up with a workable plan of what this relaxation policy is. Maybe be bold and make some necessary changes. All the chatter about deaths from cancer and heart disease mean nothing except the tories have underfunded the NHS for years and under-estimated the effect of this virus, so other services had to suffer to compensate. Doesn't make the decision to prioritise covid treatment was wrong. Equally how many deaths per year can be attributed to pollution. I'm sure we've all seen the pictures of skylines and how much cleaner they are. Are we simply to revert to that and kill thousands more? Let#s not just go back to yesterday because the tea party billionaires want the working class to carry on making them rich. |
|
By:
IT do you realise that your hospitals can still be overrun very quickly even if you are over the peak? They can be overrun much sooner right now than they could have been before lockdown if you release lockdown now. The lockdown was brought in to flatten the curve. There are two sides to the curve, the upside and the downside, not just one, and you are at a very high point, if not the highest point right now.
|
|
By:
Sturgeon talking about lockdown unwinding now on Sky News …..
|
|
By:
lurka
23 Apr 20 11:28 Joined: 25 Oct 10 | Topic/replies: 15,282 | Blogger: lurka's blog IT do you realise that your hospitals can still be overrun very quickly even if you are over the peak? They can be overrun much sooner right now than they could have been before lockdown if you release lockdown now. The lockdown was brought in to flatten the curve. There are two sides to the curve, the upside and the downside, not just one, and you are at a very high point, if not the highest point right now. ^ Again show me the science of this please. Is there even science that shows the current lockdown in place is in the UK is reducing the spread anymore than allowing everyone out with social distancing? Proper detail please to prove WE NEED to be locked in. |
|
By:
no the plan isn't working ,the nhs was supposed to still have capability whilst carrying on treating no cirus patients ,not to be not over run through people completely Ignoring going to hospital, number of lives in danger through hospitals been over run are now in danger because of people not attending hospital and who can blame them,given handjob has given them 6,78,reason why not to attend
as usual its not foooking rocket science if hancock advised you not to go to hospital for a variety of reasons before this started, who in their right mind would attend when the virus is rife in hospital and even nhs workers in full ppe are afraid of attending |
|
By:
Most on here bigging this whole thing up are benefitting from it in some form, so trying to reason with them is futile
Waste of time, either got shares in vaccine companies or they are sitting at home only having to worry about one visit to the supermarket each week |
|
By:
Or we don't want ourselves or our loved ones to die so the rich capitalists get their way and force everyone back to work when it's not safe to do so...
|
|
By:
|
|
By:
theres 100,s in a hole in the ground might give you an argument,and that's during a lockdown,if the 500,000 was anyway near right on current deaths that would be up to 10,000 under 60,s with no underlying conditions
|
|
By:
Of course any sane society would protect the "vulnerable " and give the necessary support to them encouraging isolation rather than enforcing itt which no civilised society should do preventing a basic human right whilst allowing others to go about their business protecting destroying the economy... but we aren't in a sane society.
We have hundreds of thousands of deaths per year linked to socio economic factors in the Uk ranging from heart disease to cancer linked to lack of exercise, air pollution, poverty,smoking, drinking etc but sheep like 1st time poster ignore these things and focus on the dastardly virus with far fewer fatalities. In years gone by the vast majority of the population bleated like sheep with a rousing crescendo of bleats regarding the earth being flat or the earth being the epicentre of the universe and most concurred it was " normal " to think this way. The OP quite correctly points out far more deaths are likely to arise as part of the so called " cure " relating to the virus than a virus that kills less than 0.1% of the under 65s , but there are enough stupid people in society to think otherwise sadly. It's why for eg billions of people follow a religion despite it clearly being a form of insanity but of course no politician will go against the lockdown trend now as they don't wish to be seen as " murderers" despite the statistics pointing to far more losing their life as a consequence of their actions locking people away. The lockdown was apparently due to us looking for a vaccine, but the medical community hasnt got a clue if a vaccine can either be prepared or even if it is ready in x number of years, whether it will be effective against numerous strains of the virus which are now widely accepted to exist. The crowning turd on this putrid pile of insanity is the fact studies being done in Italy reveal the apparent cure " ventilators " are causing more harm than good so to summarise... we are in lockdown to not stretch the health service where treatment may do more harm than good and a vaccine that may or may not exist. They can't even agree on face masks yet the whole population is expected to remain indoors banging pots and pans at 8pm for a disease that kills less people under 60 than road accidents and even that doesn't work as the elderly in care homes are dropping like flies anyway  |
|
By:
o.1% or near 2% of 500,000 if the modelling were proved to be correct,
under lockdown 20,000 was considered a result could be nearer 50,000,imagine if the 500,000 herd immunity figure was that far out the wrong way,as well as the small proportion of a big number of under 60,s,plenty of evidence including the PM, OF YOUNG PEOPLE surviving but been absolute knocked for 6 beat the shoite out of by the virus,not something you want to join a queue to get,like was mooted 2 months ago |