716 posts
|
Post by Dan213 on Dec 30, 2021 12:07:05 GMT
Hospitalisations are now at their highest peak since March, to the extent that they are building Nightingale hospitals again ( though quite where they intend to magic up the staff from I have no idea). Where on earth is the PM? Army I'd guess to start with I may be completely wrong here but so was under the impression that many military clinicians often work a number of days in the NHS each week when not deployed. Alongside this, the military relies heavily on reservists in medical roles, who's full time roles are usually within the NHS anyway.
|
|
716 posts
|
Post by Dan213 on Dec 29, 2021 23:54:50 GMT
Click on the chart and you should see what I'm talking about. You'll also note that the hospitalisation dates do not match up with the dates quoted on the page you've linked either, with the latest data reported for 21/12. If the page you'd linked was correct, then there should be data up until yesterday in the hospitalistions page I'm not here to spread hysteria, however if I see clear misinformation posted, I will call it out in order to help other forum users gain a clear picture of the real situation In this specific case you have stated that '9 people died in London yesterday'. This is factually incorrect and the gov.uk page even quite clearly shows this
|
|
716 posts
|
Post by Dan213 on Dec 29, 2021 23:50:13 GMT
|
|
716 posts
|
Post by Dan213 on Dec 29, 2021 23:43:28 GMT
Another hair-on-fire catastrophe averted in London yesterday, not that you get any sense of that from the mainstream and social media. A total of 9 people died with Covid as a factor, suggesting one person died in London yesterday who was vaxxed/boosted. We are now 20 days from the January hospitalisation peak and still the numbers that matter are barely moving:
I really, really hope we can start the new year feeling optimistic For the sake of other forum users: This is misinformationExplanation: NHS England have not beein reporting complete death data since 24/12, therefore 9 is only the number of deaths that were reported on 28/12 (some trusts have been reporting, some haven't). The actual data from 25/12 onwards should be available from tomorrow so we'll know the true number of deaths for this period then. To check this in future, click into the view for the last month and you'll see greyed out bars indicating when the data is incomplete
|
|
716 posts
|
Post by Dan213 on Dec 29, 2021 15:19:19 GMT
It's going well in Scotland, with all its extra restrictions. Sturgeon should give Macron a call. They were introduced 3 days ago. We wouldn't expect to see any significant impact yet.
|
|
716 posts
|
Post by Dan213 on Dec 29, 2021 14:30:05 GMT
Guardian are quoting a few scientists like Tim Spector and Paum Hunter who are saying it would be a good idea. Not just a right wing thing Aren't US now doing the 5 days, it doesn't make sense, My parents had to do full 14 days and was told they could still show positive up to 90 days? The 90 day thing was originally in place for PCR testing due to its ability to pick up tiny levels of viral genetic material l believe The logic was that, if asymptomatic, reinfection within 90 days was highly unlikely and therefore a positive result was likely to be the test picking up tiny levels of genetic material from the original infection. If symptomatic, the likelihood was that it was reinfection and therefore to take a PCR test It was just some simple stats work to prevent unnecessary isolation when the person wasn't actually likely to be infectious
|
|
716 posts
|
Post by Dan213 on Dec 29, 2021 12:33:08 GMT
Nice to see he's dragged himself out wearing the same stained suit and tie from his Christmas Eve broadcast No comment from him on the fact that nobody has been able to book a test for around 20 hours now though... Now who's exaggerating? It's an IT issue. It's not ideal but not sure BJ is responsible for the computer updates I'm not exaggerating, read up on it yourself if you want to, although it often seems like you fail to read past the initial headline It isn't an IT issue... It's a supply issue. The UKHSA and several MPs have already confirmed this. Bookings and home deliveries have been unavailable for several hours over the past few days. Today, bookings had been unavailable since late last night. No comment from Boris or his cabinet
|
|
716 posts
|
Post by Dan213 on Dec 29, 2021 10:48:58 GMT
No PCR tests (either home delivery or test sites) Available in England again and no Lateral Flow tests available for delivery (very few in stock in pharmacies) This is the third time no slots have been available for an extended time period in the last few days. Complete silence from government on this. Boris has all but vanished since Christmas... He's at a Vax centre now Nice to see he's dragged himself out wearing the same stained suit and tie from his Christmas Eve broadcast No comment from him on the fact that nobody has been able to book a test for around 20 hours now though...
|
|
716 posts
|
Post by Dan213 on Dec 29, 2021 10:30:39 GMT
No PCR tests (either home delivery or test sites) Available in England again and no Lateral Flow tests available for delivery (very few in stock in pharmacies) This is the third time no slots have been available for an extended time period in the last few days.
Complete silence from government on this. Boris has all but vanished since Christmas...
|
|
716 posts
|
Post by Dan213 on Dec 29, 2021 10:26:22 GMT
These are emergency measures used in last resort. Hopefully we won't get to the stage of needing to do that
|
|
716 posts
|
Post by Dan213 on Dec 29, 2021 8:38:56 GMT
This isn't him coming out in support of it, they've just copied it from this tweet, out of context This is why you have to be super careful in how you interpret these articles. The only person who has offered a statement here is Paul Hunter who has come up with some rather questionable material over the past few years
|
|
716 posts
|
Post by Dan213 on Dec 28, 2021 23:54:23 GMT
Just sensationalist propaganda from the Times and DM Guardian are quoting a few scientists like Tim Spector and Paum Hunter who are saying it would be a good idea. Not just a right wing thing I can't find anything from Tim Spector regarding this. He's very reputable so if you can link this then I'd love to have a read Paul Hunter on the other hand is a bit of an odd one if you read back on some of his material from the past year or so
|
|
716 posts
|
Post by Dan213 on Dec 28, 2021 23:50:27 GMT
Some slightly concerning patterns around Lateral Flow tests emerging and their sensitivity to Omicron: I've seen several cases in the last week whereby the newer (Flowflex nose only) tests are showing a negative result when nose only is swabbed, but if then swabbed on the tonsils, then nose, like the older ones are returning a positive result. This is super concerning given the new test-to-release criteria. Oh god, that guy is a complete flake. He's the one one who says 'GOD SAVE THE KIDS FROM BORIS JOHNSON ' and other hyperbolic stuff. No idea who the guy is that has tweeted it but the original article is from the FDA website. There are several top scientists expressing concern over this and others have even tested this themselves and produced side by side results, from the same box of tests that produce negative results when nasal swabbed only compared to positive when both tonsils and nose is swabbed
|
|
716 posts
|
Post by Dan213 on Dec 28, 2021 23:26:49 GMT
Some slightly concerning patterns around Lateral Flow tests emerging and their sensitivity to Omicron:
I've seen several cases in the last week whereby the newer (Flowflex nose only) tests are showing a negative result when nose only is swabbed, but if then swabbed on the tonsils, then nose, like the older ones are returning a positive result. This is super concerning given the new test-to-release criteria.
|
|
716 posts
|
Post by Dan213 on Dec 28, 2021 23:20:43 GMT
BJ to cut isolation to 5 days? Just sensationalist propaganda from the Times and DM
|
|
716 posts
|
Post by Dan213 on Dec 28, 2021 14:30:26 GMT
If you're quoting something as 'best pratice' it would probably be a good idea to have read and digested it first This isn't what the CDC guidance you refer to requires, there is no require to test on exit from self isolation after a positive test. The only mention of testing is 5 days post exposure (ie a contact) and this isn't even a requirement, its guidance I know, my suggestion is to make it more stringent to be released from isolation after 5 days It's certainly possible but based on most case data I should imagine most people would still be testing positive on the day 4 LFT, unless they had tested late in the first place. I should imagine, although completely hypothetical, that given NHS staff are testing so regularly anyway, that you'd see infections in general caught earlier, with a greater chance therefore that you'd still be positive on day 5
|
|
716 posts
|
Post by Dan213 on Dec 28, 2021 14:19:21 GMT
Releasing staff from isolation after day 5 (When they are still likely to be infectious) will cause mass-in hospital outbreaks. That would be incredibly dangerous Changing visa requirements to onboard more staff isn't a short term solution, it takes months to interview and onboard people Um if you have no symptoms and 2 negative LFTs in a row, you are 'not likely to still be infectious' If you're quoting something as 'best pratice' it would probably be a good idea to have read and digested it first This isn't what the CDC guidance you refer to requires, there is no require to test on exit from self isolation after a positive test. The only mention of testing is 5 days post exposure (ie a contact) and this isn't even a requirement, its guidance. You're also likely to see many people still positive on the day 4 test so it's unlikely to make a significant difference to hospital staffing This would only give back a single day compared to the current release on day 7 guidance
|
|
716 posts
|
Post by Dan213 on Dec 28, 2021 13:13:16 GMT
What other solution do we have in the short term though, increasing the capacity of the NHS is likely to take years Short term, get rid of visa requirements for NHS staff coming from abroad, increase staff retention with higher wages /incidentals and reduce isolation for 5 days if you have no symptoms and teat negative for the 4th and 5th date. Medium and long term, increase investment and get capacity back up Calling for restrictions is just putting the responsibility on people not getting sick Releasing staff from isolation after day 5 (When they are still likely to be infectious) will cause mass-in hospital outbreaks. That would be incredibly dangerous Changing visa requirements to onboard more staff isn't a short term solution, it takes months to interview and onboard people
|
|
716 posts
|
Post by Dan213 on Dec 28, 2021 12:27:40 GMT
Nobody is saying to impose a lockdown to reduce the probability of infection to 0. This is impossible. People's concerns are the following: 1. increased virulence of omicron effectively cancelling out any decrease in severity 2. Once again hospitals become overloaded with COVID patients, through both sheer numbers and the fact that you have to split pretty much every ward into a Covid+ and Covid - side. 3. This means you have to start making decisions on who to treat now and who to treat later. Non-urgent care takes the first hit, elective surgeries get cancelled, outpatient appointments get cancelled. People who don't have covid and have other conditions that require medical attention begin to suffer, as they did last time. This has already started to occur in some hospital trusts through a combination of the factors above and also staff abscence due to covid 4.Ultimately, you get to a stage where you have to start prioritising urgent treatment and people die when they wouldn't have normally. This could be due to covid, or something completely unrelated such as a stroke or heart attack You appear to be viewing this crisis through the lens of COVID alone. It's far far more complex than that as it impacts upon the entire healthcare system But then that's arguing for restrictions due to a lack of investment in the NHS as they can't cope. Instead of jumping to restrictions, people should be asking for better investment in the NHS. I notice the govt are opening the borders for social care workers, so stuff like that should be done What other solution do we have in the short term though, increasing the capacity of the NHS is likely to take years
|
|
716 posts
|
Post by Dan213 on Dec 28, 2021 12:13:43 GMT
If the group of people is everyone who gets it then yes, that's exactly what it means.
A reduction in the chance of serious illness is good from the point of view of an individual person who has Covid. But if you are currently Covid-free, your overall chance of ending up in hospital due to Covid is a function not just of how likely you are to go to hospital if you get Covid, but also of how likely you are to get Covid. If the latter increases by a greater factor than the former reduces, that's not a good thing.
Think of it like this: suppose planes were redesigned to make them more resilient in a crash, with the result that on average 1/3 as many passengers will die if the plane crashes. You might instinctively think that was a good thing. But if the change adversely affects the aerodynamics, so that planes crash 4 times more often, then overall 4/3 times as many people will die in plane crashes. So not such a good thing after all.
But covid is endemic now. It isn't going away. Aside from a strict lockdown, the case load isn't going to be reduced to level where you can guarantee you can't get it. And of course, once you get rid of restrictions, case loads go up again. Now everyone is getting boosted, it's probably a case of cracking on. I know it's not ideal, but there isn't really a good option. I certainly don't want semi permanent or rolling restrictions, and the latest polls certainly show the country is not up for it either now omicron is milder. Nobody is saying to impose a lockdown to reduce the probability of infection to 0. This is impossible. People's concerns are the following: 1. increased virulence of omicron effectively cancelling out any decrease in severity 2. Once again hospitals become overloaded with COVID patients, through both sheer numbers and the fact that you have to split pretty much every ward into a Covid+ and Covid - side. 3. This means you have to start making decisions on who to treat now and who to treat later. Non-urgent care takes the first hit, elective surgeries get cancelled, outpatient appointments get cancelled. People who don't have covid and have other conditions that require medical attention begin to suffer, as they did last time. This has already started to occur in some hospital trusts through a combination of the factors above and also staff abscence due to covid 4.Ultimately, you get to a stage where you have to start prioritising urgent treatment and people die when they wouldn't have normally. This could be due to covid, or something completely unrelated such as a stroke or heart attack You appear to be viewing this crisis through the lens of COVID alone. It's far far more complex than that as it impacts upon the entire healthcare system
|
|
716 posts
|
Post by Dan213 on Dec 28, 2021 11:45:56 GMT
Once again: if it's 1/3 as likely to put you in hospital as Delta, but more than 3 times as many people get it at once than Delta, that's more people in hospital than with Delta. Also, on a personal level: if it's 1/3 as likely to put you in hospital as Delta, but you're more than 3 times as likely to catch it as Delta, then you're more likely to end up in hospital than with Delta.
Um... not really. As an exampe If a group of people are 33% likely to go to to the hospital from delta but now are 11% likely with omicron, it doesn't mean we can exactly 11% of people getting it in a group needing the hospital. A reduction in illness is a GOOD thing. Not sure why people are poo pooing it every time it's raised. Zhadif, the reason why people are saying this is because the things you are quoting make no sense. Nobody is questioning the decrease in severity of this wave, whether that's caused by population immunity or otherwise. As so many people keep pointing out to you, a reduction in disease severity coupled with an increase in its ability to spread by a similar if not greater magnitude, cancels this effect out. The link you've posted doesn't suggest anything further than we've seen already with the research released from South Africa and the UKHSA
|
|
716 posts
|
Post by Dan213 on Dec 28, 2021 8:24:33 GMT
Sadly, in not taking earlier action, I suspect we'll end up suffering more for it in the form of harsher restrictions but let's see
The previous post complaining of "cherry-picking" a world-recognised expert over the The Guardian was prize-winning. Not clear what the difference is between this stuff and straight-up trolling - the one here comes after a post pointing out the official data (and link) that those on mechanical ventilators in London are at 17% of last winter's Delta peak.
Maybe it's becasue his goalposts move almost evey day; from the certainty of cases overwhelming the NHS, to ditto on hospitalisations, now to restrictions. The constant is that it's all a catastrophe, "sadly".
The factual truth is that there are 1,000 fewer families TONIGHT with a loved one on a ventilator somewhere in London. That should be acknowedged.
Incidentally, while the page is still there, The Guardian seem to have taken down the most recent top-level catastrophising from its Science EDITOR: 'The science is clear: the case for more Covid restrictions is overwhelming' ...
None of what I post is trolling. Everything that I post on here is backed by current data from highly respected scientists/organisations. It's quite clear that you like to throw 'trolling' around when you don't like what you see. It's silly and immature to do so and doesn't belong on this forum. Presenting facts and data to counter something would be a far more mature way to debate something you don't think is correct. Here's why we need to be careful when looking specifically at mechanical ventilation and comparing things directly to last winter - Last winter, pretty much all elective procedures and outpatient appointments had to be cancelled to cope with the overwhelming strain caused by covid. This was incredibly detrimental to the health of many. This can't happen again and as a result covid bed capacity is not going to be 'like for like' what we saw at last years peak. We must look at the maximum capacity whilst allowing other essential functions to continue as close to normal levels as possible -Mechanical ventilation beds were a very important metric to look at in early waves due to increased severity of disease (be this through lower levels of population immunity or variant specific disease characteristics). If we see start to see hospitalisations increase over the coming weeks, even with milder disease, we still have to potential to see major issues. There is finite space on wards and finite staff resources -Looking at mechanical ventilation now is giving you a picture that is about 1 month old. On average it takes around a week to 10 days from symptom onset to the first stage of hospitalisation and a further few weeks on top of that before we see the sickest patients starting to need ICU beds. When we start to see these numbers increase we are already far too late. We have already started to see a significant increase in hospitalisations across the UK (data from nhs website) we wouldn't expect to see this hit ICU for another week or 2
|
|
716 posts
|
Post by Dan213 on Dec 27, 2021 23:55:55 GMT
I think we will follow the US example and change it to 5 days isolation Some interesting news that Omicron gives a person enhanced immunity against Delta This would be incredibly reckless, especially what we know about infectious periods and the fact they aren't requiring a negative test to release from isolation. The things you are quoting here are beginning to get a little far fetched, especially that you aren't able to provide the science to back it. We've said this time and time again, if you can find the data to support a claim, do share it, it helps everyone here to understand your thinking deeper and aids healthy debate. On your second point, of course we would expect infection with omicron to provide some level of defence against other variants of coronavirus. The spike proteins on all coronavirus variants are still similar enough for this to be the case. This is precisely why a booster, produced with the original variant, provides a significant level of protection. I'm not exactly sure how relevant this however, especially as Omicron is fast becoming the dominant variant
|
|
716 posts
|
Post by Dan213 on Dec 27, 2021 0:31:18 GMT
Die is cast now. Hopefully the govt was right! . Given that numbers haven't been recorded over Christmas, we'll be in a much better position to assess the situation tomorrow Sadly, in not taking earlier action, I suspect we'll end up suffering more for it in the form of harsher restrictions but let's see
|
|
716 posts
|
Post by Dan213 on Dec 27, 2021 0:28:45 GMT
I've seen plenty of stories of hospitality workers being told by their employers that they have to go into work regardless of symptoms unless and until they have a positive PCR test result, in some cases even after a positive LFT. Absolutely wrong-headed and certainly against the guidance, if not the law (I'm a bit vague about exactly what is legally prohibited now, since it's considerably less than I was avoiding doing anyway). Yeah it's definitely illegal. You are let required to isolate and seek a PCR test if you either start exhibiting the 3 main coronavirus symptoms or have had a positive LFT The government really need to update the symptomatic guidance as this is very different now that many people have prior immunity from vaccination or infection
|
|
716 posts
|
Post by Dan213 on Dec 24, 2021 20:24:28 GMT
It just absolutely baffles me as to how you can form that opinion when the data clearly shows where we are in terms of reduction of severity through prior immunity or otherwise but we also know that this is up against increased virulence at the moment . This isn't subjective it's objective. Unless you've got data to show otherwise, then your hypothesis here has already been proven incorrect by the data already available to us. On your second point, it all depends on where we are on the infections curve relative to the point at which the proposed restrictions are or aren't introduced. If you predict that your ultimate peak takes you over max capacity just slightly, then yes you can deem them effective, if not then you have to go further. It's all relative to the situation that you find yourself in. I'll give an example, you could choose to wear factor 50 sun cream in the middle of summer but if you're spending all day inside on that particular day, it's pointless right? On the other hand, if your somebody that is going to spend all day outside in the sun, it stops you from getting sunburnt. Well SAGE have basically said that we've gone past the time when stage 2 restrictions would be effective. If 3 months of then will only reduce deaths by 15%. The data you've posted above isn't 'SAGE' it's from LSHT (London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine). Whilst I don't disagree with what they're saying, the mortality here is looking at deaths fromCOVID and COVID alone, as you usually would in a study like this. The real life implications of this are more complex, as we've discussed many times on this thread and relate to the NHS' ability to carry out other essential treatment too. As I've posted in the previous message, that I really don't believe you have read and digested, it's all relative to the situation that you find yourself in. A 15% reduction could be significant in some circumstances but less so in others. Can I also remind you that we're talking about deaths here too. If that 15% included a close member of your family then I'm sure you'd think before being quite so blasé about it. Whilst we do have to consider the other implications of any kind of restrictions that are introduced it's also important not to just dismiss hundreds of deaths as 'only 15%' I'd strongly advise having a read through some of the papers that are posted on the gov.uk website to understand exactly how the data is portrayed by science. Scientists present the data in order to be picked up by policy makers who make the final say on where to go with this data. I also find it useful to view it from this point and think 'what would I do based upon this information' as opposed to reading what the media has to say, which sadly tends to have an agenda and has already had this decision made for their readers. If you do decide to do this and would like a hand interpreting the data (some of it is very jargon heavy at times) drop me a DM and I can help out. Communication of science is as important as the science itself in my opinion. I'd like to point out that in general, I do agree with allowing people to make 'informed' decisions on their actions during this pandemic. However, the issue here is that there is so much noise and incorrectly portrayed information in the media that people's 'informed 'decisions are based of warped interpretations of reality that come through the likes of the Daily Mail. I do genuinely believe that if factually correct information, portrayed to the public in an easy to understand manner would go so far in allowing us to make better decisions to avoid ending up in situations where we have to think about legal restrictions again
|
|
716 posts
|
Post by Dan213 on Dec 24, 2021 19:31:59 GMT
Can I ask why you think they are being overly pessimistic? There's absolutely nothing to suggest this If you can provide some kind of evidence or anything to suggest that this is the case Im all ears. Otherwise this is literally just a stick your finger in the air comment I've said this several times in previous posts, SAGE's previous models were not overly pessimistic. Newspapers picked the scenario that best fit their article, regardless as to whether that was the most or least likely outcome Because in my opinion they aren't putting as much stock into prior immunity and to the booster effect in their calculations. A rise in cases doesn't lead to an equal rise in hospitlisations Anyway, I've couched it as an opinion. And anyway, you've ignored my point out, which is that going back to stage 2 is pointless as it wouldn't make much difference. Its lockdown or nothing realistically. It just absolutely baffles me as to how you can form that opinion when the data clearly shows where we are in terms of reduction of severity through prior immunity or otherwise but we also know that this is up against increased virulence at the moment . This isn't subjective it's objective. Unless you've got data to show otherwise, then your hypothesis here has already been proven incorrect by the data already available to us. On your second point, it all depends on where we are on the infections curve relative to the point at which the proposed restrictions are or aren't introduced. If you predict that your ultimate peak takes you over max capacity just slightly, then yes you can deem them effective, if not then you have to go further. It's all relative to the situation that you find yourself in. I'll give an example, you could choose to wear factor 50 sun cream in the middle of summer but if you're spending all day inside on that particular day, it's pointless right? On the other hand, if your somebody that is going to spend all day outside in the sun, it stops you from getting sunburnt.
|
|
716 posts
|
Post by Dan213 on Dec 24, 2021 17:15:04 GMT
New modelling from SAGE out. Seems like Blair is right: step 2 won't do anything worhwhile, it's lockdown or nothing. (FWIW I think they are being overly pessimistic. Much like in September) Can I ask why you think they are being overly pessimistic? There's absolutely nothing to suggest this If you can provide some kind of evidence or anything to suggest that this is the case Im all ears. Otherwise this is literally just a stick your finger in the air comment I've said this several times in previous posts, SAGE's previous models were not overly pessimistic. Newspapers picked the scenario that best fit their article, regardless as to whether that was the most or least likely outcome
|
|
716 posts
|
Post by Dan213 on Dec 24, 2021 10:17:13 GMT
That's the guardian not SAGE. If you look at the original report (available on gov.uk) you'll see how this has been cherry-picked, out of context from the modelling by the Guardian. If you want to demonstrate that they have falsified something, please present their original report as opposed to something that the media have sensationalised to sell newspapers
|
|
716 posts
|
Post by Dan213 on Dec 24, 2021 9:57:40 GMT
If you continue to make things up, zahidf, you'll be invited to join Sage. 🤣 Please don't let the so and so's grind you down. Feel free to show us something that SAGE have made up
|
|