Supporting Nurses

[mcbutler]

I know it's an unpopular opinion but hospitals are quieter than usual and all the staff in the NHS are still getting paid. My concern in these times are with people that are self employed or on zero hour contracts that are seeing their incomes disappear and their savings vanish.

That really is a pessimistic opinion my friend, all hospital workers - armed forces etc are on 24/7/365 pay because it's the only way to do it. How on earth could you account for a nurses/soldiers etc hours at this time.
Also remember that you probably don't see the 'coal face' in the hospitals, just the A&E etc.

I am self employed but guess what, like many I am insured, don't believe the media hype.

Stay safe..

There's a lot of people out there working hard and not getting any freebies or applause from it. My parents are farmers and it's business as usual for them, still knee deep in s**t during lambing time working 18hr days 7 days a week and still getting next to nothing for the end product.

People complain about NHS staff not getting paid enough but to people like my parents, the idea of £25k+ salary, pension and working only 40hrs a week is living the dream and it's all funded out of their pockets. This isn't something like MERS with a 40% fatality rate, to a healthy person this virus is no more dangerous than common influenza.

I apologise if this seems like a negative view of the NHS, it's not meant to be a downer on them, rather a reality check that the country is currently being held up by the farmers, lorry drivers , shop workers and plant operators on power stations, sewage works and water treatment plants. It's even more crazy when news outlets start comparing NHS workers to war heroes who fought in the first and second world wars.

I agree with most of your post RE, the thing is we all have to suffer/sacrifice in order to overcome this. My sacrifice is being completely isolated with no human contact until further notice.
Personally I would choose anything before being in the same room as someone carrying a lethal virus.
Any healthcare professional will tell you quite sternly that it is not the same as seasonal flu, this is repeated day after day by medical staff on the TV.

 

[1000rr]

Petition signed....I’d pay nurses double what they get and care home workers too. How many here would want to deal with what they do...?

I certainly don’t have the stomach for it, absolute stars the lot of them.

 

[mcbutler]

I'll put my opinion in here and it won't be popular.....

This virus does not merit putting the country into lockdown, creating a state controlled by zealous plod and ruining the economy for years to come.

Simple but effective social distancing in the street and shops plus extra care of hygene would have done it. Older and more vurnerable needed more isolation but not to the point they have no life worth living for...
I am sure when this farce is over we'll see the real price paid and that deaths due to seasonal virus are just a part of life - bad as it may be for some people...

As for nurses etc they earn my respect and they should be paid better... Free citizenship, no... They can apply like others and if their service is worthy (as it is) then they should be given fast track...

Finally I run a limited company and there is no insurance that covers this - I'm living off my funds that won't last forever.. If they bail out British Airways (Spanish company), RyanAir or that bearded billionaire Branson then I will fu**ing go crazy..

Now let's get the country back into order with more thought out planning... This whole thing stinks like the wobbly science beyond unproved global warming...

A-Grade D!ckhead

And the earth is flat ??!!

 

[R.E92]

I know it's an unpopular opinion but hospitals are quieter than usual and all the staff in the NHS are still getting paid. My concern in these times are with people that are self employed or on zero hour contracts that are seeing their incomes disappear and their savings vanish.

So they can keeping working , you would let people die , amazing

My personal choice would be to continue as normal and let it happen. We'll soon see which the better approach is, total isolation or business as usual, as countries like Sweden are continuing without a lockdown and others like South Korea have bars and restaurants re-opening.

There's no pain free option here, isolation will have a huge toll on the financial stability of the country. Children aren't getting educated and a lot of families and businesses are going to be financially ruined.
I think that people expect this virus to vanish after 6 months of being locked in but the reality is that it's around for good, we're just "flattening the curve" and are all going to get it at some point. The reason we're doing all this isn't to save the 20,000 predicted deaths in the UK but rather a much smaller proportion that will be saved by having a ventilator due to restricted supply.

I hope this lockdown saves lives because otherwise we've all lost 6 months of our lives in this purgatory. 0.4% of everyone's life spent watching Netflix and jogging around the block :tumbleweed:

 

[Vornwend]

I know it's an unpopular opinion but hospitals are quieter than usual and all the staff in the NHS are still getting paid. My concern in these times are with people that are self employed or on zero hour contracts that are seeing their incomes disappear and their savings vanish.

So they can keeping working , you would let people die , amazing

My personal choice would be to continue as normal and let it happen. We'll soon see which the better approach is, total isolation or business as usual, as countries like Sweden are continuing without a lockdown and others like South Korea have bars and restaurants re-opening.

There's no pain free option here, isolation will have a huge toll on the financial stability of the country. Children aren't getting educated and a lot of families and businesses are going to be financially ruined.
I think that people expect this virus to vanish after 6 months of being locked in but the reality is that it's around for good, we're just "flattening the curve" and are all going to get it at some point. The reason we're doing all this isn't to save the 20,000 predicted deaths in the UK but rather a much smaller proportion that will be saved by having a ventilator due to restricted supply.

I hope this lockdown saves lives because otherwise we've all lost 6 months of our lives in this purgatory. 0.4% of everyone's life spent watching Netflix and jogging around the block :tumbleweed:

20,000 is the predicted death toll WITH the lock down in place. Your approach just to let it rip through the population would result in 300,000 to 500,000 deaths from the virus. In addition the massive overload in the NHS with a rapid spike in cases needing hospitalisation would result in other deaths as the system over loads. The virus may be around for a while as you say but there is also the prospect of a vaccine in the 12 months or so (hopefully sooner). Huge financial cost yes, but that can be recovered in time - lives cannot.

 

[R.E92]

So they can keeping working , you would let people die , amazing

My personal choice would be to continue as normal and let it happen. We'll soon see which the better approach is, total isolation or business as usual, as countries like Sweden are continuing without a lockdown and others like South Korea have bars and restaurants re-opening.

There's no pain free option here, isolation will have a huge toll on the financial stability of the country. Children aren't getting educated and a lot of families and businesses are going to be financially ruined.
I think that people expect this virus to vanish after 6 months of being locked in but the reality is that it's around for good, we're just "flattening the curve" and are all going to get it at some point. The reason we're doing all this isn't to save the 20,000 predicted deaths in the UK but rather a much smaller proportion that will be saved by having a ventilator due to restricted supply.

I hope this lockdown saves lives because otherwise we've all lost 6 months of our lives in this purgatory. 0.4% of everyone's life spent watching Netflix and jogging around the block :tumbleweed:

20,000 is the predicted death toll WITH the lock down in place. Your approach just to let it rip through the population would result in 300,000 to 500,000 deaths from the virus. In addition the massive overload in the NHS with a rapid spike in cases needing hospitalisation would result in other deaths as the system over loads. The virus may be around for a while as you say but there is also the prospect of a vaccine in the 12 months or so (hopefully sooner). Huge financial cost yes, but that can be recovered in time - lives cannot.

You need to check where that 500,000 deaths stat came from :lol:

 

[Vornwend]

My personal choice would be to continue as normal and let it happen. We'll soon see which the better approach is, total isolation or business as usual, as countries like Sweden are continuing without a lockdown and others like South Korea have bars and restaurants re-opening.

There's no pain free option here, isolation will have a huge toll on the financial stability of the country. Children aren't getting educated and a lot of families and businesses are going to be financially ruined.
I think that people expect this virus to vanish after 6 months of being locked in but the reality is that it's around for good, we're just "flattening the curve" and are all going to get it at some point. The reason we're doing all this isn't to save the 20,000 predicted deaths in the UK but rather a much smaller proportion that will be saved by having a ventilator due to restricted supply.

I hope this lockdown saves lives because otherwise we've all lost 6 months of our lives in this purgatory. 0.4% of everyone's life spent watching Netflix and jogging around the block :tumbleweed:

20,000 is the predicted death toll WITH the lock down in place. Your approach just to let it rip through the population would result in 300,000 to 500,000 deaths from the virus. In addition the massive overload in the NHS with a rapid spike in cases needing hospitalisation would result in other deaths as the system over loads. The virus may be around for a while as you say but there is also the prospect of a vaccine in the 12 months or so (hopefully sooner). Huge financial cost yes, but that can be recovered in time - lives cannot.

You need to check where that 500,000 deaths stat came from :lol:

Source: Chief Scientific Officer and the Imperial College London. Actually predicted 510,000. Good enough source for me.

https://www.ft.com/content/16764a22-69ca-11ea-a3c9-1fe6fedcca75

Their analysis also suggests up to 40 million deaths can be avoided

worldwide.https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/196496/coronavirus-pandemic-could-have-caused-40/

 

[Anonymous]

The range of possible ratios seem to vary between about 0.3% and 1.5% for European countries taking into account all those that are not tested but probably had the virus.

So say it turned out it was 0.5% then that in 66m so thats 330,000 deaths .now some of those would have been part of the 540,000 that die every year in uk..

In the UK today it’s 563 today...so it’s clear without a lockdown it would rise..say it levelled out at 2,000 per day then that would be 720,000 in a year on top of the 540,000 so 1.2m deaths

If you’re young your probability of death is about 100 times less than an older person...

So you vote to relax restrictions and save the economy ..

If your 50+ you’d vote for a lockdown and hopefully coast into retirement ...massive generalisation..

It’s clear by the time you are bad enough to get to hospital your in bad shape..it’s also clear age is a major factor, with high blood pressure, diabetes and respiratory issues compounding the fatality rate..if your fat that’s really bad but that may be it’s just related to high blood pressure and diabetes..

The moral issue is the big one, if you let it rip, you run out of life support, how do you decide who gets it....everyone over 70 tough..people driving Z4s not deserving etc

In the WWII people screamed like crazy when 70,000 civilians died in the UK..

Hindsight is great...yes some flu outbreaks never got a hold / weren’t as bad...

There is not enough data for even Trump now to deny it’s an issue..

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(20)30243-7/fulltext

 

[R.E92]

I'd be wary of such broad models. It clearly doesn't add up when you consider some of the realities of the situation.

The current projections aren't assuming a vaccination will be available and the virus being halted, they are just assuming that the spread is slowed.

Once on a ventilator the chances of survival are low, early data from china shows that only 14% survive being hooked up to one. Flattening the curve and ensuring every person who needs care gets it doesn't account for the disparity between the 20k death toll in isolation and the 510k without.

The issue with the current mortality rate as a whole is that they are only testing sick people who end up in hospital. Once widespread testing hits I think the mortality figure will fall well below that of the flu. Iceland did widespread testing and found that only 50% of people that tested positive ever had symptoms at all.

 

[Anonymous]

R.E92....you clearly have your own opinion...others have theirs..

I find it interesting that China, not noted for its obvious benign approach to social matters took what are still the most unprecedented steps in the world to arrest this disease...if they thought that 99.7%+ of the population would be A OK why did they not just let it rip...they have plenty of spare bodies and it’s a useful way of getting all those old crocks?

I’ll offer you 100:1 odds a £5 bet that for the whole of 2020 the global mortality ratio for COVID-19 exceeds the influenza average of 0.022%?

 

[Zikim]

I’ll offer you 100:1 odds a £5 bet that for the whole of 2020 the global mortality ratio for COVID-19 exceeds the influenza average of 0.022%?

Do you have any idea how many people on average every year die of influenza every year?

 

[obewan]

I’ll offer you 100:1 odds a £5 bet that for the whole of 2020 the global mortality ratio for COVID-19 exceeds the influenza average of 0.022%?

Do you have any idea how many people on average every year die of influenza every year?

The figure I read at the week-end was 17,000, but it was in a newspaper TBH so.......

 

[Nictrix]

I’ll offer you 100:1 odds a £5 bet that for the whole of 2020 the global mortality ratio for COVID-19 exceeds the influenza average of 0.022%?

Do you have any idea how many people on average every year die of influenza every year?

The figure I read at the week-end was 17,000, but it was in a newspaper TBH so.......

Well if that figure is correct is the current deaths by covid not way above this already. Italy 12,000 and Spain 8,000.

 

[obewan]

Do you have any idea how many people on average every year die of influenza every year?

The figure I read at the week-end was 17,000, but it was in a newspaper TBH so.......

Well if that figure is correct is the current deaths by covid not way above this already. Italy 12,000 and Spain 8,000.

Apologies, to clarify, that was the figure for the UK

 

[Zikim]

Worldwide on average every year Influenza kills 500,000 people ...... that is approximately 5 million people have died from influenza over the last 10 years.

 

[Vornwend]

I'd be wary of such broad models. It clearly doesn't add up when you consider some of the realities of the situation.

The current projections aren't assuming a vaccination will be available and the virus being halted, they are just assuming that the spread is slowed.

Once on a ventilator the chances of survival are low, early data from china shows that only 14% survive being hooked up to one. Flattening the curve and ensuring every person who needs care gets it doesn't account for the disparity between the 20k death toll in isolation and the 510k without.

The issue with the current mortality rate as a whole is that they are only testing sick people who end up in hospital. Once widespread testing hits I think the mortality figure will fall well below that of the flu. Iceland did widespread testing and found that only 50% of people that tested positive ever had symptoms at all.

Pretty sure the model does not just take the crude mortality rate (tested in hospital v deaths). The CMO and CSO are saying the mortality rate in the model is around 0.8% - 1.0% of those contracting the virus, so way higher than for seasonal flu. They said they had quite a high confidence in that % using data from all around the world including those places that had tested high percentages of the population (like Iceland). I also think that the measures mean some people will never be exposed to the virus or at least not before a vaccine is available. I think that may help explain the discrepancy you refer to?

 

[R.E92]

I'd be wary of such broad models. It clearly doesn't add up when you consider some of the realities of the situation.

The current projections aren't assuming a vaccination will be available and the virus being halted, they are just assuming that the spread is slowed.

Once on a ventilator the chances of survival are low, early data from china shows that only 14% survive being hooked up to one. Flattening the curve and ensuring every person who needs care gets it doesn't account for the disparity between the 20k death toll in isolation and the 510k without.

The issue with the current mortality rate as a whole is that they are only testing sick people who end up in hospital. Once widespread testing hits I think the mortality figure will fall well below that of the flu. Iceland did widespread testing and found that only 50% of people that tested positive ever had symptoms at all.

Pretty sure the model does not just take the crude mortality rate (tested in hospital v deaths). The CMO and CSO are saying the mortality rate in the model is around 0.8% - 1.0% of those contracting the virus, so way higher than for seasonal flu. They said they had quite a high confidence in that % using data from all around the world including those places that had tested high percentages of the population (like Iceland). I also think that the measures mean some people will never be exposed to the virus or at least not before a vaccine is available. I think that may help explain the discrepancy you refer to?

I think part of the reason is that 20,000 figure is only a forecast until August which assumes we're all still in lockdown which still means we have the looming threat of mass deaths unless a vaccine is available.

I'm in a very low risk group with the virus so selfishly it's not something I even consider as a threat but the effects of 6 months of lockdown is something that is going to progressively get more worrying. Italy are starting to see problems after 3 weeks, I wonder how serious social unrest has to get before they give up on the idea of keeping people locked in.

I'm working from home at the moment and that's likely to continue for a while yet so I have no financial worries but I'm already starting to get in a rut. I normally spend 2 hours a week kickboxing and 6 hours weightlifting with the odd run on a weekend, without all that activity I feel a lot worse mentally. My friends are all similar, the events they have been training for are cancelled and most are resorting to just watching TV and drinking. This can only be worse for the younger generations.

 

[Anonymous]

500,000 annual flu deaths in 7.8 billion people is 0.064%

 

[Anonymous]

The quantum of the death rate/critical care rate may be subject to debate, I think everyone agrees that the current strategy will have profound negative impacts on the economy and also people’s mental health plus all those people who have current or yet to emerge medical conditions that will be very negatively impacted by the 2nd order effects of the government’s/ medical response to COVID-19.

Without getting into party politics what we don’t yet have is any concept of when/how a release of economic resources will be made...

It’s interesting in China/South Korea/Singapore they have a strategic plan on selective release of resources and a more aggressive management of cases..ie members of a family tested ‘suspected are isolated in dedicated hotels so they are not impacting the family..

With the UK whole hotel industry unused surely that would be a good idea?

I think the analogy of a world war is a useful metaphor both for the complexity/trade offs/impacts but sadly also the failures of those in command and control to show initiatives/decision making/planning/creativity ...rabbits in headlights springs to mind..

 

[firebobby]

I'm still working as are plenty of others, the country still needs water :wink:
Wouldn't say no to few weeks off, maybe when everyone else goes back to work, the people who had to work through this can have a break

I was listening to the radio while at work this morning and a guy phoned in to say his aunt had died after going into hospital in the final stages of COPD. She was tested when she took a turn for the worse and her Covid 19 result was negative. She died shortly after this test and the hospital put the cause of death as Covid 19 related ??