Puddy_Tat
naturally fluffy
that does not compute for most right wing types...
Now that COVID is here permanently
- Thread starter Yossarian
- Start date
that does not compute for most right wing types...
beesonthewhatnow
going deaf for a living
He’s been almost exactly the opposite.
Orang Utan
Psychick Worrier Ov Geyoor
well quite, but they understand fear alright
elbows
Well-Known Member
Your pandemic track record here is abysmal to the extent that you are one of the only posters I know of here that was ignorant enough to think that the government did a good job of handling the first wave.
Agent Sparrow
the age of slippers and migraines
It does depend on what you mean by admission. Remember a lot of planned, elective admissions wouldn’t have happened during that time. I think day cases are also included as admissions, so in theory there could have been more separate admissions in other years because they were shorter and simpler. I don’t think total admissions alone is actually useful to look at, but more proportion of emergency to elective admissions, hospital days, ICU care and deaths at the end of admissions.
Whilst in paeds we were relatively cushioned compared to adult colleagues, it really was not “life as normal” at the place I work during the peaks
However, maybe because I’m welcoming being distracted from tidying
, I did find this which is not directly comparable at all but I did find the screen shotted bits interesting. But now we need the equivalent table for 2020! I only skimmed it as it made my eyes glaze over but I’d be interested to see others, from both “sides” pick it apart further.Tbf the table elbows posted seemed to have quite small numbers to me, unless I’m interpreting that wrong?
co-op
But....but cLoWnFiSh....
I don't see how anyone can avoid doing this; if you advocate a strict covid approach you are driving a coach and horses through the lives of millions for the benefit of others. If you are more laissez faire you're doing exactly the same.
According to Oxford University QCovid Risk Calculator a 19 year-old man with a positive covid test has a 0.01% chance of dying - this is effectively zero. But people this age are watching some of the most important months and years of their lives get put on ice, or try and be done remotely, as though that's meaningfully possible - that's collateral damage. I'm on the inside edges of the elevated risk group (by age and by pre-existing health condition - the QCovid risk calculator says I've got a 4.3% chance of dying after a positive test) and I'm not demanding stricter covid rules - I've never been asked. If I was I'd say no. Other opinions are allowed.
beesonthewhatnow
going deaf for a living
It’s shown again and again that even the most basic of right wing positions is so fucking self centred and selfish. “What about MY rights” etc. The idea we should all be treated the same, because that’s what’s fair. So bloody depressing.
SpookyFrank
A cheap source of teeth for aquarium gravel
Effectively zero. Nice. The dead are doubtless just putting it on for attention then.
But let's assume your 19 year old doesn't die of covid. Is his risk of dying of something else better or worse when there's an eight hour wait for an ambulance and zero critical care beds in a fifty mile radius? D'you know, I think it might be worse.
oh yeh I absolutely know it was not "life as normal"! Just, like you say, the figures in that specific chart that was posted wouldn't particularly make me angry on their own, taken in isolation. Once you get past 85 it just seems like life involves a lot of visits to hospital, unfortunately.It does depend on what you mean by admission. Remember a lot of planned, elective admissions wouldn’t have happened during that time. I think day cases are also included as admissions, so in theory there could have been more separate admissions in other years because they were shorter and simpler. I don’t think total admissions alone is actually useful to look at, but more proportion of emergency to elective admissions, hospital days, ICU care and deaths at the end of admissions.
Whilst in paeds we were relatively cushioned compared to adult colleagues, it really was not “life as normal” at the place I work during the peaks
However, maybe because I’m welcoming being distracted from tidying
Tbf the table elbows posted seemed to have quite small numbers to me, unless I’m interpreting that wrong?
View attachment 304244
View attachment 304245
beesonthewhatnow
going deaf for a living
“Only 0.5% might die and I want to go to the pub”.
Just fuck off.
Just fuck off.
planetgeli
There's no future in England's dreaming
Some people being asked to make short-term sacrifices for others shock.
co-op
But....but cLoWnFiSh....
I don't think you've understood my post; it's the risk to the 19 year old I'm saying is effectively zero. The cost benefit analysis varies massively by age and health. I'm saying that a one-size-fits-all collateral damage argument doesn't exist.
elbows
Well-Known Member
I'll explore this in more detail at some point, its not always easy to find non-pandemic stats on such matters and I dont have any to hand right now.
And there are complications such as the extent to which we do and dont bother with intensive care for people that are very old and frail. And care was somewhat rationed at some stages of this pandemic in the UK.
But in the meantime, I do consider 7% of an age group having a hospital admission from this virus to be high, and a demonstration of why authorities were forced to do all sorts of heavy things in an attempt to cope.
edit - I wrote this before I saw the earlier post by someone else that has some interesting numbers in it.
planetgeli
There's no future in England's dreaming
Death v my uni social life
But they don't exist in an individualistic bubble, do they? They have family members who have a much higher chance of dying.
SpookyFrank
A cheap source of teeth for aquarium gravel
Yeah no the problem wasn't that I didn't understand what you said, but that did understand it and it was horseshit.
LDC
On est tous des pangolins
there's too many covid threads, so am plonking this here:
what do people make of it?
Britain got it wrong on Covid: long lockdown did more harm than good, says scientist
A new book outlines the mistakes and missteps that made UK pandemic worsewww.theguardian.com
That he's got a book to sell?
SpookyFrank
A cheap source of teeth for aquarium gravel
Especially elbows with his relentless guesswork, innuendo and palpable disdain for empirical data, properly cited sources and graphs.
I guess it is just hard not to go from your own personal experience, my parents are both in their 80s and have both had lots of visits to hospital for one reason or another over the last 2 years... on 1 of those visits my mum got tested positive for covid and so would (I guess) be part of that 7%?
elbows
Well-Known Member
Here are three circumstances where I expect something of a pile on of complaints about me and my posts:
1. When I am excessively rude or aggressive.
2. When there is looming potential for a nasty wave and further restrictions, and some would rather not hear that message.
3. When the pandemic has moved beyond the acute phase and my warnings are out of step with reality.
1 is my own fault so I have to take that stuff on the chin. Numbers 2 and 3 are hard to genuinely tell the difference between until the ramifications of a wave have played out. And at least that sort of thing is on topic for this particular thread. I am as bored of situation 2 as everyone else, and I will be delighted when it can be demonstrated that we have really reached 3 instead. I'll even move on at that point, albeit slowly and with caveats.
1. When I am excessively rude or aggressive.
2. When there is looming potential for a nasty wave and further restrictions, and some would rather not hear that message.
3. When the pandemic has moved beyond the acute phase and my warnings are out of step with reality.
1 is my own fault so I have to take that stuff on the chin. Numbers 2 and 3 are hard to genuinely tell the difference between until the ramifications of a wave have played out. And at least that sort of thing is on topic for this particular thread. I am as bored of situation 2 as everyone else, and I will be delighted when it can be demonstrated that we have really reached 3 instead. I'll even move on at that point, albeit slowly and with caveats.
co-op
But....but cLoWnFiSh....
I think this is perhaps what Reno was driving at about U75 on covid? It's become slightly fanatical in a way that seems more about the anxiety of the posters than about the reality of the situation and how we try and deal with it.
I think there's not much point trying to engage with this irrationality so you'll forgive me if I tap out here.
LDC
On est tous des pangolins
there's too many covid threads, so am plonking this here:
what do people make of it?Britain got it wrong on Covid: long lockdown did more harm than good, says scientist
A new book outlines the mistakes and missteps that made UK pandemic worse
Would like to read the book, but from his Wiki doesn't seem like the best person to give advice...
"In April 2020 Woolhouse was criticised after it emerged he had travelled to a second home on the Island of Lismore hours before lockdown ruled were announced. Despite public health advice for those not normally resident on islands to return home, Woolhouse angered residents and remained there for a number of months."
No need for lockdown when you can piss off to your second home in a remote area to ride out the worst of it.
Elpenor
Dancing as fast as I can
My main observation is that the politicians who are the most vocal about the impact covid has had on the rest of the NHS tend to be the ones who are most keen to sell off the NHS to their mates in private healthcare.
So to anyone parroting that line, you’ve been had. Those politicians have never cared about the NHS before and certainly don’t care now.
So to anyone parroting that line, you’ve been had. Those politicians have never cared about the NHS before and certainly don’t care now.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
"Lockdowns aren’t a public health policy. They signify a failure of public health policy"there's too many covid threads, so am plonking this here:
what do people make of it?Britain got it wrong on Covid: long lockdown did more harm than good, says scientist
A new book outlines the mistakes and missteps that made UK pandemic worse
I agree with this. In fact, if anything it was being said a lot more at the start of the pandemic than it is said now. I also think he asks a good question wrt Sweden's approach. How much of the heavy lifting of controlling spread is done by relatively 'light', mainly voluntary measures such as those used in Sweden, how much more gain is there to be had from heavier measures, and how does that gain match up to the costs involved (I don't mean money costs)?
Sweden has been all over the news when its cases have been high, and nowhere near the news when its cases have been low - lowest cases and deaths of any country in Europe for large chunks of the last three months, for instance, and doing very well for most of 2021 both in terms of covid deaths and, importantly, excess deaths. This link gives a list of countries' excess deaths over the course of the pandemic. Sweden comes out of it all comparatively rather well, and Sweden still made its share of mistakes, including not protecting people in care homes. So in the sense that this person is advocating something like what Sweden did but without some of the mistakes that Sweden made, certainly it is a view with some real-life substance on its side.
elbows
Well-Known Member
If they stay in hospital for at least one night then yes, they will be part of those figures.
Hospital infections have magnified some of the most serious problems during this pandemic. They deserved a lot more attention than they got, and I go on about them at every opportunity. They worry the authorities too, although they arent very comfortable talking about them in depth in public. They are also one of the areas of uncertainty I have in mind when considering the future of living with this virus. Hopefully we'll eventually get vaccines that do more on the infection and transmission front. And even if not, various treatment options will be made use of to try to reduce some of the worst ramifications of hospital outbreaks.
There are a bunch of uncomfortable areas of discussion which will probably get more depressing as the pandemic drags on. Much of it involves other health issues and attitudes towards downplaying that stuff. Here are a couple of recent examples that hint at some of these issues:
Rising number of blood cancer patients dying of Covid in England and Wales
Charities ask for more government help and blame confusion over access to care, shortage of boosters and lack of shielding support
They Were the Pandemic’s Perfect Victims (USA focussed)
Agent Sparrow
the age of slippers and migraines
I agree it’s a balance, and personally I would have gone for quicker but shorter restrictions at the beginning, and lower level mass precautions at this stage, ie inconveniencing everyone just a little bit to both reduce COVID deaths and the chance of long term restrictions again.
Lots of the social problems of lockdown didn’t just arise due to lockdown though, they occurred because society is deeply unequal and various support services were already on their knees before any of this happened.
SpookyFrank
A cheap source of teeth for aquarium gravel
You do know there are effectively no restrictions on travel or social gatherings right now yes?
LDC
On est tous des pangolins
It's not that easy to transfer one countries approach to another though without huge caveats and changes to the point it doesn't even look like X country's approach anymore. There's all sorts of cultural, political, geographic, social, etc. factors that make it much more complicated than that.
elbows
Well-Known Member
Thats a perfect example of why I describe your stance the way I do, and why I reject the accusation that I misrepresent you.
And its not like we fell out about everything in this pandemic. We used to spend a lot of time talking to each other about detail. We disagree about some of these fundamentals. These disagreements are largely sponsored by a difference in terms of what measures we think are necessary, how far things need to go. You arent comfortable with many things being mandatory, it doesnt fit well with other dearly held beliefs, and you sought to demonstrate that milder alternatives could have done the job instead. I dont agree.
Some common ground could still be salvaged. Large behavioural changes including minimising contacts are key to minimising infections, and if there were non-mandatory ways to ensure a sufficient level of behavioural changes then much of the heat would be removed from our disagreements.
Its not just about closing stuff, its also about the level of financial support on offer to help people do the right thing. Its about existing inequalities including health inequalities and huge variance in the ability to work from home. Its about levels of sick pay, and so many other things.
I will dig into Sweden and the extent to which they regret their original stance and have changed their ways, in a little bit.
There are some other reasons we fell out too - I still dont think you ever quite got your head round exponential growth properly, so we usually find ourselves far apart during the explosive growth phase of waves for example. Its a shame, and it happened again recently with something as simple as London daily hospitalisation figures which you somehow didnt expect to grow substantially past the point they had already reached at the time of the discussion.
