Jump to content
  • Sign up for free and receive a month's subscription

    You are viewing this page as a guest. That means you are either a member who has not logged in, or you have not yet registered with us. Signing up for an account only takes a minute and it means you will no longer see this annoying box! It will also allow you to get involved with our friendly(ish!) community and take part in the discussions on our forums. And because we're feeling generous, if you sign up for a free account we will give you a month's free trial access to our subscriber only content with no obligation to commit. Register an account and then send a private message to @dave u and he'll hook you up with a subscription.

Coronavirus


Bjornebye

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Brownie said:

Am I the only one who is planning on adhering to the lockdown until there's a vaccine? I can see everyone trying to just go back to normal when restrictions start to be lifted but the way I see it, the risk of being infected is no different (in fact it would obviously increase) so why should we change our approach?

I went into lockdown early and will come out late. On Tory time, that is...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Spy Bee said:

So Gates Foundation, Wuhan Lab, WHO and others have been hacked. I cannot comment of the veracity of these claims, but there are claims nevertheless that the emails show that Covid-19 is SARS spliced with HIV.

 

I'm not sure though, because I make that to be SHAIRVS.

 

This could be a huge story!

You probably get a kick out of being a "I know someone who works at the Pentagon" guy, but don't post unverified, nightmare-fuel bullshit, please. 

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Brownie said:

Am I the only one who is planning on adhering to the lockdown until there's a vaccine? I can see everyone trying to just go back to normal when restrictions start to be lifted but the way I see it, the risk of being infected is no different (in fact it would obviously increase) so why should we change our approach?

My behaviour will be contingent upon a vaccine being found and/or a compulsory masks in public policy. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, Dougie Do'ins said:

Yep. It's all about slowing down the rate of people who will need to be hospitalised when they do get it. I think it's inevitable that everyone will get it. It's just the severity that will differ.

This has been puzzling me for a couple of days and it's entirely possible I am missing something really obvious but.. 

 

I've read a number of times now, in the last few days, that contrary to expectations hospitals / ICU's in the UK are not and have not been overrun and have adequate capacity - unlike in Italy at the same stage where it was chaos.  But we were told in numerous articles from numerous sources that Italy's ICU facilities and capacity are better than ours, yet we have the same if not worse death rates.  How does that work then?  Why are our hospitals not in disarray and struggling to cope (PPE aside)? 

It makes you wonder if the only lesson the UK took from Italy was to choose to admit fewer people to hospital, to choose to not even try to help some people, to choose to let them die at home and in care homes.

 

edit - and to choose not to report on numbers of  deaths outside of hospital 

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Moo said:

This has been puzzling me for a couple of days and it's entirely possible I am missing something really obvious but.. 

 

I've read a number of times now, in the last few days, that contrary to expectations hospitals / ICU's in the UK are not and have not been overrun and have adequate capacity - unlike in Italy at the same stage where it was chaos.  But we were told in numerous articles from numerous sources that Italy's ICU facilities and capacity are better than ours, yet we have the same if not worse death rates.  How does that work then?  Why are our hospitals not in disarray and struggling to cope (PPE aside)? 

It makes you wonder if the only lesson the UK took from Italy was to choose to admit fewer people to hospital, to choose to not even try to help some people, to choose to let them die at home and in care homes.


Italy's outbreak was much more concentrated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, SasaS said:

London is about 35 times bigger than Bergamo.

But a similar size to the Lombardy region?  London is considered the epicentre in the UK but no particular panic, indeed there's talk of the extra capacity created not even being used, why not? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Sugar Ape said:

This is from tonight’s update. As you can see, Lombardy is hit a lot worse than any UK area including London. I don’t think the hospitals were overwhelmed in other parts of Italy like they were in Lombardy. 
 

 

4C239A5B-147C-4B62-A4AD-6E72AAD3DAF3.jpeg

That's kind of my point, that UK hospitals are not being hit hard, meanwhile countless people are dying outside of hospital and it's not being reported on.  So we actually have no real idea how bad London, for example, has been hit. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Moo said:

That's kind of my point, that UK hospitals are not being hit hard, meanwhile countless people are dying outside of hospital and it's not being reported on.  So we actually have no real idea how bad London, for example, has been hit. 

Hasn't there been a lot of deaths tagged as unexplained and so not linked to Covid ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Moo said:

But a similar size to the Lombardy region?  London is considered the epicentre in the UK but no particular panic, indeed there's talk of the extra capacity created not even being used, why not? 

The hospitals and coffins and stuff we saw on television were mostly from Bergamo and surrounding towns . At the highest point of the epidemic Italy had about 4,100 people in ICU and their total capacity was over 7,000.  Now its about 2,400 people in ICU. If they were overwhelmed, it was probably due to organizational bottle necks, I think their health care is decentralized so they may have struggled with distribution of patients, sending people from Bergamo to Milan and further south, which is all easier to do in London.
 

New York City would probably be a better comparison, but they have more cases than London, if I am not mistaken.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Moo said:

That's kind of my point, that UK hospitals are not being hit hard, meanwhile countless people are dying outside of hospital and it's not being reported on.  So we actually have no real idea how bad London, for example, has been hit. 


Right, but to go with your Italy comparison you don’t know how many people are dying in care homes and in the community there. I’m sure that’s been underreported all across Europe in every country for a variety of reasons. 
 

I don’t think we’ll have vastly different numbers, comparatively, from London to Lombardy for the amount of deaths outside hospitals. It just seems they were worse hit and as the first major epicentre in Europe they had no time to prepare. 
 

As shit as the Tories have been at least they, and the NHS, had some prior warning. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Dougie Do'ins said:

Hasn't there been a lot of deaths tagged as unexplained and so not linked to Covid ?

Oh no doubt. 

I just find it a bit odd during a global pandemic of enormous proportions that the grossly underfunded and understaffed NHS hospitals are able to cope better than we could have ever imagined possible, meanwhile the government and NHS bosses couldn't organise a piss up in a brewery. 

I mean, NHS front line staff are fantastic, they are doing a brilliant, heroic job in terrible circumstances.  But they are not magicians. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Anubis said:

Both Northwick in Harrow, and Watford hospitals called critical incidents where they ran out of capacity in late March, early April.

I'm not surprised, and prior to the last few days I had no doubt that there would be hospitals in the UK overwhelmed, but that's not been reflected via the media in recent days. 

As with every aspect of this whole business, we will probably never know the full facts

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Moo said:

Oh no doubt. 

I just find it a bit odd during a global pandemic of enormous proportions that the grossly underfunded and understaffed NHS hospitals are able to cope better than we could have ever imagined possible, meanwhile the government and NHS bosses couldn't organise a piss up in a brewery. 

I mean, NHS front line staff are fantastic, they are doing a brilliant, heroic job in terrible circumstances.  But they are not magicians. 

I don't think anywhere is that overwhelmed that they have to turn patients away, NYC is harder hit than London and they have spare capacities, numbers have so far not been that big anywhere to completely overwhelm the system.

 

On people dying outside of hospitals, France and Belgium are reporting these numbers, they are about 40% of the total. I have not seen an explanation why is the number so high, but I guess the fact that most covid related deaths are still very old people with various co-morbidities, they may realize covid was involved only after they die.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...