Over reaction to current situation
- Thread starter Dutch01527
- Start date
Heckler
Active member
Facts and figures
So in normal times 460 a day die of heart and related diseases, year in year out, no outcry over that figure! How many of these are now being marked down as having passed from COVID! Both me and the bride are pretty certain we had it mid Feb. So are eight of our friends. It was rough, harsh non productive cough, weird dreams and headaches, me the shakes at night, just like malaria I had, tired, oh so tired, aching, extreme shortage of breath with me having crackles in chest that bad that I kept her awake at night. 10 days or so of extreme, just like Boris looks now. So test us, if we have had it, and thousands more like us, then let us out to be productive again! A consultant I sp9ke to last week says that if the true infection figure was known that it would be like a bad seasonal flu, his guess is that it is just above 0.1% fatality.
Heckler
Active member
Plus of course they do private health insurance!
FlyingGoose
Well-known member
Not hard for people with some sense to work out what a corona virus is , how covid 19 is affecting us , how to follow guidelines, and read a graph or a league table on well sourced websites, and even for some to understand a little biology , but ofc there are some stupid people who like the FEAR and will believe anything on YOUTUBE , but thankfully they are all on here
Heckler
Active member
Indeed, interesting, cabin crew of parked airlines are being talked about as temp “nursing” staff , well trained, all above average first aid and used to dealing with joe public.
AndrewfromFal
Active member
I'm not sure how many clinicians die of 'flu during a normal winter epidemic...
Blue Sunray
Well-known member
We spend substantially less than Germany per head of population
How does UK healthcare spending compare with other countries? - Office for National Statistics
In 2017, the UK spent £2,989 per person on healthcare ... of the G7 group of large, developed economies, UK healthcare spending per person was the second-lowest, with the highest spenders being France (£3,737), Germany (£4,432) and the United States (£7,736)
So Germany spend around 25% more per person for their health care system. If we are throwing money at the health service then Germany must be drowning in it
In cash terms, for England alone, we would need to spend around £32 billion each and every year extra to get level with Germany.
Please do bear in mind that is not GOVERNMENT/TAX spending on health, it is total spending on health - note the figure for the USA.
jordanbasset
Well-known member
Yes quite, we spend a lot less than most comparable countries
jordanbasset
Well-known member
You are talking about 4%, they spend around 25% more per head than we do.
Nothing wrong with that, personally I think it is good they do, in fact wished we did
pvb
Well-known member
But those extra 4% or so of older and high-risk patients account for much more than 4% extra spending. Ageing population is the reason most healthcare systems are under increasing pressure.
Bear in mind also that the vast majority of Germany's healthcare spending is on health insurance schemes - that's very different from the UK. I'd expect health insurance to cost more than direct government-funded care.
JumbleDuck
Well-known member
And some funny traditions, too. My German relatives get a week every year to take the waters at a spa as a preventative against something or other (gout? dropsy? the Kaiser's evil?) , paid for by their health insurance.
A bit, perhaps, but their system has many economies compared to ours. No need to go through a GP to see a specialist, for example. And, of course, the NHS has its own monstrous inefficiencies and wastes an unbelievable amount of money.
jordanbasset
Well-known member
But still Germany costs 25% more than ours, they must be dreadfully inefficient. Or perhaps, just perhaps, neither they or the UK are, it is just that Germany is properly funded. Give the NHS an additional 25%, or just 20%, hell make it 15% and then let's compare the two systems
Mind you I do agree with PVB that he'd ''expect health insurance to cost more than direct government-funded care.'' as you have another level of pen pushers and incumbent bureaucracy to pay for
Daydream believer
Well-known member
If I could use 2 on you- then possibly
But i would like to keep 1 bullet for Sharky 34
if that is Ok with you
Last edited:
Triassic
Well-known member
Not quite, if there is a 50/50 chance of survival with a ventilator against 100% death without one then he's take the 50/50 thank you very much. If you had to put a loaded gun to your head would you prefer the one with six bullets in it, or only three?
Daydream believer
Well-known member
Does that really matter?
There are quite a few forumites engaged in the thread, so it is creating interest & conversation develops via interaction between parties. It does not mean that it must always follow the original subject, if it still creates interest to the parties concerned.
If some no longer find it of interest then they may quite easily drop out ( &please accept that i say that with due respect,)
ShinyShoe
Well-known member
But for some , the remaining 50% may never leave hospital, or if they do will not be fit enough to look after themselves ever again. 3 weeks on a ventilator does not do much good to 85 year olds
What's the crew on a AWLB? 5/6. I. A confined space for hours. How can they be sure they aren't infecting their crew mates?
Untackled, the estimate is 80 % if population will get it. So 56million people in UK. Estimates of survival rates vary wildly, probably in part because numbers exposed are uncertain. But 0.1% is quite likely a fair estimate. That's 56k.. that's not 'that' bad but if they all land in 5 weeks that means 10k a week for a system that copes with far less. Yes some would have died of something else. But many wouldn't.Your "if unchanged" is key here. It must change, because exponential growth (which means a growth rate proportional to the number infected) can only continue when the population is effectively infinite. Once a significant number of people are infected the rate has to reduce, because a smaller proportion of contacts will be susceptible. Eventually, and obviously, the growth rate reaches zero when everybody has had it.
You clearly understand, but I am deeply frustrated by the number of people who project exponential growth indefinitely. They are probably the same people who think that multi-level marketing schemes and chain letters work.
Many will be healthcare staff (15 % if life-threatening cases in Italy are staff) because viral load matters.
That wasn't your beloved NHS's job. Planning for pandemic is the job of the department of health and Public Health England (and it's sister bodies in other nations).
The NHS told the government it did not have the resources. Government decided to do nothing
The NHS has less funding than most national health expenditure. There is inefficiency. Of course there is. But the current problem has nothing to do with NHS organisation. The problems are
A lack of perception in government that if community to community transmission started things would explode so fast.
A wishful thinking that they could contain and avoid community transmission
Complacency that slow testing was OK because it doesn't alter treatment. A very standard medical paradigm. But they actually needed to (a) assume community transmission in January and be screening all symptoms back then (b) use technology to contact trace
But I want you to imagine you got a phone call on 21st January saying "you were on the London Underground 3 days ago. We believe another passenger had a serious infection and so we are legally mandating you (and your family) to stay at home for 14 days..." There would have been public outcry...
A lack of willingness in January to quarantine travellers from countries affected for 14 days. Because of the economic impact.
But that it's the reality of RT-RNA testing. You need enough virus to detect it. So you need 2 negatives 3 days apart. Everyone is desperate to test NHS staff... And it will shorten quarantine for some... But it isn't fast.
You can't test you now with RT-RNA - you presumably have no active virus. You need an antibody test. That is fraught with new problems... Not least... There isn't currently a robust reliable test that can answer that (certainly at scale). Remember 3 months ago we didn't know this virus existed. The speed of test development and validation is impressive to be where we are.
Even if the fatalities match seasonal flu (and trust me - they don't - because you don't kill loads of NHS staff with flu) you don't see all seasonal flu in 6 weeks, you see it in 6 months...
If you stay home and don't get it, great.. but let's hope you don't have a heart attack, stroke, appendicitis, bowel obstruction or anything else that might need an ITU bed...
Cancer patients are actively stopping treatment to reduce their risk of death from the virus. They do so knowing they may now for sooner from their cancer...
siwhi
Active member
Lord Sumption's comments are well worth a listen:
JumbleDuck
Well-known member
Absolutely. I am 100% behind the current restrictions and hope that people will follow the spirit as well as the letter of them so things don't have to be tightened up even further. Even if the Oxford model turns out to be better than the Imperial College one, we are still undoubtedly in for a couple of very bad weeks: see my previous comment about high exponential growth rates and time lags having indistinguishable effects.
newtothis
Well-known member
I trust that all those advocating for the relaxation of rules so they can go do their hobby will first spend a week or two in an ICU to show their commitment to their convictions that it's not a big deal if a few people die. It will save resources if they do it without PPE.
Do that and, to quote Tim Minchin, "when I've recovered from the shock I will take a compass and carve 'Fancy That' on the side of my cock".
Laser310
Well-known member
I think many of us advocating for a relaxation of the rules are not doing so in order that we might pursue our hobbies
Rather.., we are advocating a relaxation to save lives.
The problem is this:
We live in a highly complex world with dependencies that are unknown. Does anybody really know what parts of the system need to function in order for food to show up in the markets in London?
We are conducting a massive experiment - nobody knows what will happen.., and there is tremendous risk that is not being acknowledged or discussed in public. Indeed, it is viewed as quite a bad thing to even ask if we are pursuing the right course of action.
Anytime people are cowed into not questioning government policy.., we are in danger.
When have we ever undertaken such a program, with _no_ public discussion of the ways in which it could go wrong?
The arrogance of the current policy, is the assumption that a few ministers can know what are the "critical" parts of the system that must keep functioning for food to be delivered to London, and for the lights to stay on, and so on..., and which parts of the system are "non-critical" and can safely be turned off.
Are you satisfied that this is known - by anyone?
I am not. They are guessing...
As of today, the authorities have shut off a vast portion of the system we all depend on for our lives. It is an enormous experiment.
What do you think London, or any major city, will look like a week after the last food delivery and a week after the lights have gone out? How about two weeks?
I am not saying food deliveries _will_ stop.., but the risk of that happening is not zero.
What is the risk? I do not know.., but neither does anyone else - and nobody is asking the government anything about the risks of their policy.
Last edited by a moderator:
