Coronavirus outbreak

[tom73]

Just what is just under "overload level" ? Is it including or excluding normal day to day operational level ?
Is that just based on number of beds or the wider much bigger part of NHS ie primary care ?
Is it including the ongoing longer term care needs of the most serious cases who survive?
Is it just beds , space for beds , equipment ect or are staff numbers counted too?
Maybe the way out of this is for ones who simply don't want to understand or wont comply with what's being asked. Should be the ones that stay home and ones who do understand do know the only way to open things up is to follow a few simple things. Be the ones allowed to get on things.

 

[classic33]

With no pubs open there'll be no need for many to go out. Drink(alcoholic), was bottom of the list for restocking on the shelves the first time round, and I doubt it'd even reach the shelves in a second lockdown.

 

[tom73]

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...ts-in-management-consultants?CMP=share_btn_tw
Test and trace must really be in trouble they are now bringing in management consultants. What next a rebrand ?
Contact tracing is a public heath matter they need to bring in highly trained health professionals and experienced healthcare management.
If it's logistics they need fixing then get the Army in they know how to shift stuff around and can do it quickly.
Fines won't fix this public confidence will though.

 

[tom73]

Your ability to get a test now based on your ability to pay.
https://www.theguardian.com/educati...e-private-sector?CMP=twt_a-education_b-gdnedu

 

[SkipdiverJohn]

But they dont know which infections will result in hospitalisations. So how do you achieve that? In my mind hospitalisations (a) make a given percentage of total infections (b). Therefore the only way to reduce a is by reducing b.

You don't need to know about any infections that don't result in hospitalisation, because those infected persons can look after themselves. Say you've got the capacity to have 25,000 virus patients in hospital at any given time without the system falling over. Instead of obsessing over how many positive tests there were yesterday, you just count the number of hospitalisations daily and monitor how much spare capacity you have left in the system. If the numbers get to the point where they are only a few days away from overload, then you bring in measures to minimise person-to-person contact for a short fixed period, say a week. That way, everyone knows they will only have to put up with a week's disruption, then things would be back to normal. With a clearly defined end date, you would get more public "buy in" and better compliance. Open-ended lockdown measures where politicians keep pushing the dates back because some medic says x number might die simply generate a "bollox to this" response, and the rules get flouted.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...ts-in-management-consultants?CMP=share_btn_tw
Test and trace must really be in trouble they are now bringing in management consultants.

Management consultants spell the kiss of death for pretty much any operation, IMHO. To use them is an admission the current management don't know what the feck they are doing, otherwise they wouldn't use them, and in all likelihood the consultants are just going to focus on processes and procedures without having much understanding of the actual operation anyway. The lockdown and the current blunder strategy is a real shoot show, and someone competent to understand and direct things to get done ASAP should have been in post, NOT Hancock - who gives me a very good impression of being a BS artist trying to wing it, but well out of his depth.
The thing is, if you want a get-the-job done sort of Health Secretary, who do you appoint? You need someone with some gravitas, and the ability to bang heads together, as well as being pragmatic and not too ideological.
One thing I will say about the NHS and military, is they tend to comprise of people who actually want to be there and have some pride in their work. So why not use public resources instead of employing disinterested private sector outsource wage drones who probably don't see it as any different to administering someone's council tax bill?

 

[HMS_Dave]

Why do people keep mentioning Sweden as a glowing example of covid management when Malaysia have been far more successful? They got on top of track and trace, testing and locked down sensibly and have 3 times more people than Sweden in a hot and humid climate yet about 2-3% of the deaths!. Sweden have a terrible record compared to their neighbour's also...

 

[DaveReading]

If the numbers get to the point where they are only a few days away from overload, then you bring in measures to minimise person-to-person contact for a short fixed period, say a week.

There are no measures you can take that will have any affect on the numbers in the short-term.

Any measures you implement now will take several weeks before they have any impact on the infection rate.

 

[classic33]

You don't need to know about any infections that don't result in hospitalisation, because those infected persons can look after themselves. Say you've got the capacity to have 25,000 virus patients in hospital at any given time without the system falling over. Instead of obsessing over how many positive tests there were yesterday, you just count the number of hospitalisations daily and monitor how much spare capacity you have left in the system. If the numbers get to the point where they are only a few days away from overload, then you bring in measures to minimise person-to-person contact for a short fixed period, say a week. That way, everyone knows they will only have to put up with a week's disruption, then things would be back to normal. With a clearly defined end date, you would get more public "buy in" and better compliance. Open-ended lockdown measures where politicians keep pushing the dates back because some medic says x number might die simply generate a "bollox to this" response, and the rules get flouted.



Management consultants spell the kiss of death for pretty much any operation, IMHO. To use them is an admission the current management don't know what the feck they are doing, otherwise they wouldn't use them, and in all likelihood the consultants are just going to focus on processes and procedures without having much understanding of the actual operation anyway. The lockdown and the current blunder strategy is a real shoot show, and someone competent to understand and direct things to get done ASAP should have been in post, NOT Hancock - who gives me a very good impression of being a BS artist trying to wing it, but well out of his depth.
The thing is, if you want a get-the-job done sort of Health Secretary, who do you appoint? You need someone with some gravitas, and the ability to bang heads together, as well as being pragmatic and not too ideological.
One thing I will say about the NHS and military, is they tend to comprise of people who actually want to be there and have some pride in their work. So why not use public resources instead of employing disinterested private sector outsource wage drones who probably don't see it as any different to administering someone's council tax bill?

Suppose the figure doesn't go down, and you were planning on going out at the end of that week. You're instantly back to another week before you can go out.

Get used to the fact that whatever comes after this, the old way has gone to be replaced by a new normal. One you may not like.

 

[SkipdiverJohn]

Why do people keep mentioning Sweden as a glowing example of covid management when Malaysia have been far more successful? They got on top of track and trace, testing and locked down sensibly and have 3 times more people than Sweden in a hot and humid climate yet about 2-3% of the deaths!. Sweden have a terrible record compared to their neighbour's also...

Because Sweden is in all probability, now at the tail end of it's pandemic, and is unlikely to see any further major waves of disease. They will have a far higher immunity rate than those countries that tried to keep the infected numbers as low as possible. All the countries that are cited to have been "successful" have achieved is to kick the can down the road and delay the inevitable. Their populations are still highly vulnerable to a tidal wave of infection. The countries that took only some, but not extreme measures to keep the numbers down are now faring better because the virus simply cannot transmit effectively once a substantial proportion of the population have already had it. If you take the USA for example, with nearly 7 million officially recorded cases, that will be a gross undercount of the real numbers. Quite possibly the true infection rate could have been 20 times higher, in which case you might now have 130 million immune citizens out of a 330 million population.

 

[RoadRider400]

If the numbers get to the point where they are only a few days away from overload, then you bring in measures to minimise person-to-person contact for a short fixed period, say a week.

Firstly such measures will take weeks to have any impact.
Secondly you cannot spring measures on the public so quickly. There needs to be a reasonable notice period.
Thirdly due to exponential growth by the time you have realised you are a few days from overload, its much much too late to recover the situation.

Given that all the responses your comments have received have been along the same lines. Has the penny not dropped yet?

 

[classic33]

Because Sweden is in all probability, now at the tail end of it's pandemic, and is unlikely to see any further major waves of disease. They will have a far higher immunity rate than those countries that tried to keep the infected numbers as low as possible. All the countries that are cited to have been "successful" have achieved is to kick the can down the road and delay the inevitable. Their populations are still highly vulnerable to a tidal wave of infection. The countries that took only some, but not extreme measures to keep the numbers down are now faring better because the virus simply cannot transmit effectively once a substantial proportion of the population have already had it. If you take the USA for example, with nearly 7 million officially recorded cases, that will be a gross undercount of the real numbers. Quite possibly the true infection rate could have been 20 times higher, in which case you might now have 130 million immune citizens out of a 330 million population.

No evidence to date that you can't catch it twice, meaning you don't know that you will ever be immune from it.

An extreme case, but think of Typhoid Mary. Never showed any signs of the disease, but still managed to pass it on.

 

[marinyork]

It's unlikely 40% of the US population has had the virus based on what is currently known. If the small swedish study is correct about t cell immunity then that would mean around twice as many people have had it as what is thought.

 

[screenman]

Is everyone giving the correct contact details when asked, I do but I know of some who will not.

 

[marinyork]

Is everyone giving the correct contact details when asked, I do but I know of some who will not.

Probably not. Someone I know who's a contact tracer made 8 calls this weekend and none were picked up/correct numbers.

 

[screenman]

Probably not. Someone I know who's a contact tracer made 8 calls this weekend and none were picked up/correct numbers.

Id cards needed then