Coronavirus Impact

[Amarillo]

Had, more like.

Of course, you fell into amarillos trap.

Not so much a trap but laziness on my part. I started with just two methods (income and net worth) using the word ‘average’ which left me open to charges of vagueness, that then led me to six different methods. I then doubled down with household and individual.

Now I’m waiting for someone to ask if “mean” is arithmetic or geometric.

 

[westfalia]

Now I’m waiting for someone to ask if “mean” is arithmetic or geometric.

I would say its one or the other.

No, not so much a trap but i had to look twice.

 

[ArunAlec]

This thread is getting more and more like a chapter from The Dilbert Principle, which I got b#ll#cked for, for having on my desk at work.

 

[docbob1]

I think what is needed here is a step back and look where we are going, the economic cost, and do we repeat this everytime a virus mutates (for coryza group, incl corona, very frequently mutate hence never a vaccine) and influenza less frequently. The other side is whether you believe there are thousands of people on ventilators. As most will be 70yrs+ (and obese that die but that ICU consultant's statement was soon was removed by mainstream media) plus they won't survive anyway. I have rarely seen an 70-80 yr old ever get off a ventilator!! but then maybe I am out of date. Look at the media in a more critical manner. Yesterday on Radio 4 a transplant surgeon said he was worried transplants would have to cease because of lack of ITU beds. In the UK we run at 80% capacity in ITU, total beds 4000, free beds 800 Must be some still available then?? The FIELD HOSPITAL scenario, with visions of hundreds if not thousands on ventilators portrayed by the media (the term field hospital suggesting a 'war'). To have people on ventilators you need anaesthetic capability, highly qualified nursing staff in lung aspiration/ IV administration/blood gas analysis etc etc.
In reality what we are looking at (and very sensibly because in the previous flu pandemics I have witnessed and would have wanted this facility) is not in reality acutely ill persons cared for by unqualified medical staff but CONVALESCENCE wards. How do you get rid of what is known in the trade as "bed blockers". The people who can't care for themselves but are well enough to leave an acute treatment medical facility, particularly with lockdown, releatives not able to visit and a lack of social support (gone are the home helps, district nurses who can take time with the elderly and arrange their needs etc) The answer is CONVALESCENT HOMES NOT A 'FIELD HOSPITAL' but the propagandarist mainstream media do not present it as that. Just think, where do you discharge large number of dependent ill elderly to????
I leave you to ponder on this.

 

[Jay gas]

Pondered....... dismissed

 

[WelshGas]

I think what is needed here is a step back and look where we are going, the economic cost, and do we repeat this everytime a virus mutates (for coryza group, incl corona, very frequently mutate hence never a vaccine) and influenza less frequently. The other side is whether you believe there are thousands of people on ventilators. As most will be 70yrs+ (and obese that die but that ICU consultant's statement was soon was removed by mainstream media) plus they won't survive anyway. I have rarely seen an 70-80 yr old ever get off a ventilator!! but then maybe I am out of date. Look at the media in a more critical manner. Yesterday on Radio 4 a transplant surgeon said he was worried transplants would have to cease because of lack of ITU beds. In the UK we run at 80% capacity in ITU, total beds 4000, free beds 800 Must be some still available then?? The FIELD HOSPITAL scenario, with visions of hundreds if not thousands on ventilators portrayed by the media (the term field hospital suggesting a 'war'). To have people on ventilators you need anaesthetic capability, highly qualified nursing staff in lung aspiration/ IV administration/blood gas analysis etc etc.
In reality what we are looking at (and very sensibly because in the previous flu pandemics I have witnessed and would have wanted this facility) is not in reality acutely ill persons cared for by unqualified medical staff but CONVALESCENCE wards. How do you get rid of what is known in the trade as "bed blockers". The people who can't care for themselves but are well enough to leave an acute treatment medical facility, particularly with lockdown, releatives not able to visit and a lack of social support (gone are the home helps, district nurses who can take time with the elderly and arrange their needs etc) The answer is CONVALESCENT HOMES NOT A 'FIELD HOSPITAL' but the propagandarist mainstream media do not present it as that. Just think, where do you discharge large number of dependent ill elderly to????
I leave you to ponder on this.

1. Where do the majority of Organ Donors come from?, and those that do donate must be virus free.
2. Unfortunately, many nursing homes have already lost a significant number of residents to the virus so there are probably more such places available than at anytime in the recent past.

 

[HB19]

Pondered....... dismissed

.. and again.

 

[docbob1]

Do you really think that organ donors will be tested for corona? Most are from road traffic accidents so clearly up and about. I guess with the roads empty our usual supply of 'donor cyclists" (those with a motor beneath them of course and I belong to this group) will dry up. The point is, that currently, there are ITU beds available for this surgery. With regards to testing what are we looking at? Not specific antibody tests but buccal smears.Look up the sensitivity (ability to detect positive) and specificity (ability to NOT diagnose false positives i.e. those who have not got the disease) Perhaps you would like to read the following on how to test for this virus, MERS is COVID 12, CoronaVirus Identification year 2012 and look how difficult/precise you need to be with sampling/testing!!
Now tell me amazon/ your local pharmacy/boots etc will get useful results!!!!!!!!


Interim Guidelines for Collecting, Handling, and Testing Clinical Specimens from Persons Under Investigation (PUIs) for Middle East Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus (MERS-CoV) – Version 2.1


Printer-friendly file pdf icon[4 pages]
Before collecting and handling specimens for Middle East Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus (MERS-CoV) testing, determine whether the person meets the current definition for a “person under investigation” (PUI) for MERS-CoV infection prepared by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). See case definitions.
Specimen Type and Priority
To date, we don’t fully understand the pathogenic potential and transmission dynamics of MERS-CoV. To increase the likelihood of detecting infection, CDC recommends collecting multiple specimens from different sites at different times after symptom onset, if possible.
Points to consider when determining which specimen types to collect from a person under investigation for MERS include:

• The number of days between specimen collection and symptom onset
• Symptoms at the time of specimen collection

Additional points to consider:

• Maintain proper infection control when collecting specimens
• Use approved collection methods and equipment when collecting specimens
• Handle, store, and ship specimens following appropriate protocols

Collection of all three specimen types (not just one or two of the three), lower respiratory, upper respiratory and serum specimens for testing using the CDC MERS rRT-PCR assay is recommended. Lower respiratory specimens are preferred, but collecting nasopharyngeal and oropharyngeal (NP/OP) specimens, and serum, are strongly recommended depending upon the length of time between symptom onset and specimen collection. Respiratory specimens should be collected as soon as possible after symptoms begin – ideally within 7 days. However, if more than a week has passed since symptom onset and the patient is still symptomatic, respiratory samples should still be collected, especially lower respiratory specimens since respiratory viruses can still be detected by rRT-PCR. For example,

1. if symptom onset for a PUI with respiratory symptoms was less than 14 days ago, a single serum specimen (see Section II. Serum), an NP/OP specimen and lower respiratory specimen (see Section I. Respiratory Specimens) should be collected for CDC MERS rRT-PCR testing.
2. if symptom onset for a PUI with an ongoing respiratory tract infection, especially lower, was 14 or more days ago, a single serum specimen for serologic testing (see Section II. Serum) in addition to a lower respiratory specimen and an NP/OP specimen (see Section I. Respiratory Specimens) are recommended.

General Guidelines
For short periods (≤ 72 hours), most specimens should be held at 2-8°C rather than frozen. For delays exceeding 72 hours, freeze specimens at -70°C as soon as possible after collection (with exceptions noted below). Label each specimen container with the patient’s ID number, specimen type and the date the sample was collected.
I. Respiratory Specimens
A. Lower respiratory tract
Broncheoalveolar lavage, tracheal aspirate, pleural fluid
Collect 2-3 mL into a sterile, leak-proof, screw-cap sputum collection cup or sterile dry container. Refrigerate specimen at 2-8°C up to 72 hours; if exceeding 72 hours, freeze at -70°C and ship on dry ice.
Sputum
Have the patient rinse the mouth with water and then expectorate deep cough sputum directly into a sterile, leak-proof, screw-cap sputum collection cup or sterile dry container. Refrigerate specimen at 2-8°C up to 72 hours; if exceeding 72 hours, freeze at -70°C and ship on dry ice.
B. Upper respiratory tract
Nasopharyngeal swab AND oropharyngeal swab (NP/OP swab)
Use only synthetic fiber swabs with plastic shafts. Do not use calcium alginate swabs or swabs with wooden shafts, as they may contain substances that inactivate some viruses and inhibit PCR testing. Place swabs immediately into sterile tubes containing 2-3 ml of viral transport media. NP/OP specimens can be combined, placing both swabs in the same vial. Refrigerate specimen at 2-8°C up to 72 hours; if exceeding 72 hours, freeze at -70°C and ship on dry ice.
Nasopharyngeal swab – Insert a swab into the nostril parallel to the palate. Leave the swab in place for a few seconds to absorb secretions. Swab both nasopharyngeal areas.
Oropharyngeal swab (e.g., throat swab) – Swab the posterior pharynx, avoiding the tongue.
Nasopharyngeal wash/aspirate or nasal aspirate
Collect 2-3 mL into a sterile, leak-proof, screw-cap sputum collection cup or sterile dry container. Refrigerate specimen at 2-8°C up to 72 hours; if exceeding 72 hours, freeze at -70°C and ship on dry ice.
II. Serum
Serum (for serologic testing)
For serum antibody testing: Because we do not want to delay detection of MERS infection and since the prevalence of MERS in the US is low, serologic testing on a single serum sample collected 14 or more days after symptom onset may be beneficial. This is in contrast to serologic testing for many other respiratory pathogens which require collection and testing of acute and convalescent serum specimens. Serologic testing is currently available at CDC upon request and approval. Please be aware that the MERS-CoV serologic test is for research/surveillance purposes and not for diagnostic purposes—it is a tool developed in response to the MERS-CoV outbreak. Contact CDC’s Emergency Operations Center (EOC) (770-488-7100) for consultation and approval if serologic testing is being considered.
Serum (for rRT-PCR testing)
For rRT-PCR testing (i.e., detection of the virus and not antibodies): A single serum specimen collected optimally during the first 10-12 days after symptom onset is recommended. Note: The kinetics of MERS-CoV are not well understood. Once additional data become available, these recommendations will be updated as needed.
Minimum serum volume needed: The minimum amount of serum required for MERS-CoV testing (either serologic or rRT-PCR) is 200 µL. If both MERS-CoV serology and rRT-PCR tests are planned, the minimum amount of serum required is 400 µL (200 µL for each test). Serum separator tubes should be stored upright for at least 30 minutes, and then centrifuged at 1000–1300 relative centrifugal force (RCF) for 10 minutes before removing the serum and placing it in a separate sterile tube for shipping (such as a cryovial). Refrigerate the serum specimen at 2-8°C and ship on ice-pack; freezing and shipment of serum on dry ice is permissible.
Children and adults: Collect 1 tube (5-10 mL) of whole blood in a serum separator tube.
Infant: A minimum of 1 mL of whole blood is needed for testing pediatric patients. If possible, collect 1 mL in a serum separator tube.


I am sure to receive more glib answers from the people who have no abilty to assimilate factual evidence but I will perservere until my contributions are blocked as many have been on social media (back to EVENT 201 and every letter followed except the poor countries totally reliant on tourism have been shafted and will pay the highest penalty

 

[Jay gas]

Do you really think that organ donors will be tested for corona? Most are from road traffic accidents so clearly up and about. I guess with the roads empty our usual supply of 'donor cyclists" (those with a motor beneath them of course and I belong to this group) will dry up. The point is, that currently, there are ITU beds available for this surgery. With regards to testing what are we looking at? Not specific antibody tests but buccal smears.Look up the sensitivity (ability to detect positive) and specificity (ability to NOT diagnose false positives i.e. those who have not got the disease) Perhaps you would like to read the following on how to test for this virus, MERS is COVID 12, CoronaVirus Identification year 2012 and look how difficult/precise you need to be with sampling/testing!!
Now tell me amazon/ your local pharmacy/boots etc will get useful results!!!!!!!!


Interim Guidelines for Collecting, Handling, and Testing Clinical Specimens from Persons Under Investigation (PUIs) for Middle East Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus (MERS-CoV) – Version 2.1
By engaging with your post I feel that I would be assisting you in

Printer-friendly file pdf icon[4 pages]
Before collecting and handling specimens for Middle East Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus (MERS-CoV) testing, determine whether the person meets the current definition for a “person under investigation” (PUI) for MERS-CoV infection prepared by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). See case definitions.
Specimen Type and Priority
To date, we don’t fully understand the pathogenic potential and transmission dynamics of MERS-CoV. To increase the likelihood of detecting infection, CDC recommends collecting multiple specimens from different sites at different times after symptom onset, if possible.
Points to consider when determining which specimen types to collect from a person under investigation for MERS include:

• The number of days between specimen collection and symptom onset
• Symptoms at the time of specimen collection

Additional points to consider:

• Maintain proper infection control when collecting specimens
• Use approved collection methods and equipment when collecting specimens
• Handle, store, and ship specimens following appropriate protocols

Collection of all three specimen types (not just one or two of the three), lower respiratory, upper respiratory and serum specimens for testing using the CDC MERS rRT-PCR assay is recommended. Lower respiratory specimens are preferred, but collecting nasopharyngeal and oropharyngeal (NP/OP) specimens, and serum, are strongly recommended depending upon the length of time between symptom onset and specimen collection. Respiratory specimens should be collected as soon as possible after symptoms begin – ideally within 7 days. However, if more than a week has passed since symptom onset and the patient is still symptomatic, respiratory samples should still be collected, especially lower respiratory specimens since respiratory viruses can still be detected by rRT-PCR. For example,

1. if symptom onset for a PUI with respiratory symptoms was less than 14 days ago, a single serum specimen (see Section II. Serum), an NP/OP specimen and lower respiratory specimen (see Section I. Respiratory Specimens) should be collected for CDC MERS rRT-PCR testing.
2. if symptom onset for a PUI with an ongoing respiratory tract infection, especially lower, was 14 or more days ago, a single serum specimen for serologic testing (see Section II. Serum) in addition to a lower respiratory specimen and an NP/OP specimen (see Section I. Respiratory Specimens) are recommended.

General Guidelines
For short periods (≤ 72 hours), most specimens should be held at 2-8°C rather than frozen. For delays exceeding 72 hours, freeze specimens at -70°C as soon as possible after collection (with exceptions noted below). Label each specimen container with the patient’s ID number, specimen type and the date the sample was collected.
I. Respiratory Specimens
A. Lower respiratory tract
Broncheoalveolar lavage, tracheal aspirate, pleural fluid
Collect 2-3 mL into a sterile, leak-proof, screw-cap sputum collection cup or sterile dry container. Refrigerate specimen at 2-8°C up to 72 hours; if exceeding 72 hours, freeze at -70°C and ship on dry ice.
Sputum
Have the patient rinse the mouth with water and then expectorate deep cough sputum directly into a sterile, leak-proof, screw-cap sputum collection cup or sterile dry container. Refrigerate specimen at 2-8°C up to 72 hours; if exceeding 72 hours, freeze at -70°C and ship on dry ice.
B. Upper respiratory tract
Nasopharyngeal swab AND oropharyngeal swab (NP/OP swab)
Use only synthetic fiber swabs with plastic shafts. Do not use calcium alginate swabs or swabs with wooden shafts, as they may contain substances that inactivate some viruses and inhibit PCR testing. Place swabs immediately into sterile tubes containing 2-3 ml of viral transport media. NP/OP specimens can be combined, placing both swabs in the same vial. Refrigerate specimen at 2-8°C up to 72 hours; if exceeding 72 hours, freeze at -70°C and ship on dry ice.
Nasopharyngeal swab – Insert a swab into the nostril parallel to the palate. Leave the swab in place for a few seconds to absorb secretions. Swab both nasopharyngeal areas.
Oropharyngeal swab (e.g., throat swab) – Swab the posterior pharynx, avoiding the tongue.
Nasopharyngeal wash/aspirate or nasal aspirate
Collect 2-3 mL into a sterile, leak-proof, screw-cap sputum collection cup or sterile dry container. Refrigerate specimen at 2-8°C up to 72 hours; if exceeding 72 hours, freeze at -70°C and ship on dry ice.
II. Serum
Serum (for serologic testing)
For serum antibody testing: Because we do not want to delay detection of MERS infection and since the prevalence of MERS in the US is low, serologic testing on a single serum sample collected 14 or more days after symptom onset may be beneficial. This is in contrast to serologic testing for many other respiratory pathogens which require collection and testing of acute and convalescent serum specimens. Serologic testing is currently available at CDC upon request and approval. Please be aware that the MERS-CoV serologic test is for research/surveillance purposes and not for diagnostic purposes—it is a tool developed in response to the MERS-CoV outbreak. Contact CDC’s Emergency Operations Center (EOC) (770-488-7100) for consultation and approval if serologic testing is being considered.
Serum (for rRT-PCR testing)
For rRT-PCR testing (i.e., detection of the virus and not antibodies): A single serum specimen collected optimally during the first 10-12 days after symptom onset is recommended. Note: The kinetics of MERS-CoV are not well understood. Once additional data become available, these recommendations will be updated as needed.
Minimum serum volume needed: The minimum amount of serum required for MERS-CoV testing (either serologic or rRT-PCR) is 200 µL. If both MERS-CoV serology and rRT-PCR tests are planned, the minimum amount of serum required is 400 µL (200 µL for each test). Serum separator tubes should be stored upright for at least 30 minutes, and then centrifuged at 1000–1300 relative centrifugal force (RCF) for 10 minutes before removing the serum and placing it in a separate sterile tube for shipping (such as a cryovial). Refrigerate the serum specimen at 2-8°C and ship on ice-pack; freezing and shipment of serum on dry ice is permissible.
Children and adults: Collect 1 tube (5-10 mL) of whole blood in a serum separator tube.
Infant: A minimum of 1 mL of whole blood is needed for testing pediatric patients. If possible, collect 1 mL in a serum separator tube.


I am sure to receive more glib answers from the people who have no abilty to assimilate factual evidence but I will perservere until my contributions are blocked as many have been on social media (back to EVENT 201 and every letter followed except the poor countries totally reliant on tourism have been shafted and will pay the highest penalty

 

[Jay gas]

Glib response is to say that was a waste of pixels

 

[docbob1]

What an amazing individual you are, in the space of one minute you read my entire blog, investigated alternatives and came up with an alternative theorum/counter arguments to disprove it!!!
What more can I say about you or have you done it yourself!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Jay gas]

What an amazing individual you are, in the space of one minute you read my entire bog, investigated alternatives and came up with an alternative theorum/counter arguments to disprove it!!!
What more can I say about you or have you done it yourself!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Your right I am an amazing individual and unfortunately it’s the only thing you have been right about on here this evening. And one minute is way to long to spend reading your bog as you put it

 

[Joker 1299]

I think what is needed here is a step back and look where we are going, the economic cost, and do we repeat this everytime a virus mutates (for coryza group, incl corona, very frequently mutate hence never a vaccine) and influenza less frequently. The other side is whether you believe there are thousands of people on ventilators. As most will be 70yrs+ (and obese that die but that ICU consultant's statement was soon was removed by mainstream media) plus they won't survive anyway. I have rarely seen an 70-80 yr old ever get off a ventilator!! but then maybe I am out of date. Look at the media in a more critical manner. Yesterday on Radio 4 a transplant surgeon said he was worried transplants would have to cease because of lack of ITU beds. In the UK we run at 80% capacity in ITU, total beds 4000, free beds 800 Must be some still available then?? The FIELD HOSPITAL scenario, with visions of hundreds if not thousands on ventilators portrayed by the media (the term field hospital suggesting a 'war'). To have people on ventilators you need anaesthetic capability, highly qualified nursing staff in lung aspiration/ IV administration/blood gas analysis etc etc.
In reality what we are looking at (and very sensibly because in the previous flu pandemics I have witnessed and would have wanted this facility) is not in reality acutely ill persons cared for by unqualified medical staff but CONVALESCENCE wards. How do you get rid of what is known in the trade as "bed blockers". The people who can't care for themselves but are well enough to leave an acute treatment medical facility, particularly with lockdown, releatives not able to visit and a lack of social support (gone are the home helps, district nurses who can take time with the elderly and arrange their needs etc) The answer is CONVALESCENT HOMES NOT A 'FIELD HOSPITAL' but the propagandarist mainstream media do not present it as that. Just think, where do you discharge large number of dependent ill elderly to????
I leave you to ponder on this.

Yawn

 

[Amarillo]

I think what is needed here is a step back and look where we are going, the economic cost, and do we repeat this everytime a virus mutates (for coryza group, incl corona, very frequently mutate hence never a vaccine) and influenza less frequently. The other side is whether you believe there are thousands of people on ventilators. As most will be 70yrs+ (and obese that die but that ICU consultant's statement was soon was removed by mainstream media) plus they won't survive anyway. I have rarely seen an 70-80 yr old ever get off a ventilator!! but then maybe I am out of date. Look at the media in a more critical manner. Yesterday on Radio 4 a transplant surgeon said he was worried transplants would have to cease because of lack of ITU beds. In the UK we run at 80% capacity in ITU, total beds 4000, free beds 800 Must be some still available then?? The FIELD HOSPITAL scenario, with visions of hundreds if not thousands on ventilators portrayed by the media (the term field hospital suggesting a 'war'). To have people on ventilators you need anaesthetic capability, highly qualified nursing staff in lung aspiration/ IV administration/blood gas analysis etc etc.
In reality what we are looking at (and very sensibly because in the previous flu pandemics I have witnessed and would have wanted this facility) is not in reality acutely ill persons cared for by unqualified medical staff but CONVALESCENCE wards. How do you get rid of what is known in the trade as "bed blockers". The people who can't care for themselves but are well enough to leave an acute treatment medical facility, particularly with lockdown, releatives not able to visit and a lack of social support (gone are the home helps, district nurses who can take time with the elderly and arrange their needs etc) The answer is CONVALESCENT HOMES NOT A 'FIELD HOSPITAL' but the propagandarist mainstream media do not present it as that. Just think, where do you discharge large number of dependent ill elderly to????
I leave you to ponder on this.

Yes, that is pretty much how I understand the London Nightingale hospital to be used. Following treatment at one of London's or the South East's main hospitals, patients will be transferred to the hospital to recover or die on a ventilator. The whole site area, including two Protected Public Routes (rights of way), one either side of the site, are closed to the public with double barriers at least 2m apart. No visitors will be permitted to see patients, hence the tight security. The front and rear gates each have double checkpoints. When I passed by with the boys on a cycle ride on 31 March we couldn't get within 100m of the building - and that was before it opened.



However, I do understand that other Nightingale Hospitals around the country are to be used in different ways.

 

[Velma's Dad]

What an amazing individual you are, in the space of one minute you read my entire blog, investigated alternatives and came up with an alternative theorum/counter arguments to disprove it!!!
What more can I say about you or have you done it yourself!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Bob, if you bombard the forum with lengthy, disjointed and largely incoherent torrents of 'facts' it's not surprising that people turn off.

With time on my hands, I've persevered just a little to try and discern the "theorum" you're trying to put forward. As far as can tell, it's something to do with some con trick that's being played on the population, with the aim of creating economic havoc. Is that it?

As for inviting us to disprove your argument (whatever it is), I'd just refer you to 'Russell's teapot' - the principle in logical reasoning that the burden of proof lies on the person making a theoretical claim, rather than falling to anyone else to have to provide a counter proof to it. (Bertrand Russell argued that if he proposed that a small teapot was circling the sun, it was his problem to prove it, not someone else's to disprove it).

 

[LemonDrop]

There's no doubt that financial hardship will be in spadefuls. I would say however that I've read in the media some lazy assertions that a drop in GDP leads to more deaths.

Maybe counter-intuitively, it seems this is not necessarily true. An increase in unemployment does usually cause more deaths, tragically, from certain causes, notably suicides and alcohol misuse. On the other hand it reduces likely deaths from some other causes, such as road accidents and, oddly, drug dependence. The net-net seems to be that mortality stays almost exactly the same when GDP drops significantly.

A major factor appears to be whether health services are maintained during a recession, and that's ultimately a political choice.

(For the avoidance of doubt I'm not saying that recession doesn't cause enormous hardship, of course it does.)

Just read this on the BBC:
Experts say they think there'll be a spike in all cause mortality - deaths for all different reasons not just Covid-19. This has been flagged as a potential problem in reviews of previous outbreak including the 2009 swine flu pandemic

"We know that in previous pandemics both overseas and in the UK when they've hit mortality from other conditions has gone up," Dr Marshall said adding: "In the flu crisis 10 years ago in the UK we saw a higher mortality rate for heart attacks and strokes." Part of this article (last section) https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-52239183

 

[Velma's Dad]

Just read this on the BBC:
Experts say they think there'll be a spike in all cause mortality - deaths for all different reasons not just Covid-19. This has been flagged as a potential problem in reviews of previous outbreak including the 2009 swine flu pandemic

"We know that in previous pandemics both overseas and in the UK when they've hit mortality from other conditions has gone up," Dr Marshall said adding: "In the flu crisis 10 years ago in the UK we saw a higher mortality rate for heart attacks and strokes." Part of this article (last section) https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-52239183

The article kind of implies (unless I'm reading too much into it) that the 'all causes' rise would be attributable to interruptions in medical treatment, including presumably where people have left off normal healthcare access during the lockdown?

That could of course be quite a big "cost" of the CV19 public health measures - you could call them the 'second order effects' - although in the swine flu outbreak there was no lockdown.

What I was referring to in my earlier post was the potential longer term, ('third order') impacts from the hit to the economy. But that's without taking account of any excess deaths due to long term reductions in NHS resourcing due to 'austerity' fiscal measures.

Not a straightforward calculus, for sure.

 

[LemonDrop]

The article kind of implies (unless I'm reading too much into it) that the 'all causes' rise would be attributable to interruptions in medical treatment, including presumably where people have left off normal healthcare access during the lockdown?

That could of course be quite a big "cost" of the CV19 public health measures - you could call them the 'second order effects' - although in the swine flu outbreak there was no lockdown.

What I was referring to in my earlier post was the potential longer term, ('third order') impacts from the hit to the economy. But that's without taking account of any excess deaths due to long term reductions in NHS resourcing due to 'austerity' fiscal measures.

Not a straightforward calculus, for sure.

Yes I understood it to mean the same. I'm not an expert in statistics or the economy or the complexities of the public healthcare system (although I have worked in the latter for the last 15 or so years, albeit in an administrative capacity). However from a "common-sense" perspective it seems unrealistic to me to think that the long-term effects of lockdown won't have an impact on future "avoidable" deaths. It would be amazing if the NHS was completely protected from the future austerity that is going to be caused by this but I doubt that will happen no matter which political party is in charge.

 

[Velma's Dad]

Yes I understood it to mean the same. I'm not an expert in statistics or the economy or the complexities of the public healthcare system (although I have worked in the latter for the last 15 or so years, albeit in an administrative capacity). However from a "common-sense" perspective it seems unrealistic to me to think that the long-term effects of lockdown won't have an impact on future "avoidable" deaths. It would be amazing if the NHS was completely protected from the future austerity that is going to be caused by this but I doubt that will happen no matter which political party is in charge.

One thing that has been occurring to me is that I wonder whether politicians and the electorate are going to start to question whether spending £35 billion a year on defence and only a tiny proportion of that on public health preparedness for a massively damaging epidemic (which was number one on the Cabinet Office risks register, even before CV19) is the right balance.

I'm not making a partisan point here but I do suspect the military and the defence industry will already be seeing the writing on the wall for the next spending review.

 

[Digger]

We need a defence as much as any other service. Times change but threats regretfully are always there. Do agree though that cutbacks are wrong and I for one would gladly pay even more tax if it went to the right departments.

 

[Amarillo]

We need a defence as much as any other service. Times change but threats regretfully are always there. Do agree though that cutbacks are wrong and I for one would gladly pay even more tax if it went to the right departments.

I agree. The aftermath of this pandemic is the perfect opportunity to level up some of the inequities that have crept into our society. Broadly speaking that means higher taxes and fewer tax breaks for the richer, and lower taxes and more tax breaks for the poorer.

 

[Whistler]

We need a defence as much as any other service. Times change but threats regretfully are always there. Do agree though that cutbacks are wrong and I for one would gladly pay even more tax if it went to the right departments.

And which ones are the "right" departments?

 

[LemonDrop]

Not sure if the military will be targeted for significant cuts. Padora's Box has long since been opened and what with Putin snooping around and the erratic unhingedness (is that a word?) of The Donald....

Is it too much to hope that HS2 could be ditched? Circa £100bn invested in the NHS and the existing rail network instead, how can that not be a good plan?

 

[Duxdeluxe]

Me, I’d like to see our so called nuclear deterrent scrapped, let’s face it, we will never use it
That would save a bob or two

 

[Moakesy]

Not sure if the military will be targeted for significant cuts. Padora's Box has long since been opened and what with Putin snooping around and the erratic unhingedness (is that a word?) of The Donald....

Is it too much to hope that HS2 could be ditched? Circa £100bn invested in the NHS and the existing rail network instead, how can that not be a good plan?

I’d certainly be up for scrapping HS2 and diverting funds to the NHS and existing rail. I’ve never understood how cutting a bit of time off a London to Manchester train will result in more jobs up North?

I also agree this may well lead to re-setting of priorities. There could well be some good to come from this outbreak...but not for a while yet.