|Martin Kyte||02/06/2020 11:44:28|
1903 forum posts
You are reading more into this than is there. The UK never got close to running out of ventilated beds. Treatment is allways based on assessments. Treatments of all kinds are terminated when further treatment will do no good. Either because the life cannot be saved by it or because the patient is dying of something else.
You speak of care homes. In many care homes and nursing homes people are at end of life many with late stage altzheimers. What are you saving them for? Decisions to admit are made by clinicians.
|Steve Skelton 1||02/06/2020 11:48:26|
|77 forum posts|
Sorry to disagree again, but the ability to test for a speculative one-off (but may repeat again) pandemic is not what I would consider to be a part of the NHS which struggles to fund the day-to-day operation of a national health operation.
Without wishing to start a political debate, the cost of preparing for a pandemic that could never be forecast with any probability is part of the management of the country. Disaster planning on this scale should be separately funded and not part of the NHS. If, however the NHS has been asked to provide this service and funded appropriately then I would agree with you. I believe the health service has been doing the best with what it had.
I would repeat again that I believe the death/cases ratio is not something we should be measuring based on the flawed data we have available and is certainly not a reflection on the effectiveness of the UK health service
1376 forum posts
It seems like you didn't read the first line of my previous post or you don't believe me.
Yes, I know that's the story we've been fed, but you have no proof, just assertions as you certainly have no idea how many people have been infected. I'm saying it doesn't stand up to scrutiny and so should be taken with a pinch of salt - you know, like all the officials that have been found doing so all along.
|Kiwi Bloke||02/06/2020 12:11:28|
|443 forum posts|
I broadly agree with Martin Kyte's posts. Here is some more confounding stuff.
Arguments about the efficacy or wisdom of lockdown are, at present, not likely to be rational. The data simply isn't there yet. Comparison between countries is also unhelpful, because of the wildly different counting strategies used, and the amount of testing, to name just two problems.
When a novel infective disease appears to be spreading, it is naturally the worst cases that get identified. Those infected, but who just have a sniffle, will be overlooked. Therefore, it is a natural tendency to think that the disease is more dangerous than it will turn out to be. I think this is called 'ascertainment bias'. It was this that made the death rate seem scarily high at first, in some locations.
Pehaps governments were alerted to Bill Gates' TED talk of 2005, in which he pointed out that the world was completely unprepared for the next pandemic. SARS and 'bird flu' had been scares. This lack of preparation, and the human desire to 'do something' might partly explain governments' apparent panic over-reaction, although some countries chose to wait and see what would happen.
Three public health priorities are pretty obvious: 1, protect the population as a whole; 2, protect the individuals; 3, protect the health service from being swamped. Essentially, 1 involves the isolation of infective people, 2 involves people staying away from infective people, and 3 involves slowing down the rate of spread of the disease. Lockdown and quarantine clearly attack 1 and allows 2 and will help with 3, but it isn't as simple as that.
It has become clear that this disease is tricky because it is very easily transmitted and perhaps the majority of people who become infected have no, or minimal symptoms. Unfortunately, infected people appear to be most infective a few days before symptoms develop. Naturally, asymptomatic people don't seek medical help, and generally won't get tested, unless a screening programme is in operation. Therefore, if they are allowed to, they will, unknowingly, infect other people, and may be the major vector. Ill people typically don't stagger around infecting others, but take to their beds. So it is clear that aggressive testing is of little use, unless the population is locked down.
Relying only on the isolation or quarantining of infected people after they become symptomatic therefore removes only a proportion of the spreaders from the vulnerable population. Therefore, lockdown is, perhaps somewhat accidentally, a very good idea. It is a specious argument that lockdown is pointless because it's too late (it should have been sooner and more aggressive in UK and elsewhere) - everything helps.
Infectious disease epidemics have a tendency to fizzle out, apparently even without sophisticated medical or social intervention. The development of herd immunity (and the assumption that there is a high proportion of asymptomatic infected people) is a component of this fizzling out, but there are other mechanisms. Natural selection favours less lethal strains of infective agents, and many viral epidemics seem to have followed this, with the population of viruses becoming less dangerous with time. At present, it is not clear whether herd immunity is, or will develop for this virus. It's not safe to rely on it. We will see what happens in Sweden...
If transmission continues, because isolation of, or avoidance of spreaders isn't successful, the proportion of the population which becomes infected may reach the level it would have done without any social limitation measures. This is not a reason to abandon lockdown, etc., because it ignores the possible explosion of severe cases leading to health care overload.
There's more - much more - of course, and one thing's sure - it ain't simple. Governments had to make tough decisions when the hard science was deficient. Epidemiologists are taught that they should be very cautious about making predictions, however 'good' their mathematical models appear to be. In retrospect, many decisions will prove to have been poor, but we may be very grateful for others. In cases of life or death, it seems to me to be better to err on the side of caution.
UK's figures are distorted because the prevelance of the disease isn't known, partly because testing has been so limited. Death certification mechanics have been changed, and it seems that deaths are frequently registered as being because of Covid-19 when, in fact, there is only a suspicion. I may be wrong, but I believe that a large number of people have been registered as dying from Covid-19 without having been tested.This seems to be common in residential homes. So the number of deaths is inflated, and the number of cases is too low, so the 'death rate' in UK appears artificially high. It isn't surprising that the disease has spread rapidly in UK - people are so highly 'connected' and there have been many persisting infection 'hot spots', eg the tube continuing to operate makes a mockery of lockdown.
|Martin Kyte||02/06/2020 12:22:28|
1903 forum posts
You mean the bit where you say you do understand the lockdown but then go on to show you don't.
You openly admit you don't believe anything you have been told (and I assume that means anyone on here as well) So you are either omniscient or you just make up your own reality.
1659 forum posts
I was going to post this link in the current macro thread but I didn't want to regurgitate this conversation in that thread. So ....
1376 forum posts
Martin Kyte Said:
"The number of actual deaths stands at 40,000 whic would give you 4,000000 infections or around 6% of the population which is in line with the antibody surveys currently being carried out.
Thus the effectiveness of the lockdown is seenby dividing the actual deaths with lockdown by the estimated deaths without lockdown which woud be 40,000/666,000 = 0.0006 or 0.6%.
Put it another way because of the lockdown, so far we have had 0.6% of the deaths we could have had if we had carried on as normal which is a pretty good argument for doing as we did."
So if 40,000 deaths equals 0.6% of the official estimate then that estimate must have been 6,666,666 deaths because 100/0.6 = 166.666... Therefore 40,000 * 166.66 = 6,666,666 predicted deaths in the UK alone. At the moment there aren't even that many confirmed cases worldwide and with only 371,000 deaths worldwide.
Your argument implies 6,666,666 - 40,000 = 6,626,666 lives saved in the UK because of lock down restrictions, which would be phenominal if true, but this estimate is a guess and if it's the best guess of Prof Neil Ferguson then don't expect it to be anywhere near reality. His guesses are so inaccurate even he doesn't heed them, hence his departure from the scene.
I admit I don't know how 6,666.666 people were predicted to die in the UK if the population wasn't locked up for more than ten weeks. Maybe I don't understand the theory of lockdown.
|Neil Wyatt||02/06/2020 18:08:13|
17970 forum posts
I agree to the extent that the UK's lockdown has clearly been less effective than those implemented by most otehr countries.
Many other countries locked down earlier and implemented tracking and tracing sooner.
As has been said elsewhere, it's not about blame it's about learning from others.
|Martin Kyte||02/06/2020 18:08:22|
1903 forum posts
I don't think anyone predicted that because no-one was planning to allow the virus to run riot. All I did was a worst case sum of everyone being infected with a death rate of 1%. All it does is give you an upper limit to how many coud die. It will clearly be less than that provided there is some kind of immunity generated by having had the virus and no doubt if the infections really took hold people would isolate themselves of their own volition.
Fires rage untill they run out of fuel, lockdown deprives the outbreak of fuel (us) and damps the fire down. Rates of infection vary with population density which is why urban areas fare worse than rural. Simply less contacts, less likelyhood of catching anything.
I hope you are getting a better understanding, it does help to talk things out. I don't neccessarily take everything at face value but it's a good place to start and then ditch anything that doesn't fit with all the other bits of data you pick up.
As to the claim that there is no evidence that the lockdown has had a benifit just look at the graphs. We have gone from an exponential increase to an exponential decline.
Edited By Martin Kyte on 02/06/2020 18:11:58
|not done it yet||02/06/2020 18:09:37|
|4748 forum posts|
Your argument implies 6,666,666 - 40,000 = 6,626,666 lives saved in the UK because of lock down restrictions, which would be phenominal if true,
B hell! I didn’t realise we we likely to lose 10% of the population. Who came up with that figure?
|Neil Wyatt||02/06/2020 18:10:45|
17970 forum posts
An extra zero in there... 40,000 is 6% of 666,000.
|Neil Wyatt||02/06/2020 18:17:53|
17970 forum posts
Cripes there is some dodgy maths on this thread...
|Martin Kyte||02/06/2020 18:22:46|
1903 forum posts
|Martin Kyte||02/06/2020 18:29:25|
1903 forum posts
Actually I think what I calculated was 1- (Max deaths-Actual deaths)/Max deaths which does give 0.6%
not entirely sure why at the moment.
Edited By Martin Kyte on 02/06/2020 18:37:26
|Martin Kyte||02/06/2020 18:58:09|
1903 forum posts
So effectiveness would be 1-(actual /max) which would suggest a maximum of 94% effective.
I really should not try and do two things at the same time. I've been designing a cct board mostly.
|mark costello 1||02/06/2020 19:14:41|
593 forum posts
The problem is it feels like Someone is lying to Us. We just cannot tell Who it is. Over here several People in the Medical field have reported (on the Internet ) that the Government (USA) has increased funding to Hospitals reporting deaths due to the Virus, there by making a financial benefit to increasing the numbers. What's the truth?
|Danny M2Z||12/06/2020 10:10:41|
871 forum posts
Not a popular topic but the dreaded pox is still here so here is some news from the Pacific.
Kiwis are doing well and we had a footy game in Oz. **LINK**
Best wishes to all the forum members so please stay safe and well.
* Danny M *
|Nathan Sharpe||09/07/2020 20:48:15|
|149 forum posts|
Hi all, I have no idea where I posted first of all but must update those members who responded.. I have had a face to face with a Body movement specialist, no problems as far as he is aware. I also had a telephone consultation with a neurologist , he seems to leaning towards Cerebellar Ataxia. Do any of you suffer from or have a partner/spouse suffering from same? Can you advise on Medication etc?
Moderators, put this where it belongs please.
|Ian P||09/07/2020 22:27:04|
2407 forum posts
I dont think anyone here can tell you where you posted first, but it does not look as if it was on this forum.
Also not the optimum forum for medical discussions.
|pgk pgk||09/07/2020 22:37:52|
|1851 forum posts|
I think it was further back in this thread and lost amongst the assorted side-chatter.
People stuff isn't my field but I did once see a kitten born with cerebellar hypoplasia..the cerebellum having to do with co-ordination and damage leading to an 'intention tremor' - as in shakiness at the initiation of an action and needing to learn how to pause at initiation before doing it...
Please login to post a reply.
Want the latest issue of Model Engineer or Model Engineers' Workshop? Use our magazine locator links to find your nearest stockist!
You can contact us by phone, mail or email about the magazines including becoming a contributor, submitting reader's letters or making queries about articles. You can also get in touch about this website, advertising or other general issues.
Click THIS LINK for full contact details.
For subscription issues please see THIS LINK.