Was Sweden right after all ?

[simon field]

No they aren’t. Patients are being moved after the infectious phase has passed.

That might be the official line Graham, but the reality is very different I’m afraid.

 

[fisicx]

That might be the official line Graham, but the reality is very different I’m afraid.

What is the alternative? Move staff and equipment from Norfolk to London to look after these patients?

There just aren't the resources in the London hospital to look after everybody.

 

[simon field]

What is the alternative? Move staff and equipment from Norfolk to London to look after these patients?

There just aren't the resources in the London hospital to look after everybody.

Hmmm.....yes, that’s a point. To be honest, I’ve no idea....

It’s just a shame that someone with a bit of foresight wasn’t able to preempt this entirely predictable scenario and do something like build some temporary hospitals or something - you know, in the areas of densest population, where they would be most likely to be needed.

They could’ve even used some of the money they’d saved from staffing cuts, and all the cuts to other public services. Sounds radical I know!

As the icing on the cake, they could’ve named these fictitious hospitals after a famous nurse or something, just to indicate sincerity?

Oh wait....

 

[fisicx]

It’s just a shame that someone with a bit of foresight wasn’t able to preempt this entirely predictable scenario and do something like build some temporary hospitals or something - you know, in the areas of densest population, where they would be most likely to be needed.

It's the staff they are short of. If all the spare capacity from Norfolk moved to London to help they could use the temporary hospitals.

 

[Interestedobserver]

NORFOLK? They are importing them from London to Newcastle!

Hang on a minute everybody

I thought London had gained herd immunity back in September?

We shouldn't have anybody with covid from London to send anywhere ?

 

[Justin Smith]

Hang on a minute everybody

I thought London had gained herd immunity back in September?

We shouldn't have anybody with covid from London to send anywhere ?

Nobody said London had herd immunity, they said it was approaching it. More accurately the numbers infected would mean a lower death rate than other areas.
Two points :

1 - Bearing in mind we are in the middle of "Flu season" the fact that deaths are not that much higher than they were in the late Spring early summer peak is a bit surprising. Something else must be at play, and it's not lockdowns which are not as well observed as they were in the first time. Many people are losing their fear, despite the government and the BBC's efforts to keep it whipped up.

2 - The UK's peak may be only slightly higher than the late spring early summer peak, but London's peak (despite the "new strain" being prevalent there) is still actually lower :
https://data.london.gov.uk/dataset/coronavirus--covid-19--deaths

 

[Justin Smith]

It's the staff they are short of. If all the spare capacity from Norfolk moved to London to help they could use the temporary hospitals.

I have been monitoring hospitalisations since the 14th Jan. They did not go up that much for 2 days and they have hardly moved at all for the last three :

https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/healthcare

Vaccinated :
14 Jan = 2,92M & 438K
15 Jan = 3,23M & 443K
16 Jan = 3.56M & 447K
17 Jan = 3.86M & 450K
18 Jan = 4.06M & 452K

Hospitalised :
14 Jan = 37.0K
15 Jan = 37.3K
16 Jan = 37.5K
17 Jan = 37.5K
18 Jan = 37.5K

On ventilation :
14 Jan = 3,6K
15 Jan = 3.7K
16 Jan = 3.8K
17 Jan = 3.8K
18 Jan = 3.8K

 

[simon field]

It's the staff they are short of. If all the spare capacity from Norfolk moved to London to help they could use the temporary hospitals.

Hmmm. And yet the local press are full of scary reports of hospitals struggling to cope after nearly a year and with billions of extra money. Perhaps it’s because of the extra visitors from Essex.

Seems a very strange thing to do, build hospitals if there’s nobody to work in them! I wonder why they did that. Seems rather wasteful at a time like this. I wonder who decided to do that? Was it the British prime minister Boris Johnson? Luckily he can only order the English around. At least the Welsh, Scottish and Irish are safe from him if these are the kinds of decisions he’s making!

I’ve been eating a scotch egg every day, as I know this will keep me safe from this nasty virus.

 

[simon field]

Direct from NHS England:


In a statement, it said: “The NHS Nightingale Hospital London is sufficiently staffed to safely care for new patients and those already admitted, using a combination of NHS staff redeployed from London’s hospitals alongside high-calibre staff from bank and agency partners. We are confident that staffing will not be a limiting factor in accepting any future referrals.”

Somebody isn’t being truthful...

 

[Justin Smith]

Direct from NHS England:


In a statement, it said: “The NHS Nightingale Hospital London is sufficiently staffed to safely care for new patients and those already admitted, using a combination of NHS staff redeployed from London’s hospitals alongside high-calibre staff from bank and agency partners. We are confident that staffing will not be a limiting factor in accepting any future referrals.”

Somebody isn’t being truthful...

On the subject of not being entirely truthful, see this post (in How long will these anti Covid measures be req ? There's a bit of a trend here.....)

 

[Mr D]

Direct from NHS England:


In a statement, it said: “The NHS Nightingale Hospital London is sufficiently staffed to safely care for new patients and those already admitted, using a combination of NHS staff redeployed from London’s hospitals alongside high-calibre staff from bank and agency partners. We are confident that staffing will not be a limiting factor in accepting any future referrals.”

Somebody isn’t being truthful...

So they are using staff from already overworked hospitals plus agency and bank staff that the hospitals would already access .....

In other words spread the existing staff thinner. Which is what several of us suggested they would do.

 

[Mr D]

Hmmm. And yet the local press are full of scary reports of hospitals struggling to cope after nearly a year and with billions of extra money. Perhaps it’s because of the extra visitors from Essex.

Seems a very strange thing to do, build hospitals if there’s nobody to work in them! I wonder why they did that. Seems rather wasteful at a time like this. I wonder who decided to do that? Was it the British prime minister Boris Johnson? Luckily he can only order the English around. At least the Welsh, Scottish and Irish are safe from him if these are the kinds of decisions he’s making!

I’ve been eating a scotch egg every day, as I know this will keep me safe from this nasty virus.

Yes, when needing extra beds strange that plans to create extra beds quickly in just a couple of weeks get utilised in order to provide that extra....?
Oh wait - far cheaper and easier than building a new hospital.

From what has been reported in some areas the nightingale hospitals have been used as covid free treatment facilities.

 

[simon field]

They dismantled the Excel one and then built it again!

 

[Mr D]

They dismantled the Excel one and then built it again!

Makes sense.
Would you pay Excel to rent an area for 8 months when you don't need to?
Or just rent the space when you want the equipment to be set up?

 

[Justin Smith]

Makes sense.
Would you pay Excel to rent an area for 8 months when you don't need to?
Or just rent the space when you want the equipment to be set up?

I thought they were getting it rent free, particularly when Excel can't actually rent it out for any other purposes anyway.....

 

[Mr D]

I thought they were getting it rent free, particularly when Excel can't actually rent it out for any other purposes anyway.....

Then what benefit to Excel from renting the one space it can rent - for free?????

 

[Interestedobserver]

Nobody said London had herd immunity, they said it was approaching it. More accurately the numbers infected would mean a lower death rate than other areas.

Once again you were talking nonsense though Justin. Hoping/dreaming for something to get us back to normal. Clinging to ideas from Karol Sikora and others like him that long since then they've had to admit they got wrong.

From the BBC News this morning:

"But we know that antibodies from natural infection can fade.

In London, about 16% of people had antibodies in December, up from 11% in October. But at the last peak in May, an estimated 15% of the population had antibodies. This proportion fell, as detectable antibodies recede with time."

So a month after you guys were suggesting London had herd immunity (back in September) we find only 11 per cent of Londoners had antibodies. Absolutely no different to anywhere else in UK in reality. And in fact the antibodies/potential immunity had dropped from where they were back in May!

Actually right now - the area of UK with the most potential immunity according to the report was Yorkshire where 17 per cent of the community had antibodies. More than in London.

But still absolutely nowhere near approaching herd immunity by any standards anywhere in the world. Another claim on here by the anti lockdown clan shown to have no basis of fact whatsoever. Just another pipedream in your own heads!

How many things do you lot have to get completely wrong before you get embarrassed and stop with your nonsense?

London never got even close to approaching herd immunity. Not even close. Hence why they have huge problems there now.

 

[Justin Smith]

Then what benefit to Excel from renting the one space it can rent - for free?????

It was public pressure at the time. They were originally going to charge them with a big discount, but then made it free. I don't know whether it still is free.

 

[Justin Smith]

Once again you were talking nonsense though Justin. Hoping/dreaming for something to get us back to normal. Clinging to ideas from Karol Sikora and others like him that long since then they've had to admit they got wrong.

From the BBC News this morning:

"But we know that antibodies from natural infection can fade.

In London, about 16% of people had antibodies in December, up from 11% in October. But at the last peak in May, an estimated 15% of the population had antibodies. This proportion fell, as detectable antibodies recede with time."

So a month after you guys were suggesting London had herd immunity (back in September) we find only 11 per cent of Londoners had antibodies. Absolutely no different to anywhere else in UK in reality. And in fact the antibodies/potential immunity had dropped from where they were back in May!

Actually right now - the area of UK with the most potential immunity according to the report was Yorkshire where 17 per cent of the community had antibodies. More than in London.

But still absolutely nowhere near approaching herd immunity by any standards anywhere in the world. Another claim on here by the anti lockdown clan shown to have no basis of fact whatsoever. Just another pipedream in your own heads!

How many things do you lot have to get completely wrong before you get embarrassed and stop with your nonsense?

London never got even close to approaching herd immunity. Not even close. Hence why they have huge problems there now.

If you look at the death rate graphs London is still significantly lower (relative to its peak in April) then the rest of the UK : FACT

Death rates for the three US states (large states) with the highest exposure to Covid v the three with the lowest. Your argument, I assume, is that is pure chance..... :

 

[jpjj]

If you look at the death rate graphs London is still significantly lower (relative to its peak in April) then the rest of the UK : FACT

Death rates for the three US states (large states) with the highest exposure to Covid v the three with the lowest. Your argument, I assume, is that is pure chance..... :

The key question would seem to be whether any reduction in infections that is due to previous exposure is sufficient to allow relaxation of control measures without things running out of control again and requiring control measures to be reintroduced.

 

[Mr D]

If you look at the death rate graphs London is still significantly lower (relative to its peak in April) then the rest of the UK : FACT

Death rates for the three US states (large states) with the highest exposure to Covid v the three with the lowest. Your argument, I assume, is that is pure chance..... :

Would fully expect a virus that medical staff learn more about fighting will have lower death rate now for a given level of hospitalisation.
New drugs, new treatment methods - heck they even found that there were different strategies than sticking someone on a ventilator.
And of course better education - people going to hospital earlier in the process gives better chance to be treated.

Deaths of course free up hospital beds. Its the non-deaths that take them up for days, weeks even months at a time.
Possibly even years (eventually) though I expect that to be pretty rare.

 

[Mr D]

The key question would seem to be whether any reduction in infections that is due to previous exposure is sufficient to allow relaxation of control measures without things running out of control again and requiring control measures to be reintroduced.

Agreed.

Better for businesses to know we won't have to go through this again. Rather than every 3 weeks impose 6 weeks of lockdown / level increases in areas.
A 3 month lockdown once and not again is - to me - better for planning than 5 months of lockdowns of various types spread over the winter, spring and summer.

 

[Lucan Unlordly]

"But we know that antibodies from natural infection can fade.

In London, about 16% of people had antibodies in December, up from 11% in October. But at the last peak in May, an estimated 15% of the population had antibodies. This proportion fell, as detectable antibodies recede with time."

A couple of months back I was sent a link to a video interview with an extremely experienced and knowledgeable expert who said something along the lines of 'the human body does not store antibodies for a very good reason'. 'Creating antibodies for every disease it came into contact with, forever, would be a waste of resources.' 'What it does instead is memorise the attacker and react quickly to produce antibodies if needed'.

This he said was common knowledge and he had no answers as to why his colleagues in the scientific/medical community were putting out the low antibodies message.

 

[Mr D]

A couple of months back I was sent a link to a video interview with an extremely experienced and knowledgeable expert who said something along the lines of 'the human body does not store antibodies for a very good reason'. 'Creating antibodies for every disease it came into contact with, forever, would be a waste of resources.' 'What it does instead is memorise the attacker and react quickly to produce antibodies if needed'.

This he said was common knowledge and he had no answers as to why his colleagues in the scientific/medical community were putting out the low antibodies message.

Perhaps because people without antibodies take time to produce them - and are ill in the meantime.
Spreading the virus, not well - but to them its not a serious problem.
To those they come in contact with .....?

 

[Lucan Unlordly]

Perhaps because people without antibodies take time to produce them - and are ill in the meantime.
Spreading the virus, not well - but to them its not a serious problem.
To those they come in contact with .....?

I'm confused? My post had nothing to do with spreading the virus, nor people without antibodies?

I was drawing attention to the view that those who had been infected were shown to have a diminishing number of antibodies, that this - at least in one particular experts view - is quite normal.

Maybe I should have included the line before the section I quoted....
'"But we know that antibodies from natural infection can fade.'

 

[Mr D]

I'm confused? My post had nothing to do with spreading the virus, nor people without antibodies?

I was drawing attention to the view that those who had been infected were shown to have a diminishing number of antibodies, that this - at least in one particular experts view - is quite normal.

Maybe I should have included the line before the section I quoted....
'"But we know that antibodies from natural infection can fade.'

And I was responding to what you posted.

Sorry you are confused.

 

[Lucan Unlordly]

Spreading the virus, not well - but to them its not a serious problem.
To those they come in contact with .....?

What has this to do with my post?

 

[Mr D]

What has this to do with my post?

None so blind as those who won't see.

You have no antibodies. You have the virus enter your body.
What happens then?

Some build antibodies quickly enough they don't notice anything happening - on a grand scale nothing is affecting them.
Those who don't build antibodies so quick... a bit sick maybe but not usually killed - a few exceptions when body goes into overdrive regarding illness.

Now - can those who have the virus and have some antibodies spread the virus at all?
Remember, no matter what happens, here you won't get 100% of the population vaccinated.

 

[Lucan Unlordly]

None so blind as those who won't see.

You have no antibodies. You have the virus enter your body.
What happens then?

Some build antibodies quickly enough they don't notice anything happening - on a grand scale nothing is affecting them.
Those who don't build antibodies so quick... a bit sick maybe but not usually killed - a few exceptions when body goes into overdrive regarding illness.

Now - can those who have the virus and have some antibodies spread the virus at all?
Remember, no matter what happens, here you won't get 100% of the population vaccinated.

LOL. I wrote nothing about the virus, about building antibodies, sickness, death, percentage of population vaccinated etc., You've introduced all sorts of angles for reasons unknown!!

Go back and read my first post again which simply referenced a scientists opinion that the body may not retain a high level of antibodies. T-cell immunity and the bodies memory is a different thing altogether, but counting antibody levels is, in the opinion of the scientist, a poor way of assessing immunity.

 

[Mr D]

LOL. I wrote nothing about the virus, about building antibodies, sickness, death, percentage of population vaccinated etc., You've introduced all sorts of angles for reasons unknown!!

Go back and read my first post again which simply referenced a scientists opinion that the body may not retain a high level of antibodies. T-cell immunity and the bodies memory is a different thing altogether, but counting antibody levels is, in the opinion of the scientist, a poor way of assessing immunity.

Let's see what you put.

A couple of months back I was sent a link to a video interview with an extremely experienced and knowledgeable expert who said something along the lines of 'the human body does not store antibodies for a very good reason'. 'Creating antibodies for every disease it came into contact with, forever, would be a waste of resources.' 'What it does instead is memorise the attacker and react quickly to produce antibodies if needed'.

This he said was common knowledge and he had no answers as to why his colleagues in the scientific/medical community were putting out the low antibodies message.

Which is what I was responding to.
Please try and keep up with the conversation.

 

[Lucan Unlordly]

Let's see what you put.




Which is what I was responding to.
Please try and keep up with the conversation.

Apology accepted, thankyou.

 

[Mr D]

Apology accepted, thankyou.

Someone gave you an apology? Cool.

 

[Justin Smith]

I can remember at the start of this pandemic the WHO saying the most important weapon in a government's arsenal [against Covid] is trust [as in the people trusting it], and they are undoubtedly right.
Now, I don't know whether this new "Kent" variant is more deadly than the previous one or not. But, unfortunately, I do not fully trust the government after their repeated attempts to keep the fear factor up ("to encourage compliance"). I do not think they lie, I just think they present distorted information.
Why do I think that ?
Well :

1 - "This virus is indiscriminate" (it quite plainly is not)

2 - "Long Covid" (it affects between in 1 in 50 and 1 in 60 and is defined as any symptom however mild still l being experienced 3 months after infection, then they surreptitiously changed the definition to after 2 months so as to increase the numbers . More than once I have had viral infections which I still haven't fully shaken off after a couple of months, it is common)

3 - Government advert "that person in the park is highly likely to have Covid" (the actual chance is about 1 in 40 to 1 in 50)

4 - The BBC [not the government, but they're all singing from the same hymn sheet at the moment] constantly report about young people in hospital when most of those dying in hospital are older. Even worse the Beeb having as their lead item of news a man telling the heart rending tale of watching his wife die of Covid (it is very sad and many people are dying, but that "story" is arguably not even news, it certainly should not be lead item on the BBC News website, unless they are pushing the "fear" agenda, particularly to younger people).

I am not a conspiracy theorist, people are dying, we should be locked down for a few weeks till the top 15 million are vaccinated, but the above mentioned points are all demonstrably misleading or tendentious.

 

[Aniela]

"This virus is indiscriminate" (it quite plainly is not)

You will not quit with that stupid statement will you?

COVID will spread to anyone, of any age. It can kill anyone, of any age. The virus is 100% indiscriminate.

(It mainly being older people dying of it, has got nothing to with it not being indiscriminate. That's just basic science. )

Until you can understand that extremely simply statement, no-one is going to pay attention to anything else you say.

It's like telling people the Sky is yellow. It's not even up for debate. It's a literal fact.

 

[Interestedobserver]

Latest figures

The old variant killed 1 in 100 of the 60 years olds who caught covid

I don't like those odds

The new UK variant is killing 1 in 76 of 60 years old who catch it

That's really not good at all

And that's despite improvements in the way we treat covid

The new variant is now proving to be more deadly than the old one

 

[Mr D]

Latest figures

The old variant killed 1 in 100 of the 60 years olds who caught covid

I don't like those odds

The new UK variant is killing 1 in 76 of 60 years old who catch it

That's really not good at all

And that's despite improvements in the way we treat covid

The new variant is now proving to be more deadly than the old one

Yes, I caught that. Makes for good headlines.
Be interesting to see how the media present it tomorrow - its quite an increase percentage wise while overall being only slight increase.
The tone they usually take with other major problems like cancer, stroke etc is tout it as 'increasing risk by 30%' while the story goes on about slight increase in numbers - perhaps they won't cry out that way this time.

 

[Mr D]

I can remember at the start of this pandemic the WHO saying the most important weapon in a government's arsenal [against Covid] is trust [as in the people trusting it], and they are undoubtedly right.
Now, I don't know whether this new "Kent" variant is more deadly than the previous one or not. But, unfortunately, I do not fully trust the government after their repeated attempts to keep the fear factor up ("to encourage compliance"). I do not think they lie, I just think they present distorted information.
Why do I think that ?
Well :

1 - "This virus is indiscriminate" (it quite plainly is not)

2 - "Long Covid" (it affects between in 1 in 50 and 1 in 60 and is defined as any symptom however mild still l being experienced 3 months after infection, then they surreptitiously changed the definition to after 2 months so as to increase the numbers . More than once I have had viral infections which I still haven't fully shaken off after a couple of months, it is common)

3 - Government advert "that person in the park is highly likely to have Covid" (the actual chance is about 1 in 40 to 1 in 50)

4 - The BBC [not the government, but they're all singing from the same hymn sheet at the moment] constantly report about young people in hospital when most of those dying in hospital are older. Even worse the Beeb having as their lead item of news a man telling the heart rending tale of watching his wife die of Covid (it is very sad and many people are dying, but that "story" is arguably not even news, it certainly should not be lead item on the BBC News website, unless they are pushing the "fear" agenda, particularly to younger people).

I am not a conspiracy theorist, people are dying, we should be locked down for a few weeks till the top 15 million are vaccinated, but the above mentioned points are all demonstrably misleading or tendentious.

1 - anyone can get it. Tends to be higher risk of death for old people, males, those in certain jobs, non whites etc - but pretty much anyone can get it. Viral load may play a part in that.

2 - depends on what figures you use, the one of 1 in 10 has also been bandied about. Changing the timescale doesn't make much difference, those recovering between 2 and 3 months get taken out the picture. Still having a problem 2 months later is going to be a problem for those people anyway.

3 - you'd seriously expect many of those feeling ill to be at home rather than in the park. So figures you see out may have it and be unaware.

4 - The 'human touch' stories are common in media, people relate better to them than to 'another 1400 dead today from this virus' - reports from medical staff suggest a mix of people, including young people.
The data Statistics » COVID-19 Hospital Activity (england.nhs.uk) gives details of age. Is this trustworthy data? Figure that out. As trustworthy as the data you have been using?
Or all data false? Which is itself possible.

The top 15 million getting vaccinated should cut deaths from covid. But its not the reason we locked down. They can still get ill, they can still die. And the rest of us can spread the virus really quickly when we are left to do what we want - look at mid March!
Take off lockdown now and you'll lose the NHS by spring. Sorry you have a road accident and blood spurting out of your leg from a cut artery? Find someone to deal with it locally, your hospital is shut.
Deaths would then - go up. From other problems.

 

[Justin Smith]

You will not quit with that stupid statement will you?

COVID will spread to anyone, of any age. It can kill anyone, of any age. The virus is 100% indiscriminate.

(It mainly being older people dying of it, has got nothing to with it not being indiscriminate. That's just basic science. )

Until you can understand that extremely simply statement, no-one is going to pay attention to anything else you say.

It's like telling people the Sky is yellow. It's not even up for debate. It's a literal fact.

I am no longer engaging with you on this subject.

 

[Justin Smith]

TalkRadio just reported that 25% of people being admitted to hospital are under 55.
Now some people will say : There ! It's not just older people ! We must keep up restrictions until everyone is vaccinated ! !

TBH I am amazed it's only 25% :

1 - Far more people under 55 will have been exposed to Covid than older people, particularly over 65s (many of whom are retired), that's just obvious.

2 - Many more under 55s have to go out to work.

3 - Far fewer under 55s will be self isolating. Furthermore it's just human nature that people at less risk will be less careful about social distancing etc, and older people will be more careful.

4 - That 25% figure will include those with serious existing health conditions, they are higher up in the vaccine pecking order.

5 - Hardly anyone under 55s will have had the vaccine

6 - Under 55s constitute about 70% of the UK population

So, bearing all the above in mind, if only 25% of those admitted to hospital are under 55 I am amazed it's that low.

 

[fisicx]

Furthermore it's just human nature that people at less risk will be less careful about social distancing etc, and older people will be more careful.

Indeed. But just because they are less likely to become ill doesn't mean that can't pass it on to others. The reason we wear masks and socially distance to to stop us infecting others not to stop us getting infected.

As an aside, my children live in Germany. The police are out in force. You can use public transport without good reason. You can't travel more than 15km. Car parks are all closed. And they have run out of vaccines!

And I'm working with a client in Sweden and he says they are really struggling now with the virus. The government does have to tell people to stay at home - they are doing so because they understand how important it is.

All the indications are nothing much is going to change here until Easter.