ROG:
Franglais:
Mazzer2:
as ROG said we will just have to live with Covid while at the same time doing our best to keep infections to a minimum
Agreed. Keep taking precautions and keep infection low for everyone.
By continuing taking precautions we can hopefully avoid a hard lockdown.
Keeping it low will not prevent it from going where it wants to eventually is what the expert was saying so it seems it is not a matter of IF but WHEN it comes calling
Do we want it low for a long time or high for a shorter time ?
Earlier it has done its thing the earlier we can get back towards a normal - or have I missed something?
I think you are missing something.
It isnt a binary choice of total lockdown or let it run rampant. There are several vaccines in the pipeline. None are guaranteed, but it would be foolish to assume that none will be of any use at this stage. If we had been looking for decades for a vaccine with no results then maybe a more negative outlook would be appropriate, but that is not where we are. Holding the virus back will, hopefully, enable progress. It doesnt need to be a perfect silver bullet straight out of the box. A jab that helps reduce morbidity, and severity of other effects, even if it doesn`t eliminate the virus, is better than nothing.
Mazzer2:
When you speak of deaths and effects you only talk in terms of Covid, what about the terms and effects of other diseases that are now being ignored routine cancer screenings cancelled, operations cancelled a likely increase in mental health problems, you like your figures look at the figures for depression, suicide and general health after a recession and how long after a recession these effects are still being felt
All good points, but I did address an alternative scenario: if we let the virus rip then there will be a need for many more hospital beds than we have. The Nightingales are a good resource, but are not the answer to supplying current normal hospital demand.
Franglais:
{The infamous herd immunity comes in about 66%-ish for C19.
So in the UK pop 66million, 44m would be infected.
1% equals 440,000 deaths. Sound familiar enough? Mostly elderly and infirm, but everyone a human being.
Now, that would mean there were also 800,000 ICU beds and 4 to 6 million hospital beds used!
OK, all the cases would not happen on the same day, I`m NOT suggesting that!
This is why the lockdown was necessary to flatten and reduce the infection curve.
To gauge the bed usage, 2018/19 the UK had 141,000 beds including mental health, maternity etc, 5,900 critical care beds.
kingsfund.org.uk/publicatio … ed-numbers.
If the system were to become overloaded then treatment levels would fall and outcomes would fall resulting in more than the 1% fatalities.
Has this happened?
No. Because we have had a shutdown.}
We needed a lockdown before to protect the NHS. The NHS would likely collapse if covid takes off exponentially again.
Im not being melodramatic: dont you remember the state of the Italian hospitals, the state of the Drs and nurses in our own NHS, living away from their families, working long hard shifts?
Why do medical professionals wear proper masks and PPE? Most of them are younger fitter people. A few are older but mostly they look after themselves.
They KNOW and understand the risks. They wear PPE and keep social distance. (a few pictures wont break the general rule) They take the attitude that PPE is necessary. Ill listen to them, and follow their lead before “Karen off Facebook” or some silly innumerate journalist.
) it sounds like a bloody good way of dealing with them to me. 