Coronavirus

[brb]

If it's a young healthy person crippled by the virus as opposed to a 80 year old that's had a heart attack, they'll save young person. Harsh decisions, but as you say, can't pull intensive care beds out of a hat.

Where did you get the idea from that an 80 year old will be allowed to die so a young person can have their bed? I'm not having a go btw, I'm just not understanding what you are trying to say.

 

[brb]

Zebedee ... happy to help

[HASHTAG]#Magic[/HASHTAG]

Unusual but you actually made me laugh for a change

 

[Joelinton's Right Foot]

Where did you get the idea from that an 80 year old will be allowed to die so a young person can have their bed? I'm not having a go btw, I'm just not understanding what you are trying to say.

That is the choices they are already having to take in Italy. I watched an interview with an Italian doctor virtually in tears as he described the situation.

 

[Star of David Bardsley]

Where did you get the idea from that an 80 year old will be allowed to die so a young person can have their bed? I'm not having a go btw, I'm just not understanding what you are trying to say.

There is a code of some description that doctors follow, ethically, in such situations. In Italy they’ve had to choose who to save and who not to based on age, general health etc. First come first served goes out the window.

Also, on average, an older/higher risk person requires more resource to be saved. It might be a case of killing one to save two rather than simply choosing between an old and a young person.

 

[brb]

That is the choices they are already having to take in Italy. I watched an interview with an Italian doctor virtually in tears as he described the situation.

That wasn't my understanding of the choices, based on age.

 

[Blyth_bucaneer]

Where did you get the idea from that an 80 year old will be allowed to die so a young person can have their bed? I'm not having a go btw, I'm just not understanding what you are trying to say.

As I said, somebody will be making these decisions. It's an unprecedented time. Very harsh, but someone with a life of years ahead, will take priority over someone with only a few years left. That is the harsh reality at present.

 

[brb]

There is a code of some description that doctors follow, ethically, in such situations. In Italy they’ve had to choose who to save and who not to based on age, general health etc. First come first served goes out the window.

Also, on average, an older/higher risk person requires more resource to be saved. It might be a case of killing one to save two rather than simply choosing between an old and a young person.

Fair points, but I've never known a doctors code based on age.

 

[Joelinton's Right Foot]

That wasn't my understanding of the choices, based on age.

You're right. It isn't just age. I think they are choosing on best use of resources and best possible outcome. I think in the first instance it will be the difference between helping somebody die comfortably or saving another life. He did say though that they were now having to choose who lives, but he didn't say what criteria they were using.

 

[Hoddle is a god]

...every bit of medical and scientific expertise being shared tells us this will be thousands and thousands of deaths if we do nothing.

Why do people keep using this argument when faced with actual facts?

It was never going to be the case that we would “do nothing.” It isn’t about what’s being done, it’s about the way it’s being done.

When 50,100 people died (pointlessly and needlessly) between November 2017 and March 2018, where were you with your sanctimonious panic and patronising and condescending words, then?

 

[brb]

As I said, somebody will be making these decisions. It's an unprecedented time. Very harsh, but someone with a life of years ahead, will take priority over someone with only a few years left. That is the harsh reality at present.

I very much doubt that age is the only criteria. I'm not quite sure who's feeding you this stuff. Let alone your sentence is factually inaccurate, no one knows if 'someone' has years of life ahead of them, nor do they know if someone in general speak 'only has a few years left.'

 

[brb]

You're right. It isn't just age. I think they are choosing on best use of resources and best possible outcome. I think in the first instance it will be the difference between helping somebody die comfortably or saving another life. He did say though that they were now having to choose who lives, but he didn't say what criteria they were using.

That makes more sense than what bucaneer was suggesting.

 

[brb]

Discussions on the news now of the young being complacent, and are taking up beds, putting strain on the system.

 

[Archers Road]

I still remember the days posties were up at the crack of dawn with the milk delivery, these days i don't see postie until mid morning and mikman are a thing of the past.

There's still a dairy in Enfield that does milk rounds in the local area, or there was about 5 years ago, as I was offered an interview for a job with them (but didn't go as something else turned up).

Posties still start early mate, but they spend the first half of their working day in the Sorting Office. And their walks are designed to take 3.5 hours, with a trolley and extra drop offs to pick up and deliver as they go round.

In my day we ran round, jumping over walls, dodging dogs, crashing through hedges. Then back to the sorting office to collect the 2nd delivery and get home indoors by midday. Not like that now, and I don't call the new methods progress myself.

 

[afcftw]

I very much doubt that age is the only criteria. I'm not quite sure who's feeding you this stuff. Let alone your sentence is factually inaccurate, no one knows if 'someone' has years of life ahead of them, nor do they know if someone in general speak 'only has a few years left.'

When it comes to decisions about what treatments the NHS can afford or should provide, those kind of sets of criteria are applied (a more complicated version but it does take into consideration the predicted affect on length of life and quality of life).

So it follows on that on the front line the same sort of decision making is required in certain situations.

Obviously it’s difficult to quantify some of that stuff but faced with a 90 year old with cancer or a 20 year old who’s otherwise healthy but both need the same treatment to survive and only one can have it, it’s obvious who should be getting it.

 

[Solid Air]

I very much doubt that age is the only criteria. I'm not quite sure who's feeding you this stuff. Let alone your sentence is factually inaccurate, no one knows if 'someone' has years of life ahead of them, nor do they know if someone in general speak 'only has a few years left.'

This happens already in effect using NICE guidance which iirc uses a theory about number of years of good quality of life to decide if drugs are to be funded by NHS .

 

[brb]

When it comes to decisions about what treatments the NHS can afford or should provide, those kind of sets of criteria are applied (a more complicated version but it does take into consideration the predicted affect on length of life and quality of life).

So it follows on that on the front line the same sort of decision making is required in certain situations.

Obviously it’s difficult to quantify some of that stuff but faced with a 90 year old with cancer or a 20 year old who’s otherwise healthy but both need the same treatment to survive and only one can have it, it’s obvious who should be getting it.

Fair enough

Some of the discussion I was listening to just now was stressing the selfish attitude of those that believe the virus will not kill them, and although this may be true in a lot of young cases, their own recklessness has led to them taking up a hospital bed that could have been used for another patient.

 

[Joelinton's Right Foot]

Why do people keep using this argument when faced with actual facts?

It was never going to be the case that we would “do nothing.” It isn’t about what’s being done, it’s about the way it’s being done.

When 50,100 people died (pointlessly and needlessly) between November 2017 and March 2018, where were you with your sanctimonious panic and patronising and condescending words, then?

And there I was trying to be nice...

So do I respond by lowering myself to your level of ****ishness and stupidity to answer you or do I stick to the actual facts we are faced with? **** it - let's go for being a **** so that you have company!

You really don't have the brains you were born with, do you? Either that or you are so arrogant that you think you know the facts and the experts don't, despite the FACT they have studied this **** their whole lives. The facts are what the scientists tell us, and they tell us that unless we get this right then thousands will die. It could well be the case that even best case scenario sees deaths in the thousands.

Is it panic to point that out? Is it ****. You accuse me of sanctimonious panic, but the only panic I see is your arse dropping out because people aren't agreeing with you. You must lead a sad and pathetic life if you need that sort of validation. Being aware of the facts and taking necessary precautions is not panic. Buying trolley loads of toilet rolls is panicking.

I really can't work out if you're stupid or just a needy ****. So far my vote is for both.

 

[pompeymeowth]

What the fook is a roundabout figure?

The reason I was interested was because it was an alarming feed that came out of Italy. They were trying to get the message across, everyone is focusing on the virus...hence some complacency like we have seen in London, but they wanted to change the message to say, if you have a heart attack or a stroke or any other medical life threatening condition, those people will die, that may have stood a chance of surviving.

Susan Boyle has a roundabout figure.

 

[brb]

This happens already in effect using NICE guidance which iirc uses a theory about number of years of good quality of life to decide if drugs are to be funded by NHS .

I have no problem with this if people are not losing their lives due to people not following simple guidelines

 

[pompeymeowth]

Why do people keep using this argument when faced with actual facts?

It was never going to be the case that we would “do nothing.” It isn’t about what’s being done, it’s about the way it’s being done.

When 50,100 people died (pointlessly and needlessly) between November 2017 and March 2018, where were you with your sanctimonious panic and patronising and condescending words, then?

Outgoing!