Coronavirus

So we are circulating a fear that don't actually exist at the moment.

 

It’s a non-story.

“Guidance issued to Clinicians about Treatment” shock horror!

But it’s portrayed as a piece of paper that decides lives. A callous set of numbers that decides ones fate!

Upon skim reading the article I didn’t see any mention of the fact it’s guidance and the doctors opinion trumps it if he disagrees. It also doesn’t state that the frailty scale isn’t something new, it’s already used for other situations and treatment choices. So it doesn’t have proper context.

And at the moment across the board journalism is lazy, sensationalist and desperate for something to print. You only have to watch the daily briefings and see the questions being asked by journalists to see they’re scraping the bottom of the barrel.

Edit: upon re-reading it, it does mention clinical discretion!

 

Someone tell them Sir Stirling Moss died !

 

Yeah you’re not allowed to say that about doctors or you get accused of trying to silence them! Doesn’t matter that in any other job you’d be expected to not go to the media!

 

It’s not a non story if you’re a person who had no idea that clinicians face theses kind of ‘battlefield’ decisions.

Your perception is merely yours.

 

^^^^ This

PS Sorry to hear about your Nan .
My old man had the same and he went with no treatment as all that would have given him an extra month or so and he didn't think it was worth it for the discomfort / pain.

 

Surely making the criteria public protects doctors a bit when they’re in the most stressful position possible. Really don’t get the issue to be honest. Better that people are prepared for what’s coming (if it hasn’t happened yet) than NICE have to come up with something on the spot or force doctors to make such a horrible decision themselves.

We have half the ICU per capita of Italy according to the Telegraph article so it’s inevitable, unfortunately.

Saying that, I’ve no idea what the capability is of the temporary hospitals which may be able to alleviate this.

 

If alls transparent there wouldn't be any need for a whistle blower...... eg Ed Snowden

 

Yeah fair enough. If someone had no idea that doctors have to make difficult decisions like this then I can see some value to a story about front line decision making and the guidance that helps them decide how to act.

But that’s not why this story has been written, it’s because they think it’ll get attention and clicks because it presents people as numbers and the fear that someone might not fall within the right category to be saved.

I don’t think it’s particularly responsible journalism. It’s quite alright if you disagree though.

 

will do

 

This isn’t whistle blowing though it’s just sending normal documents to the media. It’s hardly ground breaking stuff that is being hidden from the country or some conspiracy/cover up.

 

Every little helps

 

Ignoring the subject for a second.

Do you think all information should be in the public domain then? All public sector documents should be immediately sent to the media upon being created? How about private sector documents? How about we set up cameras in offices and homes to make sure no-one is doing anything dodgy and there’s no conspiracy? At what point is “transparency” going too far?

 

Looks like it

 

My dad was diagnosed with prostate cancer last year. The doctors aren’t treating it, other than supplying him with catheters. He’ll probably die with it, not of it (their words).

This has always been the reality at the sharp end of health care. I don’t see why these things shouldn’t be talked about openly in the public domain, in fact I think they should be.

We should talk more openly about end of life care, and more about death. The more you acknowledge something, especially something inevitable, the less you have to fear it.

 

Woking just released a statement to say the manager got the virus 3 weeks ago. He’s been in hospital but is on the mend now.

 

The government and other public services are ours and should always have transparency and documentation held in a public domain and at no cost........ As for your 1984 statement on camera being put in houses..... Yeah I'm up for that be fkd...... Most of you probably have it installed as we speak.

Relax No conspiracy just the basics facts do you wanna show me where hurts.

 

If you can be arsed to read it...


Each day, news of more deaths is a huge source of alarm to people across the country - as well as a tragedy for the families involved.

Projections of how bad the outbreak could get have prompted ministers to put the country into lockdown. But what are death figures really telling us? And how bad is it going to get?

Is coronavirus causing the deaths?

The death figures being reported daily are hospital cases where a person dies with the coronavirus infection in their body - because it is a notifiable disease cases have to be reported.

But what the figures do not tell us is to what extent the virus is causing the death.

It could be the major cause, a contributory factor or simply present when they are dying of something else.

Most people who die with coronavirus have an underlying health condition, such as heart disease or diabetes, that may be more of a factor.

For example, an 18-year-old in Coventry tested positive for coronavirus the day before he died and was reported as its youngest victim at the time.

But the hospital subsequently released a statement saying his death had been due to a separate "significant" health condition and not connected to the virus.

There are, however, other cases, including health workers and a 13-year-old boy from London, who died with no known health conditions.

The Office for National Statistics is now trying to determine the proportion of these deaths that are caused specifically by coronavirus.

How many could die?

please log in to view this image

Imperial College London modelling, used to inform government, has suggested 500,000 could have died by August in the UK if the virus was left to rip through the population.

It also warned the government's previous strategy to slow the spread by asking those with symptoms to self-isolate and shield the most vulnerable could have led to 250,000 deaths.

Now, it is hoped the lockdown will limit deaths to 20,000.

But that does not mean 480,000 lives are being saved - many will die whether or not they get the virus.

Every year, about 600,000 people in the UK die. And the frail and elderly are most at risk, just as they are if they have coronavirus.

Nearly 10% of people aged over 80 will die in the next year, Prof Sir David Spiegelhalter, at the University of Cambridge, points out, and the risk of them dying if infected with coronavirus is almost exactly the same.

please log in to view this image

That does not mean there will be no extra deaths - but, Sir David says, there will be "a substantial overlap".

"Many people who die of Covid [the disease caused by coronavirus] would have died anyway within a short period," he says.

Knowing exactly how many is impossible to tell at this stage.

Prof Neil Ferguson, the lead modeller at Imperial College London, has suggested it could be up to two-thirds.

But while deaths without the virus would be spread over the course of a year, those with the virus could come quickly and overwhelm the health service.

How effective is the lockdown?
The most immediate way to judge the current policy is to see if the health service manages to cope with the coronavirus cases it sees in the coming weeks.

Beyond that, the key measure will be what is called excess deaths - the difference between the expected number of deaths and actual deaths.

This is closely monitored during flu seasons. During recent winters, there have been about 17,000 excess deaths from flu a year, Public Health England says.

please log in to view this image

This, of course, can be done in the future only. But researchers at University College London have been trying to model it in advance.

If coronavirus turns out to be no more deadly than flu, the lockdown could limit the number of excess deaths to under 1,400 - more than 12,000 fewer than would have happened under the previous strategy of slowing its spread, before the decision was taken to move to lockdown.

If it turns out to be five times more deadly than flu, the lockdown could limit coronavirus to 6,900 extra deaths - more than 60,000 fewer than under the previous strategy.

What about the impact of the lockdown?
The lockdown, itself, however could cost lives.

Prof Robert Dinwall, from Nottingham Trent University, says "the collateral damage to society and the economy" could include:

• mental health problems and suicides linked to self-isolation
• heart problems from lack of activity
• the impact on health from increased unemployment and reduced living standards

Others have also pointed to the health cost from steps such as delaying routine operations and cancer screening.

Meanwhile, University of Bristol researchers say the benefit of a long-term lockdown in reducing premature deaths could be outweighed by the lost life expectancy from a prolonged economic dip.

And the tipping point, they say, is a 6.4% decline in the size of the economy - on a par with what happened following the 2008 financial crash.

It would see a loss of three months of life on average across the population because of factors from declining living standards to poorer health care.

What will happen next?

please log in to view this image

Image copyrightGETTY IMAGES
The policies in place at the moment are aimed at suppressing the peak by stopping the spread of the virus.

Once the peak has passed, decisions will have to be taken about what to do next.

The virus will not simply have gone away and with a vaccine at least a year away, the challenge will be how to manage the virus.

A balance will need to be struck between keeping it at bay and trying to control its spread to avoid a second peak, while allowing the country to return to normal.

Seeing the full picture in terms of lives saved and lives lost will be essential in getting those calls right.

please log in to view this image

 

If the football season can be adjusted because of covid 19 then what about the school calendar ?

Would it make sense to have a month of home schooling (after the Easter break) and then start the summer holidays early ? This would then increase the chances of getting more actual school based learning in during July/August and still leave time for a 2/3 week break before the new school year in September.

Some flexibility based on the latest scientific/medical advice would undoubtably be needed as well as the agreement of the teachers unions.