Off Topic Coronavirus

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
It is still a mystery to me how the Nightingale hospitals will be competently staffed while maintaining the rest of the NHS ‘fully operational’.
I thought we thought first time around that the nightingale hospitals were places that people went in and didn't come out..

Based on the refidgeration units involved in the one at the Excel centre
 
  • Like
Reactions: sb_73
I thought we thought first time around that the nightingale hospitals were places that people went in and didn't come out..

Based on the refidgeration units involved in the one at the Excel centre
Well, that’s my assumption but I’m trying hard to be curious rather than cynical.

As long as we have got some nifty protocols in place and plenty of
- oxygen for positive airway pressure
- steroids
- anti virals
We should see a lower death toll than earlier in the year.

It will be interesting to see what the attitude from patients and their families is to ventilation. While there was a high death rate amongst ventilated patients first time round I am sure it is still part of the treatment pathway for the worst cases, those who can’t breathe without help. But there might be a reaction against it.
 
Coronavirus: WHO backflips on virus stance by condemning lockdowns
Lockdowns have been used to control the coronavirus around the world. Now a WHO official has questioned the success of them.

You must log in or register to see images

Alex Turner-Cohen
AlexTurnerCohen
You must log in or register to see images

news.com.auOctober 12, 20208:16am
The World Health Organisation has controversially claimed that the world is misusing lockdowns as a way to control the virus.


The World Health Organisation has backflipped on its original COVID-19 stance after calling for world leaders to stop locking down their countries and economies.

Dr. David Nabarro from the WHO appealed to world leaders yesterday, telling them to stop “using lockdowns as your primary control method” of the coronavirus.


He also claimed that the only thing lockdowns achieved was poverty – with no mention of the potential lives saved.

“Lockdowns just have one consequence that you must never ever belittle, and that is making poor people an awful lot poorer,” he said.

RELATED: WHO’s chilling coronavirus warning

RELATED: WHO reveals who should receive vaccine first

You must log in or register to see images

Dr. David Nabarro from the WHO appealed to world leaders yesterday, telling them to stop “using lockdowns as your primary control method”.Source:Twitter


“We in the World Health Organisation do not advocate lockdowns as the primary means of control of this virus,” Dr Nabarro told The Spectator.

“The only time we believe a lockdown is justified is to buy you time to reorganise, regroup, rebalance your resources, protect your health workers who are exhausted, but by and large, we’d rather not do it.”

Dr Nabarro’s main criticism of lockdowns involved the global impact, explaining how poorer economies that had been indirectly affected.

–– ADVERTISEMENT ––
“Just look at what’s happened to the tourism industry in the Caribbean, for example, or in the Pacific because people aren’t taking their holidays,” he said.

“Look what’s happened to smallholder farmers all over the world. … Look what’s happening to poverty levels. It seems that we may well have a doubling of world poverty by next year. We may well have at least a doubling of child malnutrition.”

Melbourne’s lockdown has been hailed as one of the strictest and longest in the world. In Spain’s lockdown in March, people weren’t allowed to leave the house unless it was to walk their pet. In China, authorities welded doors shut to stop people from leaving their homes. The WHO thinks these steps were largely unnecessary.

Instead, Dr Nabarro is advocating for a new approach to containing the virus.

“And so, we really do appeal to all world leaders: stop using lockdown as your primary control method. Develop better systems for doing it. Work together and learn from each other.”

You must log in or register to see images

The WHO’s criticism of lockdowns involved the global impact, explaining how poorer economies that had been indirectly affected. Picture: Christopher Black/AFPSource:AFP






His message is timely. In a world first, a number of health experts from all over the world came together calling for an end to coronavirus lockdowns earlier this week.

They created a petition, called the Great Barrington Declaration, which said that lockdowns were doing “irreparable damage.”

“As infectious disease epidemiologists and public health scientists, we have grave concerns about the damaging physical and mental health impacts of the prevailing COVID-19 policies, and recommend an approach we call Focused Protection,” read the petition.

“Current lockdown policies are producing devastating effects on short and long-term public health.”

The petition has had 12,000 signatures so far.

It was authored by Sunetra Gupta of the University of Oxford, Jay Bhattacharya of Stanford University, and Martin Kulldorff of Harvard University.

When asked about the petition, Dr Nabarro had only good things to say. “Really important point by Professor Gupta,” he said.
 
please don't give me a grammar lesson Sb as I'm about to watch Boris. :emoticon-0100-smile
Although I am correct in that many of the University outbreaks are in the Very High areas.
Given that many university cities, as Beth has pointed out, are in ‘medium’ areas, it would indicate that the presence or absence of students is irrelevant to the local rate of COVID. Unless the argument is that students who go to college in the north behave differently to those who go to London, or Southampton, or Cardiff or Exeter.
 
Given that many university cities, as Beth has pointed out, are in ‘medium’ areas, it would indicate that the presence or absence of students is irrelevant to the local rate of COVID. Unless the argument is that students who go to college in the north behave differently to those who go to London, or Southampton, or Cardiff or Exeter.
might have better nightlife up North?