The UK response to Covid-19 [MOD WARNING 1ST POST]

CelticRambler

Aegir wrote: »

please can you provide some back up to support this claim?

This'll have to do for starters: Why Isn't The UK Testing Everyone With Coronavirus Symptoms?

tests are being primarily offered to patients in critical care or who require hospital admission for pneumonia, acute respiratory distress syndrome or flu-like illness, and where an outbreak has occurred in a residential or care setting, like a care facility or prison.

In other words, "we'll test you if we're already pretty sure you're positive"
This aligns with NHS advice to lock yourself away if you think you've got Covid-19, and not to bother your doctor or their Covid-19 hotline with enquiries such as "how do I get tested?"

threeball

CelticRambler wrote: »

This'll have to do for starters: Why Isn't The UK Testing Everyone With Coronavirus Symptoms?


In other words, "we'll test you if we're already pretty sure you're positive"
This aligns with NHS advice to lock yourself away if you think you've got Covid-19, and not to bother your doctor or their Covid-19 hotline with enquiries such as "how do I get tested?"

The UK numbers are pure tosh. 111 reported new cases yesterday but a death rate on par with those reporting over 1000 cases a day. I don't know who they think they're fooling bar themselves.

Donald Trump

Aegir wrote: »

please can you provide some back up to support this claim?

https://twitter.com/OxfordDiplomat/status/1240776914693951496

Aegir wrote: »

you need to control the flow to below the level your health care can cope with. The Irish and British systems will have differing opinions on what this level is. What works for Ireland may not work for the UK and vice versa.

177

firemansam4

I think it's going to be very hard to gauge confirmed cases in countries versus how many people are actually being tested.

As someone posted on another thread, unfortunately the only true gauge on how bad the virus has spread is confirmed deaths.

meeeeh

firemansam4 wrote: »

I think it's going to be very hard to gauge confirmed cases in countries versus how many people are actually being tested.

As someone posted on another thread, unfortunately the only true gauge on how bad the virus has spread is confirmed deaths.

It's actually the number of seriously I'll. The number of people dying can increase significantly when system can't cope.

CelticRambler

CelticRambler wrote: »

This'll have to do for starters: Why Isn't The UK Testing Everyone With Coronavirus Symptoms?


In other words, "we'll test you if we're already pretty sure you're positive"
This aligns with NHS advice to lock yourself away if you think you've got Covid-19, and not to bother your doctor or their Covid-19 hotline with enquiries such as "how do I get tested?"

So they are testing then?

Melanchthon

Aegir wrote: »

So they are testing then?

Not half enough though, what I don't understand is why there hasn't been some level of randomised testing to gauge levels in the wider population.

Lord TSC

Melanchthon wrote: »

Not half enough though, what I don't understand is why there hasn't been some level of randomised testing to gauge levels in the wider population.

Because they are struggling to test the people who genuinely need to be tested.

I don’t believe we are choosing not to test right now. We are expanding how many we can but there’s still a limit.

Hopefully, over the next two weeks, that will rapidly expand and we can test more and more people.

coolshannagh28

The UK obviously modelled the impact of covid and recognised that a lot of people were vulnerable regardless of which approach was taken , they have recognised that when this ends the death rates across Europe will be similar but they will have protected their people financially while Europe has not .

firemansam4

meeeeh wrote:

It's actually the number of seriously I'll. The number of people dying can increase significantly when system can't cope.

Yes that makes sense.

McGiver

meeeeh wrote:

I read the interview with Italian doctor who basically said they could keep most people alive if they had enough ventilators, icu beds and staff. They are saying people are dying on the door of the hospital because they can't get in. (Article is in Slovene so I won't bother with link). The average age of mortality is dropping because they need equipment for younger population. When the system breaks a lot more and a lot younger people die.

That's possible but again the presence of the strong let's say 85+ population results in higher pressure on the health service, overcrowding and higher mortality.

Last Italian data from 17 March show 0.7% death rate for <40 years bracket. Vs 45% in the >80 bracket.

CelticRambler

Aegir wrote: »

So they are testing then?

No, for the most part they are not testing sick people. Only dying people.

CelticRambler

coolshannagh28 wrote: »

The UK obviously modelled the impact of covid and recognised that a lot of people were vulnerable regardless of which approach was taken , they have recognised that when this ends the death rates across Europe will be similar but they will have protected their people financially while Europe has not .

How have they protected "their people" financially? And which people - the ones who died due to unjustified delay, or the taxpayers who'll have to foot the bill for the Make-Boris-Great-Again bailout? Or the owners of private hospitals who've just started selling services to the NHS (didn't we hear recently that the NHS would never, ever, be privatised, ever, not under any circumstances ...)

paleoperson

coolshannagh28 wrote: »

The UK obviously modelled the impact of covid and recognised that a lot of people were vulnerable regardless of which approach was taken , they have recognised that when this ends the death rates across Europe will be similar but they will have protected their people financially while Europe has not .

You have no idea what you're talking about and should shut up.

The UK had taken a more lax strategy against the virus for a while, and it's really showing now with almost the same amount of deaths as even the US that has a population of 327 million.

McGiver

RobMc59 wrote:

They're recognized as Latin European countries.

No, they are not. It's a regional label. It's definitely not a race and not an ethnicity. It's derived mostly based on linguistic grounds.

Deleted User wrote:

The Latin League was Rome and the surrounding area's tribes. Because of the Roman Empire, these peoples and the basis of Romance language spread through Italy, France, Spain and Portugal mainly. The poster is I guess hypothesising that this disease affects those peoples more than say the descendants of the Gauls, the Celts, the Vikings etc.

There's nothing like "European" or "Latin" race. It's a nonsense. Even between, let's say Mediterranean countries (so called "Latin"), there are significant ethnic differences (North African influence in Southern Portugal and Spain, Celtic and Germanic influence in northern Portugal and Spain, romanised Germanic Franks and Celtic Gauls in France etc).

Also, languages are often independent of ethnic lines. French is a Romance language (although with a Celtic substratum) but ethnically the French are a mix of Germanic (Franks), Italic (Romans) and Celtic (Gauls, Bretons etc) lines etc.

But it's fascinating to me see the English education system in practise...

VinLieger

coolshannagh28 wrote: »

The UK obviously modelled the impact of covid and recognised that a lot of people were vulnerable regardless of which approach was taken , they have recognised that when this ends the death rates across Europe will be similar but they will have protected their people financially while Europe has not .

Yeah thats what they thought originally and then the imperial paper came out and they realised the infected amd death rate were going to be multiples higher than they had thought using their original herd immunity "plan"

McGiver

fryup wrote:

we'll find out in time if this herd immunity policy has worked....don't brit bash just yet

Evidence?

coolshannagh28

CelticRambler wrote: »

How have they protected "their people" financially? And which people - the ones who died due to unjustified delay, or the taxpayers who'll have to foot the bill for the Make-Boris-Great-Again bailout? Or the owners of private hospitals who've just started selling services to the NHS (didn't we hear recently that the NHS would never, ever, be privatised, ever, not under any circumstances ...)

The tax payers are the ones being protected by their own taxes , the UK strategy like it or loathe it may be as successful as ours .

VinLieger

coolshannagh28 wrote: »

The tax payers are the ones being protected by their own taxes , the UK strategy like it or loathe it may be as successful as ours .

Except the numbers already show it won't

paleoperson

VinLieger wrote: »

Except the numbers already show it won't

ikr, the pound has fallen to its lowest value against the dollar since 1985 and the US is itself in an economic crisis. I don't know wtf this lad is reading or talking about, probably confabulating it himself.

coolshannagh28

VinLieger wrote: »

Except the numbers already show it won't

Much too early yet to say that for sure , I do agree that their herd immunity strategy was callous but fear that Europewide the deathtoll could be similar across all states .

McGiver

VinLieger wrote:

Except the numbers already show it won't

Of course it won't. I'll repeat what I said here a week ago:

Their strategy was, is and always will be a BS. WHO and experts called their bluff pretty early on.

Water John

The rate of infection over time may be the same as by taking social distancing measures ROI may have Covid 19 longer. However because the critical hospital system hopefully will not be over whelmed here and may be in the UK, more people could die in the UK.

coolshannagh28

Water John wrote: »

The rate of infection over time may be the same as by taking social distancing measures ROI may have Covid 19 longer. However because the critical hospital system hopefully will not be over whelmed here and may be in the UK, more people could die in the UK.

This is a numbers game ; the number of ventilators , I don't have that for the UK but as per Italy this is why so many are dying there.

Water John

The only country that might have enough ventilators is Germany.

CrabRevolution

coolshannagh28 wrote: »

Much too early yet to say that for sure , I do agree that their herd immunity strategy was callous but fear that Europewide the deathtoll could be similar across all states .

Why is it that over the last 2 weeks, we've been told that the UK's strategy is definitely better than ours because they've a lower confirmed infection rate (conveniently ignoring the different testing rate in each country).

Yet now that the UK's death rate has absolutely dwarfed ours- They've 80 times the number of deaths as Ireland, despite only having 6 times the number of confirmed cases- it's "too early to tell " and "there's mitigating circumstances" or "Ireland's numbers are suspect"?

VinLieger

coolshannagh28 wrote: »

Much too early yet to say that for sure , I do agree that their herd immunity strategy was callous but fear that Europewide the deathtoll could be similar across all states .

Its absolutely not to early at all, this thing follows a very obvious and predictable trend and the UK is showing to be following the US one which predicts them having the most new cases today and likely overtake Italys total cases by next week

coolshannagh28

paleoperson wrote: »

You have no idea what you're talking about and should shut up.

The UK had taken a more lax strategy against the virus for a while, and it's really showing now with almost the same amount of deaths as even the US that has a population of 327 million.

I am trying to have a civilized debate here , it is widely accepted that the initial UK strategy was callous but when this event passes it is possible that the fatality numbers across Europe may be similar but the UK government may be better thanked for their financial support which incidentally is being lauded on the 6-1 news right now while leading economists are questioning ours and virologist Sam Mc Conkey is becoming sceptical that our social distancing is being effective.

VinLieger

VinLieger wrote: »

Except the numbers already show it won't

do they?

what is the correct number of deaths, based on the fact it unfortunately isn't going to be zero?

Water John

The base figure of infection seems to be an increase of 30% per day. That is the rate from testing here and everyone who has symptoms is tested here. I accept their is also a lot of asymptomatic people, but the 30% increase per day is the comparable figure that can be used, between countries that do full testing on symptomatic patients.
When those countries start lowering that figure we'll know that the measures taken are having an effect. Sadly, we won't know in the case of the UK. Mortality will be the only camparator we'll have.