Have NPHET lost the attention of people?

CountNjord

Augeo wrote: »

The folk b1tching and moaning about restrictions have sweet fnck all regard for the elderly or for folk who are immunocompromised. With restrictions we can have a low level of Covid19 in the community and most folk can have some element of normality.

L2/L3 is the best we can hope for I reckon ........ current L5 isn't really a benefit considering the disadvantages it brings......... but folk wanting no restrictions at all and claiming vulnerable folk should isolate totally are selfish cnuts IMO

Well I live on my own myself and quite rural and my jobs in the forestry and parklands so I'm able to get away and social distancing is easy.
I'm definitely getting the vaccine, I suppose there's a lot of different ways of looking at my rant.

I think the system is bad, too much red tape in the HSE , gold standard contracts and more management than foot soldiers.

I've been in situations where I've been standing at a desk and the same clerical person still can't type without looking at the keyboard, I'm averaging 70 words per minute and I'm a tree surgeon, go figure.

And this standard of slow typing and looking at the keyboard is rampant in the HSE.

I bought Mavis Beacon in 1999 it took me a few weeks to stop looking at the keyboard.

Kid's can touch type now...

http://www.mavisbeaconfree.com/?m=1

There's no excuse

And the amount of friction in the ward's I'm told is awful, there's always one SJW or awkward person making working uncomfortable for the rest..

Thats me

kippy wrote: »

Because this is what happens if an when the numbers get to a critical point.

Exactly! And i believe we never reached this point. Question is why some elderly people with were not placed into ICU. Was it because HS ignored them or these were cases where ICU is simply not applicable by some reason.

kippy

kippy wrote: »

........so the aim is to keep ICU and general hospital beds and associated infrastructure for those that need them.
What happens if someone who has a really good chance of survival is in ICU bed for weeks but someone else has a really good chance of survival if given the right intervention in ICU?
What happens in that instance? Because this is what happens if an when the numbers get to a critical point.

Come on, this has been the point since March - do you not see it?

What? So the point is to fill our ICU beds with patients who have a 5% or less chance of surviving - and if there is a spike of people who have a very good chance of survival, to let those patients die? No healthcare system anywhere does this. Otherwise we would have everyone on life support for years on end.

Saving ICU capacity is not so it can be filled with hopeless cases. It's so it can be used by people who have at least a fighting chance of making it through. THAT is the point. If it wasn't we would have 1000+ ICU beds. We don't.

EDIT: If you have 2 people with a really good chance of survival, then clearly yes capacity should be reserved for them. That was my whole point. I think we agree but for some reason you don't seem to think so.

zerosugarbuzz

Was never a fan but Regina Doherty is making sense on Newstalk right now, No more lockdowns!

kippy

Thats me wrote: »

Exactly! And i believe we never reached this point. Question is why some elderly people with were not placed into ICU. Was it because HS ignored them or these were cases where ICU is simply not applicable by some reason.

We never got to this point because........................

Mechanical Ventilation is a complex task and very stressful, physically and mentally, for the patient. There are very cleary a lot of inputs into descision making in this regard and plenty scolary articles on the topic.
As someone who has seen first hand what is involved in the mechanical ventilation of a not so elderly relative and the outcomes from same, I can see why it is not applicable in a lot of cases where more elderly patients are involved.

kippy

Deleted User wrote: »

What? So the point is to fill our ICU beds with patients who have a 5% or less chance of surviving - and if there is a spike of people who have a very good chance of survival, to let those patients die? No healthcare system anywhere does this. Otherwise we would have everyone on life support for years on end.

Saving ICU capacity is not so it can be filled with hopeless cases. It's so it can be used by people who have at least a fighting chance of making it through. THAT is the point. If it wasn't we would have 1000+ ICU beds. We don't.

Ah Christ.

That's not what I am saying.......
As I said, when you get to a point where you have X ICU beds and X+1 patients requiring ICU to survice (as defined by the medical profession) you are going to have people dying who otherwise could have had a chance of survival.
This is why we have been and are always trying to reduce the spread of the disease.


EDIT: In response to your Edit - capacity can only be "reserved" when there is something to reserve.

Apologies here, I may have gotten your angle crossed with that of another poster.

Thats me

Thats me wrote: »

Exactly! And i believe we never reached this point. Question is why some elderly people with were not placed into ICU. Was it because HS ignored them or these were cases where ICU is simply not applicable by some reason.

It's because they would have died anyway in ICU. To use a crude analogy you don't keep pumping the patient's chest half an hour after they are dead.

kippy

kippy wrote: »

Ah Christ.

That's not what I am saying.......
As I said, when you get to a point where you have X ICU beds and X+1 patients requiring ICU to survice (as defined by the medical profession) you are going to have people dying who otherwise could have had a chance of survival.
This is why we have been and are always trying to reduce the spread of the disease.

See my edit. I get it and that was the exact point I was making. I was making the point that you only put people in ICU who have a reasonable chance of surviving, even if all the ICU beds are empty. In fairness it was another poster querying this point.

As an example, being put on a ventilator is very physically demanding I've been told. So you need to be in reasonable health or the ventilation will kill you.

Captain_Crash

Thats me wrote: »

Question is why some elderly people with were not placed into ICU. Was it because HS ignored them or these were cases where ICU is simply not applicable by some reason.

Doctors make a judgement call, a highly experienced call backed up with data, expertise and concurrence with other specialists on what action to take with a patient. That call is based on likelihood of survival amongst other things.

Some elderly people bypassed ICU because Dr's felt the chance of survival was too low. Same as turning off life support, if a person wont recover, they flick the switch and that's the end of someones story. Its the sad reality of life in a hospital.

So to answer your question, these were cases where ICU was simply not applicable. How many was there? I don't know, but we do know several terminal patients were sent to nursing homes in March and April instead of ICU, which had capacity at the time (and still does).

Captain_Crash

Captain_Crash wrote: »

So to answer your question, these were cases where ICU was simply not applicable. How many was there? I don't know, but we do know several terminal patients were sent to nursing homes in March and April instead of ICU, which had capacity at the time (and still does).

A very questionable decision, given how vulnerable a nursing home population is to COVID.

Captain_Crash

Deleted User wrote: »

A very questionable decision, given how vulnerable a nursing home population is to COVID.

I cant remember if it resulted in any issues at all... maybe Tony will tell ya!! oh wait.. yeah I remember what happened!!!!!

bladespin

Deleted User wrote: »

A very questionable decision, given how vulnerable a nursing home population is to COVID.

Lots of very questionable decisions around nursing homes especially in the early months, our numbers could have been much better if they'd put some effort into protecting.

meeeeh

Thats me wrote: »

Exactly! And i believe we never reached this point. Question is why some elderly people with were not placed into ICU. Was it because HS ignored them or these were cases where ICU is simply not applicable by some reason.

Because putting them into icu it will just make them suffer without actually prolonging their life much. It's like keeping someone on life support despite them suffering and not having any chance of ever getting better. At that stage ICU or life support just becomes unnecessary torture. Not just living but the quality of living is also important.

Nursing homes were in trouble because testing and protocols were not up to scratch not because they had Covid patients.

Thats me

kippy wrote: »

We never got to this point because........................

Mechanical Ventilation is a complex task and very stressful, physically and mentally, for the patient. There are very cleary a lot of inputs into descision making in this regard and plenty scolary articles on the topic.
As someone who has seen first hand what is involved in the mechanical ventilation of a not so elderly relative and the outcomes from same, I can see why it is not applicable in a lot of cases where more elderly patients are involved.

While I do often mixing ICU and Mechanical Ventilation mysellf, only small proportion of ICU patients are subject to Invasive Mechanical Ventilation:
https://coronavirusexplained.ukri.org/en/article/vdt0008/

Thats me

Deleted User wrote: »

It's because they would have died anyway in ICU. To use a crude analogy you don't keep pumping the patient's chest half an hour after they are dead.

So these emotional stories about bloodthirsty doctors who are refusing "an 89 year near end of life is bad enough to require ICU" making no sense if grammy would die anyway?

Thats me

meeeeh wrote: »

Because putting them into icu it will just make them suffer without actually prolonging their life much. It's like keeping someone on life support despite them suffering and not having any chance of ever getting better. At that stage ICU or life support just becomes unnecessary torture. Not just living but the quality of living is also important.

Nursing homes were in trouble because testing and protocols were not up to scratch not because they had Covid patients.

Now go back to original statement:

JRant wrote: »

The majority of deaths are over 75, this is the cohort that needs to be focused on. We shouldn't be shutting down an entire country when we know the most at risk group.

As we just have established, 75+ would die anyway while most ICU admissions are in 45-74 yo range.

Should we close the country or let extra 45-74 yo to die because of lack of Hospital beds, incl. ICUs?

meeeeh

Thats me wrote: »

Now go back to original statement:



As we just have established, 75+ would die anyway while most ICU admissions are in 45-74 yo range.

Should we close the country or let extra 45-74 yo to die because of lack of Hospital beds, incl. ICUs?

It doesn't work like that anyway. Once Covid spreads uncontrollably you will have enough demand on hospitals regardless of age. And then people in traffic accidents or hart attacks don't get treated properly. Covid-19 affects those who are already in departure lounge the most but once the numbers are high enough vulnerable people in other age groups will fill up ICUs.

However that has nothing to do with the fact that sometimes not putting people into ICU and subject them to intensive treatment is for their benefit and to spare them unnecessary suffering.

Thats me

meeeeh wrote: »

It doesn't work like that anyway. Once Covid spreads uncontrollably you will have enough demand on hospitals regardless of age.

So can we avoid closing whole country by focussing on 75+ cohort?

meeeeh wrote: »

And then people in traffic accidents or hart attacks don't get treated properly.

According US stats, even this would endanger younger groups than 75+.

Rrrrrr2

zerosugarbuzz wrote: »

Was never a fan but Regina Doherty is making sense on Newstalk right now, No more lockdowns!

This one has been a PR disaster and an evident failure as regards Covid numbers or whatever supposed aim the lockdown fanatics thought it was going to have.
That’s pretty much it now. There will be war if this level of nonsense from Holohan is pandered to once more. We all know he wants lockdown in perpetuity- He’s certainly never offered any other solution to the contrary

FinglasFollain

I think the mention of the “worry index” being a concern answers the thread title question quite comprehensively here.

meeeeh

Thats me wrote: »

So can we avoid closing whole country by focussing on 75+ cohort?




According US stats, even this would endanger younger groups than 75+.

No we can avoid closing the whole country by testing and isolating and other prevention measures. I never claimed we can avoid it by isolating only over 75s. All commented on was the fact that sometimes is wrong to put frail people into icu.

I noticed before you have a tendency to shift the discussion by insinuating I claimed something I didn't. It's dishonest approach that makes it very hard to discuss anything with you.

Cork2021

Okay... we need a new poll for this thread. Worry index incoming!!!

CountNjord

Rrrrrr2 wrote: »

This one has been a PR disaster and an evident failure as regards Covid numbers or whatever supposed aim the lockdown fanatics thought it was going to have.
That’s pretty much it now. There will be war if this level of nonsense from Holohan is pandered to once more. We all know he wants lockdown in perpetuity- He’s certainly never offered any other solution to the contrary

It's hard to see where Houlihan is coming from, and I don't understand how he has so much power and how he was able to come back and swiftly change everything again.

I don't know whether he's ruthless or just lacking interest in all the different variables for a lockdown or for suggesting that the vulnerable people should be more be more careful.

It's an absolute minefield out there.

Some people think that the government don't trust us others think we're untrustworthy.

I was reading recently that covid travels like an aerosol, and if it gets into your eyes it'll infect you.
So it's suggested that mask's are only useful to stop one from infecting another.

It's a circular argument to be fair.

Thats me

meeeeh wrote: »

I never claimed we can avoid it by isolating only over 75s.

I never told you claimed this.

meeeeh wrote: »

All commented on was the fact that sometimes is wrong to put frail people into icu.

I agree with you.

meeeeh wrote: »

I noticed before you have a tendency to shift the discussion by insinuating I claimed something I didn't. It's dishonest approach that makes it very hard to discuss anything with you.

OK, since you are blaming me for dishonest approach could you please point where i'm insinuating that you claimed we can avoid lockdown by isolating only over 75s? Ot this is your dishonest approach to blame me for what i didn't?

kippy

Thats me wrote: »

While I do often mixing ICU and Mechanical Ventilation mysellf, only small proportion of ICU patients are subject to Invasive Mechanical Ventilation:
https://coronavirusexplained.ukri.org/en/article/vdt0008/

Indeed, however I suspect most, if not all, of the patients that needed to go to ICU but didn't, needed to be mechanicilly ventilated, as that is the most invasive of all procedures and not suitable for more elderly patients.

Thats me

kippy wrote: »

Indeed, however I suspect most, if not all, of the patients that needed to go to ICU but didn't, needed to be mechanicilly ventilated, as that is the most invasive of all procedures and not suitable for more elderly patients.

I do not know either since i saw nobody able to explain circumstances while referring such cases. Not sure why they refer it at all.

kippy

Thats me wrote: »

I do not know either since i saw nobody able to explain circumstances while referring such cases. Not sure why they refer it at all.

I've read a couple of articles (even posts on here I think from what appear to be doctors) on the procedure, cannot find links at the minute but its harrowing stuff to be making calls on, as are many facets of being part of those teams.

November Golf

CountNjord wrote: »

It's hard to see where Houlihan is coming from, and I don't understand how he has so much power and how he was able to come back and swiftly change everything again.

I don't know whether he's ruthless or just lacking interest in all the different variables for a lockdown or for suggesting that the vulnerable people should be more be more careful.

It's an absolute minefield out there.

Some people think that the government don't trust us others think we're untrustworthy.

I was reading recently that covid travels like an aerosol, and if it gets into your eyes it'll infect you.
So it's suggested that mask's are only useful to stop one from infecting another.

It's a circular argument to be fair.

It was always said that masks are to protect other from you, not you from others so that is exactly right. If it took you 6 month figure that out, it probably means you weren't listening to what NPHET or Tony Holohan were saying.

So many people seem to have nothing better to do than give out about Tony Holohan. I think at this stage, this thread should be moved to the conspiracy theories forum.

kippy

Thats me wrote: »

I do not know either since i saw nobody able to explain circumstances while referring such cases. Not sure why they refer it at all.

Something like this may help explain.........
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4849534/

CountNjord

Mike Foxtrot wrote: »

It was always said that masks are to protect other from you, not you from others so that is exactly right. If it took you 6 month figure that out, it probably means you weren't listening to what NPHET or Tony Holohan were saying.

So many people seem to have nothing better to do than give out about Tony Holohan. I think at this stage, this thread should be moved to the conspiracy theories forum.

My post is an observation not something for you to get a dig in, but if that's the way you want to roll...
Fire away.

Poor Tony, he's not the problem here.

I knew from early on that mask's were useless I've spent enough time seeing the hazards of sawdust and people doing stupid things with chainsaws.

Sawdust particles and much bigger than covid particles, don't be silly thinking I spent 6 month's realising that mask's are essential.

You're soo bold