Jump to content
oneBoro Forum
OzzyPorter

COVID-19 And it’s effect on everyone and everything

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, sackrobson2 said:

I’m no medical expert but in my opinion we need to be investing hugely in ventilators as part of this delaying strategy. Pneumonia is the killer here and people die because they can’t get access to an oxygen ventilator. 
 

apparently in Italy the doctors had to chose who to give the Ventilators to and who to let die. Younger people with kids were prioritised and then the rest suffocated to death in waiting rooms. It’s horrific. 

What a choice but probably something that will be repeated throughout the World, I am pretty convinced that those over a certain age will not get full care and attention when it comes down to simple choices.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, White Band said:

From a purely epidemiological point of view, it is a sensible approach. Time will tell whether it is a smart move in reality. The approach is dependent on the virus staying largely the same (enough for our immune systems to recognise that they have antibodies against it and for those antibodies to work correctly) and on our being able to keep those who are most vulnerable away from the virus until herd immunity has developed. 

If the virus mutates significantly (it is a coronavirus which is the same family as the common cold and the cold virus mutates a lot) then when other countries lift restrictions and get a second peak the new version could re-enter here and we'd be back to square one. If that happened, the countries with a second peak and mutated version of the virus would be totally screwed as it would go round everyone again if it was significantly different. 

The approach being taken also depends on people being willing to do things like reducing their contact with those who are most vulnerable to serious complications from the virus. I fear the old 'family first' motto may put paid to that if people are unwilling to stop visiting vulnerable relatives in care homes etc because they have a right to do what they want with their relatives and seeing them is more important in their eyes than protecting them from this unknown thing they haven't understood. 

Try saying epidemiological three times quickly! impossible

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, White Band said:

From a purely epidemiological point of view, it is a sensible approach. Time will tell whether it is a smart move in reality. The approach is dependent on the virus staying largely the same (enough for our immune systems to recognise that they have antibodies against it and for those antibodies to work correctly) and on our being able to keep those who are most vulnerable away from the virus until herd immunity has developed. 

If the virus mutates significantly (it is a coronavirus which is the same family as the common cold and the cold virus mutates a lot) then when other countries lift restrictions and get a second peak the new version could re-enter here and we'd be back to square one. If that happened, the countries with a second peak and mutated version of the virus would be totally screwed as it would go round everyone again if it was significantly different. 

The approach being taken also depends on people being willing to do things like reducing their contact with those who are most vulnerable to serious complications from the virus. I fear the old 'family first' motto may put paid to that if people are unwilling to stop visiting vulnerable relatives in care homes etc because they have a right to do what they want with their relatives and seeing them is more important in their eyes than protecting them from this unknown thing they haven't understood. 

You sound like a doctor mate. Are you? If you are I think we’d all appreciate good advice on this. I’m not too Worried about myself but my mam is 70 and I’m worried about her aswell as a lot of other elderly relatives. 
 

any other doctors on here?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, White Band said:

Northern league suspended until 3rd April as well now. Just the National League running, and lots of games postponed there.

Bloody hell, there are more people in the average supermarket than there are at the average Northern League game 🤦‍♂️

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, sackrobson2 said:

I’m no medical expert but in my opinion we need to be investing hugely in ventilators as part of this delaying strategy. Pneumonia is the killer here and people die because they can’t get access to an oxygen ventilator. 
 

apparently in Italy the doctors had to chose who to give the Ventilators to and who to let die. Younger people with kids were prioritised and then the rest suffocated to death in waiting rooms. It’s horrific. 

That is terrifying

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, sackrobson2 said:

The uk strategy is different from everywhere else which is a risk but I think it makes more sense. Other countries are trying to entirely shut down and hope the virus goes away but in all likelihood once they relax this it will come back and they are back at square 1. We seem to be trying to get mass immunity by allowing it to spread slowly at a rate the nhs can cope with, then over a period of time the country gets herd immunity protection and it doesn’t come back in a big way. Risky but potentially smart. 

This might be an interesting read for you. I don't think herd immunity works the way you think it does. Typically it requires 60-70% of the population to become immune, I.e. to catch it and recover - 40-45 MILLION PEOPLE. Just think about how the health system will handle that? Or that you could see a million plus people die. 

 

https://eand.co/why-britains-coronavirus-strategy-is-literally-one-of-the-most-insane-things-in-modern-history-45c755f1db2d

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, boroie said:

This might be an interesting read for you. I don't think herd immunity works the way you think it does. Typically it requires 60-70% of the population to become immune, I.e. to catch it and recover - 40-45 MILLION PEOPLE. Just think about how the health system will handle that? Or that you could see a million plus people die. 

 

https://eand.co/why-britains-coronavirus-strategy-is-literally-one-of-the-most-insane-things-in-modern-history-45c755f1db2d

It's some blogger who doesn't really know what he's talking about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There seems to be two schools of thought regarding how to deal with the virus from what I’ve picked up,

lots of countries are doing the limit this as much as we can method, get over the peak then hope things settle down.

The society needs to have a community resistance method is slightly different, every virus has a level where society needs immunity measles needs society to have 90% yet corona is only about 60.

This virus is going to be with us in some form for ever so until we get natural resistance within some of the population we reliant on hoping a quick pill/lotion/potion or jab will be available to stop multiple spikes happening.

So whatever is the best answer to deal with this I don’t know cos frankly the first seems the obvious one, but when argued with a cure maybe a year away, the second does have some merits to it.

I only know I’d not want to have to make the decision based on all factors not just the health n popularity ones. It makes the passionate views on the merits of 4-1-4-1 vs 4-3-3 or 4-4-2 seem less important, 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Naisby said:

I only know I’d not want to have to make the decision based on all factors not just the health n popularity ones. It makes the passionate views on the merits of 4-1-4-1 vs 4-3-3 or 4-4-2 seem less important, 

Its definitely 4-2-3-1

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, White Band said:

The approach being taken also depends on people being willing to do things like reducing their contact with those who are most vulnerable to serious complications from the virus. I fear the old 'family first' motto may put paid to that if people are unwilling to stop visiting vulnerable relatives in care homes etc because they have a right to do what they want with their relatives and seeing them is more important in their eyes than protecting them from this unknown thing they haven't understood. 

It must be hard in that position though. You can choose not to see them and they could still get the virus and die from it. Or you can choose to see them under the belief they may well get it regardless because sentimentally, that time spent with them means more than giving them a relatively improved chance of survival.

Or from the other side, I'm worried about my Granddad who's in his 80s being locked away on his own in his house, no real contact with anyone. He's struggled enough since my Nanna passed away as it is, he's out and about all the time trying to keep himself busy. He's going to be so bloody lonely if he has to stay away from the rest of the family and it's gonna break his heart. He's only just recently got through a bad illness and he was going mad just having to stay inside to rest, even with people visiting him to keep him company. How do you tell someone at that age to not do what makes them happier, even if it puts themselves and others more at risk?

  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, wilsoncgp said:

It must be hard in that position though. You can choose not to see them and they could still get the virus and die from it. Or you can choose to see them under the belief they may well get it regardless because sentimentally, that time spent with them means more than giving them a relatively improved chance of survival.

Or from the other side, I'm worried about my Granddad who's in his 80s being locked away on his own in his house, no real contact with anyone. He's struggled enough since my Nanna passed away as it is, he's out and about all the time trying to keep himself busy. He's going to be so bloody lonely if he has to stay away from the rest of the family and it's gonna break his heart. He's only just recently got through a bad illness and he was going mad just having to stay inside to rest, even with people visiting him to keep him company. How do you tell someone at that age to not do what makes them happier, even if it puts themselves and others more at risk?

Great post Wilson. It really is a terrible time for the elderly, especially those that live alone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's tough for the elderly, and also those that are at higher risk (immuno-compromised, or underlying health conditions) as it completely destroys the fabric of their social existence. Just remember to reach out and call people, even use video calling if its an option. And spare a thought for the parents trapped with small children for the foreseeable future! 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, boroie said:

This might be an interesting read for you. I don't think herd immunity works the way you think it does. Typically it requires 60-70% of the population to become immune, I.e. to catch it and recover - 40-45 MILLION PEOPLE. Just think about how the health system will handle that? Or that you could see a million plus people die. 

 

https://eand.co/why-britains-coronavirus-strategy-is-literally-one-of-the-most-insane-things-in-modern-history-45c755f1db2d

Yes I get that and I’m not saying it will definitely work, as to make it work well they have to slow it to a rate the NHS can deal with, as I mentioned in my post. Obviously if it goes too fast the NHS can’t cope. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, wilsoncgp said:

It must be hard in that position though. You can choose not to see them and they could still get the virus and die from it. Or you can choose to see them under the belief they may well get it regardless because sentimentally, that time spent with them means more than giving them a relatively improved chance of survival.

Or from the other side, I'm worried about my Granddad who's in his 80s being locked away on his own in his house, no real contact with anyone. He's struggled enough since my Nanna passed away as it is, he's out and about all the time trying to keep himself busy. He's going to be so bloody lonely if he has to stay away from the rest of the family and it's gonna break his heart. He's only just recently got through a bad illness and he was going mad just having to stay inside to rest, even with people visiting him to keep him company. How do you tell someone at that age to not do what makes them happier, even if it puts themselves and others more at risk?

This is a terrible situation to be in. I have quite a few elderly relatives and I’ve had the same thoughts about those. What is the best thing to do?  Who knows. I think ultimately Maybe you should listen to what your grandad wants if he’s aware of the risks. He might genuinely prefer to risk getting it than be left alone for weeks and still get it a few weeks later. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...