Fears Covid anxiety syndrome could stop people reintegrating

[Amity Island]

Why do you think things would have been different in the UK to how they had been (just weeks earlier) in northern Italy?

Or is your point that we should have had social distancing and so on (in effect the lockdown we had), but also not screwed up handling of elderly people?

At last....

Thanks Bruce, I appreciate your reply.

You've got what I have been trying to explain for the past year on this forum.

It was the handling of the lockdown, that I have issue with. You've nailed it on the head. If they'd of done it with care (they were well prepared for a pandemic), we could of avoided that huge spike in deaths of the elderly and sick. Instead they threw them all out of their beds.

 

[Bruce Stephens]

If they'd of done it with care (they were well prepared for a pandemic), we could of avoided that huge spike in deaths of the elderly and sick. Instead they threw them all out of their beds.

Maybe, but the NHS routinely has ~95% beds occupied (UK has fewer everything compared to most health systems of wealthy countries). The health secretary praised the preparations for the coming winter (2019-2020) just after they'd planned to delay non-essential surgeries. So the NHS really needed the beds in the spring, and likely the elderly people really needed not to be in crowded hospitals with lots of infected patients.

Sending them back to care homes seems obviously to have taken infections back. I fear it's more a question of timing: if not then, then someone would have brought infections in a month or two later (since care staff had inadequate PPE then). That's my fear, anyway: some care homes would have been spared (if they had staff who agreed to live in, etc.) but generally with this low paid, largely agency staff often travelling between care homes, keeping infection out would have been near impossible. Even if the government had been much more definitive that the possibility of asymptomatic transmission should be assumed.

I think someone else suggested instead of Nightingale hospitals we could more usefully have built Nightingale care homes allowing greater spacing of people. That seems plausible (though I'd guess you'd still have issues with staffing and PPE).

 

[Amity Island]

Maybe, but the NHS routinely has ~95% beds occupied (UK has fewer everything compared to most health systems of wealthy countries). The health secretary praised the preparations for the coming winter (2019-2020) just after they'd planned to delay non-essential surgeries. So the NHS really needed the beds in the spring, and likely the elderly people really needed not to be in crowded hospitals with lots of infected patients.

Sending them back to care homes seems obviously to have taken infections back. I fear it's more a question of timing: if not then, then someone would have brought infections in a month or two later (since care staff had inadequate PPE then). That's my fear, anyway: some care homes would have been spared (if they had staff who agreed to live in, etc.) but generally with this low paid, largely agency staff often travelling between care homes, keeping infection out would have been near impossible. Even if the government had been much more definitive that the possibility of asymptomatic transmission should be assumed.

I think someone else suggested instead of Nightingale hospitals we could more usefully have built Nightingale care homes allowing greater spacing of people. That seems plausible (though I'd guess you'd still have issues with staffing and PPE).

I think it was done in a very rushed and sudden way, considering the virus was in the UK 3 months before. Some preparations could have been made during this time, given the UK was the best prepared country in the world to deal with a pandemic. I think a lot of lives could have been saved had they done so.

 

[Bruce Stephens]

I think it was done in a very rushed and sudden way, considering the virus was in the UK 3 months before.

Yes, we could have started some distancing measures earlier, maybe controlling incoming travellers a bit (asking them to isolate in their homes). We could also have started working on increasing testing ability and the ability of local authorities to contact trace (and to support isolating). And gradually moving people out of hospitals where possible, maybe splitting hospitals into zones. But that all involves spending lots of money for things the government very much hoped weren't going to be necessary. Early in 2020 they were still concentrating on Brexit plans.

Some preparations could have been made during this time, given the UK was the best prepared country in the world to deal with a pandemic.

So it was thought, but it turned out the plans were very much for influenzas (where, we thought, there's not much hope of containment). And the stockpiled PPE wasn't quite right and in some cases was out of date anyway. Hard to spend lots of taxpayer money on something just in case. (Unless it's for the MoD.) And the government is made up largely of inexperienced politicians chosen for their loyalty to the Brexit cause rather than general competence.

 

[Robin]

You've got what I have been trying to explain for the past year on this forum.

It was the handling of the lockdown, that I have issue with

I think I have mistaken your view on lockdown. You are saying you don’t mean the lockdown itself but the handling of the care home issue was the problem. These two are separate things. Sweden, which didn’t have a formal lockdown at the start, made mistakes and let the virus into carehomes. Yes, I agree with you that the whole hospital/carehome issue should have been handled a lot better.
But what you appeared to be saying when you used the term 'lockdown' was that you felt that the social restrictions/shutdown of facilities/working from home scenario had caused the extra hospitalisations and deaths, which was also the impression I got from your view that it was an opportunistic shut down to ensure we met our climate/emissions targets.

 

[Amity Island]

I think I have mistaken your view on lockdown. You are saying you don’t mean the lockdown itself but the handling of the care home issue was the problem. These two are separate things. Sweden, which didn’t have a formal lockdown at the start, made mistakes and let the virus into carehomes. Yes, I agree with you that the whole hospital/carehome issue should have been handled a lot better.
But what you appeared to be saying when you used the term 'lockdown' was that you felt that the social restrictions/shutdown of facilities/working from home scenario had caused the extra hospitalisations and deaths, which was also the impression I got from your view that it was an opportunistic shut down to ensure we met our climate/emissions targets.

Thanks Robin.

Yes I think it is awful that so many died as a result of the lockdown and all those that were thrown out of hospitals and were given d.n.r's.

That's why I cant understand it when people on the forum are giving likes to those who support what happened at lockdown. There is absolutely nothing to like about it and I am completely against what happened to all those elderly and sick.

We had 3 months prior knowledge plus we were supposed to be well prepared for a pandemic. But yes, I still feel that 2020 being a critical year for our planets survival, that there are other things going on which may affect policy decisions in trying to cut down on our carbon footprint across the world. I'm not saying that is the sole reason for locking down, just that it's a sort of "kill two birds with one stone". That doesn't make it a conspiracy theory, just a possible strategy.

 

[Robin]

That's why I cant understand it when people on the forum are giving likes to those who support what happened at lockdown

It’s because they take 'lockdown' to mean the restrictions of people leaving their homes. That’s what I understand by the term, and I support that.
The freeing up of hospital beds by transferring the elderly out to care homes is not 'lockdown' but a completely separate thing, something that happened at the same time, to make room for all the people sick with Covid who needed admitting to receive oxygen, etc.
That would have happened (whether done well or badly) whether or not there had been a 'lockdown' in the sense of restricting movement of ordinary people or not.
The lockdown of ordinary people was to save even more people catching covid and needing to be admitted to hospital, so that the hospitals wouldn’t be overwhelmed. Not to chuck people out of hospital. Nobody is 'liking' that.

 

[Ivostas66]

Hi Ivostas66,

Do you mean parents are concerned they may catch the virus? I take it this means these are parents who haven't been vaccinated?

I have no idea. I am guessing that as local pre-schools/ nurseries have said that they are down on numbers with parents preferring to keep their kids at home, it is a wait and see exercise for them; rather than sending kids back to pre-school now and then reception in the autumn, they are home schooling instead. There is a local Catholic primary that is always full, with a lengthy waiting list, but they are now actively advertising places and they have included comments that aim to reassure parents about Covid and school safety measures.

 

[Amity Island]

It’s because they take 'lockdown' to mean the restrictions of people leaving their homes. That’s what I understand by the term, and I support that.
The freeing up of hospital beds by transferring the elderly out to care homes is not 'lockdown' but a completely separate thing, something that happened at the same time, to make room for all the people sick with Covid who needed admitting to receive oxygen, etc.
That would have happened (whether done well or badly) whether or not there had been a 'lockdown' in the sense of restricting movement of ordinary people or not.
The lockdown of ordinary people was to save even more people catching covid and needing to be admitted to hospital, so that the hospitals wouldn’t be overwhelmed. Not to chuck people out of hospital. Nobody is 'liking' that.

I use the term "lockdown" as an all encompassing phrase to cover basically all strategies; but yes you are quite right, they are two different strategies, although they were implemented at exactly the same time.

Here is an article discussing what happened just before "lockdown/bed clearance".

They were basically aiming to clear 30,000 beds to make room for anticipated new patients.

This is what I base my original point on that, this first "wave" was nothing of the kind. As I said, there was little evidence of any excess deaths prior to the 23rd March and no evidence of any excess hospital admissions prior to the 23rd. I see the first "wave" more likely to be the direct result of the 30,000 bed clearance target, plus DNR's, postponement of planned surgery and people afraid to attend hospital due to the government fear campaign and not the natural wave of a virus that kicks off on a specific date (23rd March 2020).

And to add to the deaths and cases, the clearing of these 30,000 people/beds only lead to more people becoming infected, as in the other article below, it shows that in some hospitals 25-45% of patients caught sarscov2 whilst actually in hospital, which was only made possible by the 30,000 bed clearance target.

NHS seeks to free up 30,000 beds ready for coronavirus surge | Nursing Times

The NHS is seeking to free up 30,000 hospital beds across England to make way for an expected surge in coronavirus patients. The proposals were laid out

www.nursingtimes.net

Patients in some hospitals get coronavirus after admission, data shows

The shocking new NHS data shows that there has been a doubling in hospital patients getting infected with the virus after admission in the last month.

www.dailymail.co.uk

 

[Bruce Stephens]

I see the first "wave" more likely to be the direct result of the 30,000 bed clearance target, plus DNR's, postponement of planned surgery and people afraid to attend hospital due to the government fear campaign and not the natural wave of a virus that kicks off on a specific date (23rd March 2020).

Alternatively, there had been ~1000 individual seeding events (infected people returning from various countries in (mostly) Europe rather than China (travelling from China was restricted)), cases were probably doubling every 2 or 3 days but we just couldn't see it (because we had such little testing).

Exponential growth looks just fine until suddenly you notice you're much too late to act. Especially if you're trying to control things based on hospital admissions or deaths (which are significantly delayed measures).

The unethical use of DNRs and clearing elderly people from hospitals was scandalous and we should surely have been able to do better, but I'm not sure it changed that much overall. We'd still have ended up with lots of infected people and most likely similar death numbers. Maybe deaths in care homes would have been reduced, but I fear they'd just have been delayed by a few months.

 

[pm133]

I use the term "lockdown" as an all encompassing phrase to cover basically all strategies; but yes you are quite right, they are two different strategies, although they were implemented at exactly the same time.

And that is the reason why people are not following your point.
You're using the wrong word to describe the care home disaster.

As said above, lockdown and the care home disaster are two separate things and people generally support one whilst condemning the other.

With care homes, politicians simply panicked into clearing hospitals. This is what happens when you deliberately run the NHS into the ground - you end up with no room for a pandemic or national crisis. In any other walk of life, someone would quite rightly have their career ended by such a wilfully incompetent mistake.

With lockdown, we cannot know for sure what would have happened if we had not locked down but the evidence that they work is persuasive. We went from an exponential growth of cases to a flatline within a couple of weeks. If you can provide a better explanation than it being as a result of lockdown working then I'm all ears.

I do agree with your point about masks. The suggestion that they work simply offends my intelligence as a former scientist. I know for a fact that they don't work and that this was about trying to manipulate the behaviour of people as a visual reminder that we are in a pandemic and to behave accordingly - social distancing, hand washing etc. I'm not a child and resent being manipulated like one by politicians I have no respect for.

Social distancing and hand washing are both valuable I believe and I am persuaded that they have worked well.

So in summary, it's just masks which I have a problem with in general - well, that and the infuriating risk aversion which is paralysing decision making as regards removing restrictions. Almost everyone in the vulnerable category has had their 1st jab and it is crystal clear that the link between cases rising and deaths and hospitalisations also rising a few weeks later has been well and truly broken. There is simply no excuse for this pussyfooting around and all this nonsense about variants needs to stop. If a new variant gets around the vaccine we'll deal with it then. In the meantime, there's no reason to stop those of us wanting a life to get back to that. Everyone else can cower under the bedsheets if that's what rocks their boat.

 

[Bruce Stephens]

Social distancing and hand washing are both valuable I believe and I am persuaded that they have worked well.

Distancing yes. I thought it was generally agreed that surfaces weren't much of a vector (for this virus, though for others they are) which would suggest hand washing wouldn't be that valuable? (Washing hands is presumably a help for health in general, though, so obviously I wouldn't suggest we should stop.)

Must admit I think the mask evidence is more positive than you're suggesting. I have seen people arguing that there are studies showing that shields don't really work (because, it's suggested, they prevent droplets but not aerosols) but that people wearing masks and face shields do get some protection, suggesting the important thing is the masks. (I believe there have been some environments where some staff wore just face shields and some wore both masks and face shields, allowing direct comparison (though with really small numbers).)

I'm perfectly willing to believe that the face coverings I'm wearing aren't going to protect me very much, and distancing is much more important for that. (And obviously the two doses of a vaccine that I've now had.)

 

[Amity Island]

And that is the reason why people are not following your point.
You're using the wrong word to describe the care home disaster.

As said above, lockdown and the care home disaster are two separate things and people generally support one whilst condemning the other.

With care homes, politicians simply panicked into clearing hospitals. This is what happens when you deliberately run the NHS into the ground - you end up with no room for a pandemic or national crisis. In any other walk of life, someone would quite rightly have their career ended by such a wilfully incompetent mistake.

With lockdown, we cannot know for sure what would have happened if we had not locked down but the evidence that they work is persuasive. We went from an exponential growth of cases to a flatline within a couple of weeks. If you can provide a better explanation than it being as a result of lockdown working then I'm all ears.

I do agree with your point about masks. The suggestion that they work simply offends my intelligence as a former scientist. I know for a fact that they don't work and that this was about trying to manipulate the behaviour of people as a visual reminder that we are in a pandemic and to behave accordingly - social distancing, hand washing etc. I'm not a child and resent being manipulated like one by politicians I have no respect for.

Social distancing and hand washing are both valuable I believe and I am persuaded that they have worked well.

So in summary, it's just masks which I have a problem with in general - well, that and the infuriating risk aversion which is paralysing decision making as regards removing restrictions. Almost everyone in the vulnerable category has had their 1st jab and it is crystal clear that the link between cases rising and deaths and hospitalisations also rising a few weeks later has been well and truly broken. There is simply no excuse for this pussyfooting around and all this nonsense about variants needs to stop. If a new variant gets around the vaccine we'll deal with it then. In the meantime, there's no reason to stop those of us wanting a life to get back to that. Everyone else can cower under the bedsheets if that's what rocks their boat.

Thanks PM133,

I enjoyed reading your post and agree with what you explain well and simply.

I agree NHS has been deliberately run into the ground over many years with beds reducing year on year. My GP said the same thing, that there is an agenda to the NHS being run into the ground, he said he's wacthed it happed over the many years before he retired. As an aside to running the nhs down, this I believe is a big factor in the rise in deaths in India, as they didn't sort the lack of oxygen manufacturing plant six months ago, now Matt Hancock announced last night that Britain is sending over oxygen plant from a company in Ireland.

In terms of an explanation of why there was an equally quick drop in deaths after the bed celarance and the lockdown period was simply "you can only die once" and once a DNR has been put on your bed, that's it. Once the bulk of the 30,000 are "cleared" that's it, there are no more to die.

There is an article here about an ex nurse (also a scottish mp said a similar thing) explaining that it would be "useful" in solving the bed blocking by killing off patients.

Leading ex-nurse says coronavirus pandemic would be ‘useful’ to solve bed blocking by killing off patients

‘Your hospital would work because these people would be taken out of the system,’ Professor June Andrews says

www.independent.co.uk

And yes, mandatory masks are the only way to make the pandemic visible, to enable them to keep the fear campaign going, little to do with reducing spread as I have shown many times, there is NO on the ground evidence they work.

They are now going to do a 3rd vaccine top up in autumn, after ordering 60million more pfizer vaccines. How many jabs does one need? They say they don't knnow how long the vaccine works for.

 

[pm133]

Distancing yes. I thought it was generally agreed that surfaces weren't much of a vector (for this virus, though for others they are) which would suggest hand washing wouldn't be that valuable? (Washing hands is presumably a help for health in general, though, so obviously I wouldn't suggest we should stop.)

Must admit I think the mask evidence is more positive than you're suggesting. I have seen people arguing that there are studies showing that shields don't really work (because, it's suggested, they prevent droplets but not aerosols) but that people wearing masks and face shields do get some protection, suggesting the important thing is the masks. (I believe there have been some environments where some staff wore just face shields and some wore both masks and face shields, allowing direct comparison (though with really small numbers).)

I'm perfectly willing to believe that the face coverings I'm wearing aren't going to protect me very much, and distancing is much more important for that. (And obviously the two doses of a vaccine that I've now had.)

Hand washing is a good thing in general - not just for covid, so I'm pleased to see that intiative take hold.

Regarding the masks, you are correct that they stop major droplets when you cough or sneeze but the reality is that virtually nobody is sneezing or coughing into a mask. When was the last time any of us walked into a supermarket and thought "Blimey, there's a lot of people coughing and sneezing in here"? It's just an over-hyped fear. The vast bulk of your breath is going straight out the sides of your mask in the general air as a micro-fine aerosol, taking whatever virus or bug you are carrying with it. There isn't, to my knowledge, any scientific literature proving masks, scarves or jumpers (all of which we are told are acceptable) help in any meaningful way.

Anyway, I just wanted to vent yesterday and I feel better for it. When the law is removed mandating them, I'll be celebrating with a bonfire of them. 🙂

 

[pm133]

In terms of an explanation of why there was an equally quick drop in deaths after the bed celarance and the lockdown period was simply "you can only die once" and once a DNR has been put on your bed, that's it. Once the bulk of the 30,000 are "cleared" that's it, there are no more to die.

OK that argument seems reasonable on the face of it but now you have to explain the second wave of deaths. If everyone died off the first time why was there a second wave once we removed restrictions and entered autumn? That killed more than twice as many as the first wave and it didn't affect care homes to the same extent that time round. Your argument falls apart here in my opinion.

You also seem to think vaccines don't work so you need to explain why the link between cases and hospitalisations/deaths has been broken since we introduced vaccines and why that pattern has been replicated in other countries with high levels of vaccination. Specifically, deaths amongst the vulnerable groups has dropped to almost zero since the vaccination program started, unlike other age groups which saw rises. Statistically, the argument of "you can only die once" doesn't hold any water here and cannot explain this.

 

[Bruce Stephens]

How many jabs does one need? They say they don't knnow how long the vaccine works for.

They don't know, so it makes sense to plan on the basis that they'll need another one soon.

Even if we do need another one this autumn I don't think that means we're going to need 6 monthly boosters for ever. The vaccines are really effective, including (it seems) reducing transmission, so maybe (combined with some minimal NPI) prevalence can be driven down. (And anyway I get the impression that almost no-one thinks immunity will really drop so fast so personally I'm anticipating maybe a booster early next year covering one or more of the variants and then nothing further for years.)

 

[Amity Island]

OK that argument seems reasonable on the face of it but now you have to explain the second wave of deaths. If everyone died off the first time why was there a second wave once we removed restrictions and entered autumn? That killed more than twice as many as the first wave and it didn't affect care homes to the same extent that time round. Your argument falls apart here in my opinion.

You also seem to think vaccines don't work so you need to explain why the link between cases and hospitalisations/deaths has been broken since we introduced vaccines and why that pattern has been replicated in other countries with high levels of vaccination. Specifically, deaths amongst the vulnerable groups has dropped to almost zero since the vaccination program started, unlike other age groups which saw rises. Statistically, the argument of "you can only die once" doesn't hold any water here and cannot explain this.

What I was saying was, the first "wave" wasn't a wave but more of a result of the bed clearance, dnr's in combination with the effect of lockdown in terms of people missing and avoiding hospital appointments. The second wave I'd assume was the result of a virus and not bed clearance?

In terms of your question about vaccines, the cases fell in sync just about worldwide from the 14th January 2021, before the vaccines got going world wide.

https://forum.diabetes.org.uk/boards/threads/covid19-went-into-worldwide-retreat-from-14th-jan-2021.91198/

 

[pm133]

What I was saying was, the first "wave" wasn't a wave but more of a result of the bed clearance, dnr's in combination with the effect of lockdown in terms of people missing and avoiding hospital appointments. The second wave I'd assume was the result of a virus and not bed clearance?

In terms of your question about vaccines, the cases fell in sync just about worldwide from the 14th January 2021, before the vaccines got going world wide.

https://forum.diabetes.org.uk/boards/threads/covid19-went-into-worldwide-retreat-from-14th-jan-2021.91198/

I'm not persuaded that you've really addressed the facts that I laid out in my last couple of posts to you so I don't really want to say much more at this point.

 

[Bruce Stephens]

What I was saying was, the first "wave" wasn't a wave but more of a result of the bed clearance, dnr's in combination with the effect of lockdown in terms of people missing and avoiding hospital appointments.

I'm unconvinced.

For one thing, there's not a whole lot you can do about people missing and avoiding hospitals: people who feel ill are liable to not want to go to hospitals if they fear the hospitals are full of infected people. So at least some of that kind of effect is as much the epidemic as it is the lockdown.

For another, compare the UK and Sweden. The graphs look rather similar to me, consistent with the deaths being caused by the epidemic rather than by restrictions.

COVID-19 Data Explorer

Explore global data on COVID-19.

ourworldindata.org

 

[mikeyB]

I honestly have no idea what this discussion is about. I thought this thread was about Covid Anxiety and fears of reintegrating. That's in the future, not the past.

What happened to cause this or that during the pandemic is irrelevant, the easiest thing is to blame the government for sequential and persistent incompetence, and be content with that.