I'm discussing this on the basis of simple known facts. But sure, let's just sit on our hands and wait shall we. Perhaps we should do the same with frontline staff and the PPE many still don't have, wait and see after it all unfolds whether it would be good if they have it. What's the worse that can happen? Academic review of things that can be learned after the fact is valuable, I agree, but I also prefer to be proactive and control what is controllable based on the facts at hand. But yeah, we can agree to disagree. If you don't want to pass judgment and wait until it's all over that's your perogative. I just hope you are not affected by this, or need the staff currently not at work or need those that treat you to not have PPE.
Well it is natural and death is necessary. As someone who's over 90, s/he's very entitled to that opinion, it's gonna hurt them more than us.
And I'm saying you can't because you don't have all the known facts, some of the know facts haven't even happened yet. Oh, IDK, how about not having enough PPE at a time when it's needed most because we've used it all up before the peak hit. Like it or not resources are finite and if they're all used up before they're needed most there's not much anyone can do about it, like i said we won't know until this is all over. Thanks, i think. TBH I'd prefer that staff, and resources, are there when they're needed most and as the time of most need hasn't arrived yet it's a bit difficult to know how things will pan out.
May I suggest you have a read on what Doctors are and have been saying and perhaps into the recommendations made in 2017 that were rewritten as the Government said they cost too much. If it's anything like other circular discussions in thread we're the only ones reading this now and I think we both have better things to do to be honest. ---------- In other good news, my mum texted me to say she'd bought toilet roll. At any other time that would be weird, right now it's good news.
oh dear, how sad, never mind... Tweet— Twitter API (@user) date Helmut by name, Helmet by nature... Sun gonna Sun... Tweet— Twitter API (@user) date
Bit long but interesting to hear the view from South Korea who have a lot of experience with epidemics.
The WHO has been advising "TEST TEST TEST" from the outset and that isolation is critical to reduce spread. Every country that has been dealing with it has been telling everyone "Isolate NOW, test EVERYONE". Is there the chance that the UK's initial "ignore it and it might go away" tactic may be beneficial? Well, no. I can't in good conscience claim there is, even jokingly. ::EDIT:: We're still firmly on the trendline, the only nations who have managed to diverge are those who immediately went into full-on response.
Moron number 2, my brother in law. He has pretty bad asthma, but not considered severe enough to get a golden ticket letter from the government. He does however live at his parents house, both of whom have severe health problems and have received said golden tickets. So he, his wife, his brother and parents had decided to stick it out together and go into isolation together. My partner bought them food and supplies on Saturday and dropped it off half way up the drive for the to collect. All going well. Until yesterday when he gets a call from work saying he has to go in for a meeting (despite their previous message of go home till the end of April then we'll review). Rather than telling them to get lost he was considering going in. Everyone told him not to, his mum was on the phone in tears terrified, my wife told him not to, or if he did then not to return and come live with is, or she had friends in lettings who could sort him temp accomodation, but mostly don't go. For the love of God don't go. He went. Then he returned home. Lied to my partner about still being at work, only for he to get a call from her dad saying he was back. She is PISSED. I really don't want to be here when he shows up, because I'd rather not witness a murder.
Guys and gals, I need helps understanding something in regards to how this is being handled in the UK. I'm after a genuine response detailing why it's not an option. My question is: rather than make everyone go into isolation, why aren't the high risk groups put into isolation while the low risk groups carry on with working? Couldn't support services be put in place to make sure the high risk groups get their supplies? I worry about the impact this'll have on the economy. And if it goes on, maybe even my job - there's only so much you can do at home in my field.
Maybe WHO should sort out the global shortage of tests then, saying "TEST TEST TEST" is all well and good but how do they expect countries to do that when there's not enough "TESTS TESTS TESTS" to go around.
I expect it's partially to do with the sheer scale of it meaning that even with the high risk groups removed, it could still over-run the health system. In addition to this, a lot of high risk people need care, and there's no way to just isolate them on their own (think care homes).
Because low risk doesn't mean no risk, they maybe low risk but even if 0.5% (<example as IDK the true number) ended up needing ICU's that could either be enough to overwhelm the ability of healthcare to cope or take up capacity that could be used for those at high risk that inadvertently catch it.
The headline mortality rate among low risk groups is currently low, however: The number of people who require medical intervention is far higher, if you overwhelm the healthcare system with those cases then you'll end up increasing the mortality rate as the necessary medical interventions will no longer be readily available. That being said, in Germany some experts are proposing a solution: Basically they want to start performing mass tests for anti bodies in peoples blood, since those who have developed anti bodies should be immune they could be permitted to disregard the shutdown rules and go back to work.
