initiation
Member
- Joined
- 10 Nov 2014
- Messages
- 432
120,508
people are currently predicted to have symptomatic COVID in the UK
The Government are going to find it increasingly difficult to toe the line of "The vaccines work; get vaccinated!" / "The vaccines don't work; we need to keep locking down!" contradictory messaging, if these trends continue...
Daily new cases of COVID
Total numbers of new daily cases across the UK
6,242
The network of emergency Nightingale hospitals set up to cope with a surge of Covid-19 cases is to close from April, the NHS has said.
Established last spring amid fears that the NHS might be overwhelmed, the temporary hospitals in England were largely not needed.
Some were used as rehab centres and the sites in London and Sunderland will stay open for vaccinations.
The NHS said they had been the "ultimate insurance policy".
Seven Nightingale hospitals were built in England, starting in April 2020 with the 4,000-bed facility at London's ExCel centre. Another was set up in Belfast, while Scotland and Wales had their own temporary hospitals.
But they were never used on a large scale, because the NHS did not have enough trained staff to fill the Nightingales as well as the permanent hospitals.
During the winter surge in coronavirus cases, Chris Hopson of NHS Providers, which represents hospital trusts, said they had been built to avoid a situation like that seen in northern Italy in spring last year. But he said it would be a "success" if they were not used.
Yorkshire's 500-bed hospital, opened by Capt Sir Tom Moore, will close next month without treating a single patient. It will operate as a testing centre until then.
A sign of things improving: the NHS plan to close the Nightingale Hospitals from April (yes many were PR facilities so to speak but their closure still seems to be positive):
I think the correct word is invested. Money would have been saved if we had not built it, as they were not needed - but think how awful it’d have been if they were needed!Does anyone know how much money has beenwastedspent on the Nightingale hospitals?
A sign of things improving: the NHS plan to close the Nightingale Hospitals from April (yes many were PR facilities so to speak but their closure still seems to be positive):
Covid-19: Nightingale hospitals to close from April
The temporary hospitals, which were largely unused, are being shut as patient numbers fall.www.bbc.co.uk
It does though beg the question about if the situation is going to be much better next month that these hospitals will close, why don't they lift almost all, if not all restrictions then? I expect the SAGE pessimists are the answer, but this sort of questioning needs hounding at them, especially as we could well have completed first doses for 5-9 groups around the same time the Nightingales appear to be closing.
I must admit, whilst SAGE are still bleating that there might be another "hard winter" I'm not convinced that now would be the time to de-commission the Nightingales.
It sounds like them lazily falling back on their default position of being happy to impose restrictions on the public, rather than providing a working health service.
The Nightingales were barely used, and probably more of drain of resources than any kind of help. Added to the fact that hospitalisations should be significantly lower from here on in, there seems little point throwing more money at them.I must admit, whilst SAGE are still bleating that there might be another "hard winter" I'm not convinced that now would be the time to de-commission the Nightingales.
It sounds like them lazily falling back on their default position of being happy to impose restrictions on the public, rather than providing a working health service.
this will be the last ever lockdown
I read it differently - a signal to the events industry that their venues are going to be able to be used for events.I must admit, whilst SAGE are still bleating that there might be another "hard winter" I'm not convinced that now would be the time to de-commission the Nightingales.
It sounds like them lazily falling back on their default position of being happy to impose restrictions on the public, rather than providing a working health service.
I'd hope so, but please don't jinx it
Save yourself some woe and step back a little from the headlines. There are a thousand talking heads on media / social media, each with their own opinion of Covid's future in this country and where things are headed. Grim news-topping predictions aren't hard to find amongst the noise, but the vaccination program is doing what it needs to do to fade this thing out and return our lives to us. Gotta have some faith..
I read it differently - a signal to the events industry that their venues are going to be able to be used for events.
It's a welcoming change of tone but I fear the damage has been done. For 12 months now people have been conditioned to think that any covid case/death is bad news and we must lock down. It's going to be very hard to turn people back to normality without the restrictions of social distancing, capacity limits, masks and such.I don't know about others but Chris Witty's tone today seems to be much more in line with there will be deaths and we have to accept it rather than saying we need more restrictions to stop these deaths. I.e. warning us it will continue to kill people no matter what.
It's subtle but for me it represents a change of tone.
I have tried in other fora pointing out that in under-50s deaths with COVID are comparable to road deaths, and nobody’s suggesting banning cars. Sadly, I did not get much buyin.It's a welcoming change of tone but I fear the damage has been done. For 12 months now people have been conditioned to think that any covid case/death is bad news and we must lock down. It's going to be very hard to turn people back to normality without the restrictions of social distancing, capacity limits, masks and such.
I don't know about others but Chris Witty's tone today seems to be much more in line with there will be deaths and we have to accept it rather than saying we need more restrictions to stop these deaths. I.e. warning us it will continue to kill people no matter what.
It's subtle but for me it represents a change of tone.
Supposing in five weeks time, the numbers aren't looking as good as they'd hoped. What are they going to do. Postpone the next stage ? What will that achieve exactly, because if you've vaccinated everyone vulnerable who's going to be vaccinated, there isn't anything more that can be done.
Let's suppose that in mid-April (at the point of the 'phase 2' reopening) the virus is starting to circulate at higher levels, or is growing with R >1. A fourth wave starting at that point could still be fairly deadly: I'd guess about half the population will be unvaccinated (FT projection is to start under-40s in mid-April), the 12 million over 65s will mostly not have had their second shot ie they'll have something like 80% protection against severe illness. But that still means the possibility of 2,500,000 vulnerable people getting a severe illness: of course not that many would, but still potential for a number of deaths albeit you'd hope at a lower level than the third wave.
Groups 1-4 should have all had their second shots by mid-May and all over 65s should have their second shots by mid-June. All adults should have had their first shot by the end of May or first week of June. And then add two weeks to all those dates to allow for immunity to actually develop.
So in terms of delaying, yes, I can see that IF (and that's a big IF) the reopening in March has started to push numbers up, there is merit in postponing reopenings, or staggering them out a bit more, probably until we are in mid-July. And during that period, every week you delay means more partially vaccinated people and more fully vaccinated people, so even putting everything back by just a little bit could make a huge difference. If phases 2 and 3 were delayed or staggered perhaps the gap between phases 3 and 4 (ie to full reopening) could be shortened to try and make up for lost time a bit as you'd be doing those when more or less everyone is are vaccinated.
That's all a "let's suppose".... so far the vaccination programme has been effective at the levels of the most optimistic expectations so let's hope it keeps that way!
Let's suppose that in mid-April (at the point of the 'phase 2' reopening) the virus is starting to circulate at higher levels, or is growing with R >1. A fourth wave starting at that point could still be fairly deadly:
The trouble is that the second shot looks like it's only pushing complete protection from 80% to 86%, which doesn't materially move very much at all. Under 50 the disease is just not serious enough to justify any systematic reaction to it - in a society without any over 50s it probably wouldn't even be worth doing any testing of people who weren't seriously ill. By mid-April we should be pretty close to as-good-as-it's-going-to-get.Let's suppose that in mid-April (at the point of the 'phase 2' reopening) the virus is starting to circulate at higher levels, or is growing with R >1. A fourth wave starting at that point could still be fairly deadly: I'd guess about half the population will be unvaccinated (FT projection is to start under-40s in mid-April), the 12 million over 65s will mostly not have had their second shot ie they'll have something like 80% protection against severe illness. But that still means the possibility of 2,500,000 vulnerable people getting a severe illness: of course not that many would, but still potential for a number of deaths albeit you'd hope at a lower level than the third wave.
Groups 1-4 should have all had their second shots by mid-May and all over 65s should have their second shots by mid-June. All adults should have had their first shot by the end of May or first week of June. And then add two weeks to all those dates to allow for immunity to actually develop.
So in terms of delaying, yes, I can see that IF (and that's a big IF) the reopening in March has started to push numbers up, there is merit in postponing reopenings, or staggering them out a bit more, probably until we are in mid-July. And during that period, every week you delay means more partially vaccinated people and more fully vaccinated people, so even putting everything back by just a little bit could make a huge difference. If phases 2 and 3 were delayed or staggered perhaps the gap between phases 3 and 4 (ie to full reopening) could be shortened to try and make up for lost time a bit as you'd be doing those when more or less everyone is are vaccinated.
That's all a "let's suppose".... so far the vaccination programme has been effective at the levels of the most optimistic expectations so let's hope it keeps that way!
The trouble is that the second shot looks like it's only pushing complete protection from 80% to 86%, which doesn't materially move very much at all. Under 50 the disease is just not serious enough to justify any systematic reaction to it - in a society without any over 50s it probably wouldn't even be worth doing any testing of people who weren't seriously ill. By mid-April we should be pretty close to as-good-as-it's-going-to-get.
The cost from the loss of jobs and businesses we will suffer as a result of a casual months or two extra restrictions would be devastating. You might save a couple of hundred people from having Covid on their death certificate, but at that point you'd almost certainly be losing more through suicides.
I also agree. A lot of businesses are hanging by a thread as it is and pushing their reopening dates back may well send them under with the consequential loss of jobs, which the country can't affordThe trouble is that the second shot looks like it's only pushing complete protection from 80% to 86%, which doesn't materially move very much at all. Under 50 the disease is just not serious enough to justify any systematic reaction to it - in a society without any over 50s it probably wouldn't even be worth doing any testing of people who weren't seriously ill. By mid-April we should be pretty close to as-good-as-it's-going-to-get.
The cost from the loss of jobs and businesses we will suffer as a result of a casual months or two extra restrictions would be devastating. You might save a couple of hundred people from having Covid on their death certificate, but at that point you'd almost certainly be losing more through suicides.
But at that stage, the over 50's will have been vaccinated which will mean that the risk to the NHS will have been neutralised.
It really wouldn't! Pretty much all of those at risk would already have a high level of protection even with only the first injection. The younger age group who won't have had it at all are mostly at very low risk in any case. Under 50 the disease is just not serious enough to justify any systematic reaction to it - in a society without any over 50s it probably wouldn't even be worth doing any testing of people who weren't seriously ill. By mid-April we should be pretty close to as-good-as-it's-going-to-get.
The trouble is that the second shot looks like it's only pushing complete protection from 80% to 86%, which doesn't materially move very much at all.
In April it is very much weather dependent. My daughter was born on April 25th and on the day we took her home from hospital it was snowing! So yes in a warm April the winter season can be snuffed out nicely quite early on, but in a colder year it can persist to mid-May. A mild Easter could make a huge difference this year.Plus you aren't taking seasonality into account - the respiratory virus season will end within the next month or so.
I'd hope that if we did have to delay or stagger stages 2 and 3 of reopening, we could squeeze the time between stages 3 and 4 because at this point vaccination levels would be higher, so you could significantly mitigate any economic loss from doing that. But yes, we should only delay if cases were really shooting up and right now there's no evidence to suggest they will - so far, every step of the vaccination programme has been at the highest level of expected effectiveness.I also agree. A lot of businesses are hanging by a thread as it is and pushing their reopening dates back may well send them under with the consequential loss of jobs, which the country can't afford
Yes though ironically there was a report on the BBC news yesterday that much of the worry is there will be much less immunity in the population next winter due to little to no exposure to flu this winter due to lockdown.I must admit, whilst SAGE are still bleating that there might be another "hard winter" I'm not convinced that now would be the time to de-commission the Nightingales.
It sounds like them lazily falling back on their default position of being happy to impose restrictions on the public, rather than providing a working health service.
We'd see much less of a wave than we've just seen in Jan-Feb of course but still to a high level. And these are vaccinated people - after the first shot, 20% of the people would have got the severe version of the disease without vaccination will still get it. My understanding is that against the most common variants in the UK, protection with the second shot against severe disease is >95% for the current vaccines, so it does make a big difference.
Yes though ironically there was a report on the BBC news yesterday that much of the worry is there will be much less immunity in the population next winter due to little to no exposure to flu this winter due to lockdown.
All in the 'vulnerable 1-4' group were offered a vaccine by the government deadline of 15 February. By virtue of the 12 week rule, all will have been offered their second vaccination by 10 May.In that window between early April and early June you have a period where the disease could still spread pretty quickly because lots of people won't be vaccinated, but in which protection amongst the vulnerable is not complete.