Heading into autumn - what next?

[quantinghome]

And upon whether we consider unvaccinated adult deaths as part of such a tolerance. Respectfully, I don’t think we do — national policy on restrictions cannot be driven by the outcomes of this very small group.

Irrespective of our views on people who have decided not to get vaccinated (and let's not forget those who can't be vaccinated due to medical conditions), national policy has to consider the effect on the health service. The only way we could detach national policy from considering the unvaccinated is by denying them treatment if they present at a hospital with Covid. But that would be unconscionable.

 

[Dent]

Sounds great but what does it actually mean? What level of fatalities can we tolerate as a price for 'living with Covid'? The level of tolerance is bound to vary significantly from person to person.

Talk of how many deaths we can "tolerate" doesn't really make much sense given that deaths happen whether you "tolerate" that fundamental fact of life or not.

 

[MikeWM]

The statistic that jumped out at me, looking at all-cause mortality just now, is the all-cause mortality statistics by vaccination status.

Vaccination status	Covid as a percentage of all deaths
Not vaccinated	37.4%
Fully vaccinated	0.8%

That's a remarkably misleading figure out-of-context though, because the data runs from January 2nd. Most of the deaths from Covid this year were in January and February, when almost nobody was fully vaccinated ('21 days after 2nd dose'), whether they wanted to be or not.

I'm sure that vaccination makes a difference, but it isn't to the degree this suggests.

I respect the decision of anyone not to get vaccinated, but reject the idea that this group should drive policy; and I suspect most unvaccinated people wouldn’t wish for this either.

As previously discussed, I'm sure this is true. In fact I'd say 'almost all' rather than 'most'.

 

[Bikeman78]

The effects of Covid weigh heavily on the NHS. Infection control measures need to be kept in place, reducing capacity, while simultaneously it has to deal with a persistently high Covid case load. This continues to take resources away from other areas and the backlog increases even more. This is the price we pay for "learning to live with Covid".

I'm hoping that the government has started a massive recruitment drive to get extra doctors to beef up the system and replace those that have inevitably had enough and resigned or retired. I haven't seen much evidence of it though.

Sounds great but what does it actually mean? What level of fatalities can we tolerate as a price for 'living with Covid'? The level of tolerance is bound to vary significantly from person to person.

What level of fatalities can we tolerate for anything? Most of the people I know that have died over the past few years have been under 60 and had cancer or a heart attack. I hope that Covid will soon recede into the background like Spanish Flu did, but if it doesn't we will have to learn to live with it. There is no other option.

 

[MikeWM]

I'm hoping that the government has started a massive recruitment drive to get extra doctors to beef up the system and replace those that have inevitably had enough and resigned or retired. I haven't seen much evidence of it though.

Actually their main response seems to be to threaten to fire those who aren't vaccinated, which looks likely to be a policy announced soon. That will no doubt help the capacity of the system immensely

Meanwhile, it seems a good proportion of the current problems in the hospitals are due to being unable to discharge people to care homes, because nowhere is able to take them due to staffing shortages. These shortages were already rather acute, and are now being made worse by the government's insistence on compulsory vaccination for care home staff.

 

[Cdd89]

Irrespective of our views on people who have decided not to get vaccinated (and let's not forget those who can't be vaccinated due to medical conditions)

I would take slight issue with the phrase “views on people who have decided not to get vaccinated”. To the extent that I hold a “view”, it’s that they have taken a personal decision to place themselves in a higher risk group. I certainly do not judge them for it, I’m voluntarily in higher risk groups for all sorts of things.

People who permanently cannot be vaccinated due to medical conditions (i.e. involuntarily) are an incredibly tiny number. Broadly just those with very severe mental health issues with needles, and people with complex allergies who cannot take any vaccine (fewer than 1 in 10 million). There are quite a temporary reasons, but everyone in the temporary group should have had the opportunity by now.

national policy has to consider the effect on the health service. The only way we could detach national policy from considering the unvaccinated is by denying them treatment if they present at a hospital with Covid

I intentionally didn’t quote the first half of your post as I wished to focus exclusively on your point about “tolerance for deaths”. I would respectfully suggest that the fact you have fallen back to the point about healthcare overwhelm means the “tolerance for deaths” issue is not a significant one.

If it genuinely is the case that unvaccinated people are overwhelming healthcare to the extent that society would support the reimposition of restrictions, then we would need a serious conversation about mandating the vaccine. But I do NOT personally see this how this could be necessary given that unvaccinated people are a small group numerically (especially at higher risk ages), and that we haven’t restricted ourselves in 2019 and before in response to the NHS being pressured.

 

[nlogax]

Sajid Javid holding a briefing at 5pm today. I'm highly, highly doubtful that there'll be any sort of lockdown.

 

[adc82140]

Sajid Javid holding a briefing at 5pm today. I'm highly, highly doubtful that there'll be any sort of lockdown.

There won't be. It'll be about vaccines

 

[NorthKent1989]

The effects of Covid weigh heavily on the NHS. Infection control measures need to be kept in place, reducing capacity, while simultaneously it has to deal with a persistently high Covid case load. This continues to take resources away from other areas and the backlog increases even more. This is the price we pay for "learning to live with Covid".


Sounds great but what does it actually mean? What level of fatalities can we tolerate as a price for 'living with Covid'? The level of tolerance is bound to vary significantly from person to person.

We have to live with Covid at some point and stop putting our lives on hold, all we’re doing is preventing the inevitable as someone said earlier the NHS has to get on with it.

 

[nlogax]

There won't be. It'll be about vaccines

I imagine that will form the majority of the content, yes. Whitty and Vallance will be present.

 

[Yew]

There won't be. It'll be about vaccines

Opening up vaccinaton centres for kids?

 

[Darandio]

There won't be. It'll be about vaccines

Indeed. Specifically about the booster program and encouraging anyone else eligible for a vaccine to have one 'or else'.

I do also expect some sort of talk about half term next week asking people to stay at home where possible and minimise contact, a sort of self enforced firebreak. They can shove it of course but at least it looks like they are doing something, that's what it's always been all about.

 

[adc82140]

Actually these press conferences sometimes act to temper certain elements of the media getting carried away.

 

[Class 33]

Sajid Javid holding a briefing at 5pm today. I'm highly, highly doubtful that there'll be any sort of lockdown.

It definitely won't be about any lockdown. The government would have to be INCREDIBLY wreckless to impose yet another damaging lockdown.

What I am worried about is if they announce either today or within the next few weeks, that this compulsory face mask nonsense will be brought back again to "Protect the NHS"(!!!). That nonsense drove me mad for months before. I(along with millions of others) can't be doing with that nonsense being brought back again when we only just got rid of it 3 months ago.

 

[Smidster]

I imagine that will form the majority of the content, yes. Whitty and Vallance will be present.

I would imagine this to be a "last chance to avoid the naughty step" type of press conference - emphasizing vaccines including allowing 12-15 year colds to go to walk-in centers and encouraging the boosters.

I would then expect the Plan B announcement to follow early next week - everyone better get their papers ready!

 

[nw1]

Problem with that thinking is that there is no real evidence that masks make a significant difference to Public Health.

As long as we maintain the current level of contact between people then a few people wearing a flimsy piece of cloth in Tesco isn't going to make a lick of difference - as you can see in Scotland and Wales at the moment where they have masks but also figures that are as high as they are in England.

I would certainly take action to prevent what I experienced on Saturday, which was a bus so full that people were sitting on the stairs.

A bit of non-punitive distancing on public transport would go a long way, I suspect. As I said the issue with this government is it sways between extremes, from (on the one hand) imposing long lockdowns, paranoia about overseas travel, and arresting people who go for a walk in quiet countryside to (on the other hand) apparently doing nothing about overcrowded situations. It's as if they swing from one extreme to the other based on what they feel people want right now.

 

[duncanp]

What levels of death through flu, cancer, dementia are we prepared to accept?

And what level of death through suicide, alcohol and drug misuse, as a consequence of ongoing restrictions, are we prepared to accept as a price for "...protecting the NHS..."?

 

[APT618S]

Sounds great but what does it actually mean? What level of fatalities can we tolerate as a price for 'living with Covid'? The level of tolerance is bound to vary significantly from person to person.

The death rate in the UK was 1016.2 per 100,000 population in 2020 which as expected was up on 2019 which was 893.1.
However in 2003 it was 1019.9. Yes the death rate was higher in 2003 compared with 2020.
2002 was also higher than 2020, as was 2001.
In fact EVERY year between 2003 and 1838 had a higher death rate than 2020.
I do not remember any panic / hysteria over the death rate in the 1990s, 1980s, 1970s and 1960s.
So looking at the data over say the past 50 years 2020 would come in the top half of LOW death years.
Source ONS:

Annual deaths and mortality rates, 1838 to 2020 (provisional) - Office for National Statistics

www.ons.gov.uk

 

[duncanp]

The death rate in the UK was 1016.2 per 100,000 population in 2020 which as expected was up on 2019 which was 893.1.
However in 2003 it was 1019.9. Yes the death rate was higher in 2003 compared with 2020.
2002 was also higher than 2020, as was 2001.
In fact EVERY year between 2003 and 1838 had a higher death rate than 2020.
I do not remember any panic / hysteria over the death rate in the 1990s, 1980s, 1970s and 1960s.
So looking at the data over say the past 50 years 2020 would come in the top half of LOW death years.
Source ONS:

Annual deaths and mortality rates, 1838 to 2020 (provisional) - Office for National Statistics

www.ons.gov.uk

Oh do be quiet, we can't let mere facts get in the way of panic and people who have hidden agendas.

 

[nw1]

And what level of death through suicide, alcohol and drug misuse, as a consequence of ongoing restrictions, are we prepared to accept as a price for "...protecting the NHS..."?

And why don't the government fund the NHS to make it work better? They're quite happy to fritter away money elsewhere.

 

[Bantamzen]

Sajid Javid holding a briefing at 5pm today. I'm highly, highly doubtful that there'll be any sort of lockdown.

I never thought I'd say something like this, but I am glad to have somewhat of a hard nosed health secretary in charge. If this had been Starmer's army in charge, they would tearfully be announcing that Thursday night pot banging would become compulsory, that lockdowns would be re-introduced until the "NHS has been saved", full hazmat suits would be mandatory indoors & out, including our home, and that we worship Starmer at least once a day over a monitored Zoom call.....

 

[quantinghome]

And what level of death through suicide, alcohol and drug misuse, as a consequence of ongoing restrictions, are we prepared to accept as a price for "...protecting the NHS..."?

Have these actually increased? Not from the look of it: Coronavirus and suicide risk | One year on: data on Covid-19 | Our policy and research (samaritans.org)
If you have evidence to the contrary, please present it.

The death rate in the UK was 1016.2 per 100,000 population in 2020 which as expected was up on 2019 which was 893.1.
However in 2003 it was 1019.9. Yes the death rate was higher in 2003 compared with 2020.
2002 was also higher than 2020, as was 2001.
In fact EVERY year between 2003 and 1838 had a higher death rate than 2020.
I do not remember any panic / hysteria over the death rate in the 1990s, 1980s, 1970s and 1960s.
So looking at the data over say the past 50 years 2020 would come in the top half of LOW death years.
Source ONS:

Annual deaths and mortality rates, 1838 to 2020 (provisional) - Office for National Statistics

www.ons.gov.uk

That's simply the effect of increased life expectancy. It has nothing to do with how we best mitigate the effects of a new communicable disease.

 

[duncanp]

And why don't the government fund the NHS to make it work better? They're quite happy to fritter away money elsewhere.

I wouldn't object in principle to paying more income tax, or other taxes, to fund the NHS.

But I would want to make damn sure that any increased funding goes directly into improving patient care and productivity, and not swallowed up in recruiting more managers and admin staff.

 

[Reliablebeam]

It's been great the last few weeks with the media being distracted with other matters. Now however the usual suspects are back screaming and the Ferguson is being wheeled out. I will be interested to see how Javid's teleconference plays out tonight, he is certainly different to Hancock. Kwarteng certainly came out swinging this morning and Playbook seemed to think any fresh restrictions are a way off...

 

[duncanp]

Have these actually increased? Not from the look of it: Coronavirus and suicide risk | One year on: data on Covid-19 | Our policy and research (samaritans.org)
If you have evidence to the contrary, please present it.

How about this paragraph from the Samaritans article you have linked to.

But there is no room for complacency. The effects of the pandemic are being disproportionately felt by the most vulnerable people in society and are exacerbating factors we know are related to suicide. Data so far has not captured differences in local areas or particular groups, nor does it tell us what might happen longer term as a result of the economic disruption.

For instance, coronavirus is having a profound effect on the economy. We know that, during the previous recession, suicide rates have risen, and those who are hardest hit by economic downturn are also those who are at greatest risk of suicide – ie, middle-aged men (see our report Dying from Inequality).

The article also says

As of June 2021, official statistics on suicide rates during the pandemic have not been released. This is because it takes a long time to register, analyse and report on suicide data at a national level, and this has been further delayed due to the pandemic

So the true effect of COVID-19 on suicide and mental health may not be known for some time.

 

[quantinghome]

I wouldn't object in principle to paying more income tax, or other taxes, to fund the NHS.

But I would want to make damn sure that any increased funding goes directly into improving patient care and productivity, and not swallowed up in recruiting more managers and admin staff.

Sounds great, but wouldn't that just mean you have highly skilled medical staff doing more of the management and admin?

 

[yorksrob]

The effects of Covid weigh heavily on the NHS. Infection control measures need to be kept in place, reducing capacity, while simultaneously it has to deal with a persistently high Covid case load. This continues to take resources away from other areas and the backlog increases even more. This is the price we pay for "learning to live with Covid".


Sounds great but what does it actually mean? What level of fatalities can we tolerate as a price for 'living with Covid'? The level of tolerance is bound to vary significantly from person to person.

One has to question why infection control measures continue have such a great effect on capacity. With the majority of hospital staff now vaccinated, it must surely be possible to provide the additional space for them to operate in, without reducing the number of physical needs so much.

Also, what is being done to alleviate the problem further down the line. Has the Government actually raised the cap on how many people are allowed to train in the medical professions each year and by how much. These are the questions that need to be asked.

But as others have pointed out, Covid deaths are now a small proportion of excess deaths, let alone overall mortality, therefore there is no justification for large scale changes to the way society operates.

 

[quantinghome]

So the true effect of COVID-19 on suicide and mental health may not be known for some time.

Very true. So let's not make arguments which assume that suicides have increased.

 

[bramling]

Very true. So let's not make arguments which assume that suicides have increased.

I don't think anyone can say restrictions have had a positive impact on mental health, that much is pretty much a given, except perhaps for people who enjoy being cooped up indoors getting very little out of life.

One has to question why infection control measures continue have such a great effect on capacity. With the majority of hospital staff now vaccinated, it must surely be possible to provide the additional space for them to operate in, without reducing the number of physical needs so much.

Also, what is being done to alleviate the problem further down the line. Has the Government actually raised the cap on how many people are allowed to train in the medical professions each year and by how much. These are the questions that need to be asked.

But as others have pointed out, Covid deaths are now a small proportion of excess deaths, let alone overall mortality, therefore there is no justification for large scale changes to the way society operates.

We are now getting towards the 2-year mark. If the NHS wants us to again make fundamental changes to the way we go about our lives, they need to make a damn good case for why capacity continues to be an issue. There's already been quite a big lack of accountability in this respect, and the longer this goes on for the more difficult it is to justify.

Whilst accepting that it's never quite this simple, clearly some of the £70bn spent on furlough could have been used to uplift NHS capacity.

Instead of putting "Thank you NHS" on train destination indicators (yes GTR!) or people putting blue hearts on their social media, how about holding the NHS to account?

 

[greyman42]

Oh do be quiet, we can't let mere facts get in the way of panic and people who have hidden agendas.

Such as not having to go to work.