Jukesays wrote:
This is the quote I was going to reply with
"Science must guide Covid course to protect NHS from 'collapse' - health boss
As we've reported, the cabinet is meeting at the moment.
While we're waiting to hear what the outcome of that is, here are some comments from health bosses who have been warning of the mounting pressure on the NHS.
Patricia Marquis, England director at the Royal College of Nursing, calls on ministers to listen to "whatever the scientific advisers are saying" about the pattern of Omicron's spread and "the effect that it's having on people, their health and the health services" to ease off the pressure on the NHS.
The science needs to guide what comes next to protect the health service from what could be a "real collapse", she tells the BBC.
Meanwhile Chris Hopson, chief executive of NHS Providers, which represents hospital trusts, says pressure on London trusts, including hospitals, community mental health and ambulance trusts, has been "mounting rapidly" in the past week.
"The number of hospitalised Covid patients or patients who tested positive for Covid has gone up by 30% in a week, at a time when nationally it's only gone up by 4%," he tells Times Radio."
Anybody would think certain posters are only cherry pi King what they want to read despite criticising others and claiming that's what they do.
It's like criticism of lockdown or social distancing saying only "X" died
Or criticism of vaccines and vaccination programs or vaccine passports and saying either only "X" died etc. Or "X" vaccinated people are still passing it on when when vaccinated.
Imagine how bad it would have been if we hadn't locked down or had vaccines etc.
Vaccines were indeed the game changer with proven empirical results however, I believe the objective of the vaccine is to reduce the severity of the virus and the reduction in getting and potentially passing on the virus was a gratefully received bonus.
The virus as we now know is airborne so it gets into the body via nose/mouth and attaches itself to cells in the throat/lungs whilst the vaccine is input into the bloodstream which means the virus is established before the vaccine can start to do it’s job which it does well but still too late to stop the virus.
I suspect the real answer to the virus ( I also suspect that sage and the government knew from the outset) is medication that can be taken via a spray to the throat and nasal passage. Very little if any news is reported on this development and I’m bemused why that is the case unless the development of such a drug is beyond current known knowledge. The other answer is herd ammunity which has enabled the human race to exist for 40000 years (or as some believe 100000 years) and does have a part to play in this.
By the way I perhaps should have added I’ve had my jabs and my booster and would encourage everybody else to do so. I’ve got 3 siblings with chronic copd, 1 with cancer and a very good fried with cancer so I am fully aware of the impact on any of them if they we’re to get the virus. I’ve also lost 2 good friends to the thing so no way would I consider myself even remotely an anti vaxxer but I would consider myself inquisitive on the issue.
The problem with being inquisitive on this issue is that it is difficult to determine even the most simplistic questions e.g. what was the target set by sage/government for vaccination take up? Is there a generally “accepted” level of take up eg 100%?
The answer to the first question I believe was no target was ever set and the second question no vaccine has ever had an advised target of 100% anywhere in the free world since the very first vaccine.
You state people cheery pick what they want they want to hear or state but it applies across the board from all sides of the argument (it should be debate but that term is now virtually extinct).
A 30% increase can initially be startling however, if the comparator is from a low number then the actual increase can in fact be quite small. I’m not saying that it is small but context should always be applied where doubt could occur.
The comparator is also important. Week on week is obviously an important one but if the vaccine really is the game changer then year on year comparators are also essential.
You state that lockdowns work but based on what? Worked for whom? I reluctantly supported the first lockdown but now with vaccines should things not be different?
The MSM are hand tied by OFCOM so no real debate has taken place on the virus so people revert to Twitter (god knows why) and YT where people like Corbyn are spewing tripe. This also means that other eminent scientists and epidemiologists never get the chance to discuss alternative courses in meaningful debate with their peers.
Professor Gupta at Oxford University is one one the most eminent epidemiologist in the world but to my knowledge she has never appeared on MST sine the start of COVID. Do I agree with her views? I’m actually unsure but would like to see her discuss the issue with her counterpart on sage.
For me the elephant in the room is the NHS. I’m not anti NHS having my life saved by superbly trained staff and countless friends and relatives also benefiting from the service.
I suspect at the moment lack of staff or more importantly the right staff in the right place is the fundamental issue which COVID has fully exposed. Every winter season the NHS is at “breaking point” but nothing seems to change. Money/finance is the obvious issue but inflexible staffing also means that resources cannot be flexed at peak times for winter ailments such as flu, COVID etc.
At the time I thought the Nightingale hospitals were the potential long term answer to an extremely difficult and repetitive problem however, the lack of trained staff made them redundant before they really started.
I’d happily pay more tax for a better quality and more flexible nhs however, that’s easy for me but for millions of others just not doable even if they supported it in principle.
It’s a monumental task and as I wouldn’t know Hopson even if I fell over him is he the guy to fundamentally change the nhs?
But if we're going to do it I'd honestly prefer to get the most we can out of that time and have full lockdown rules. Would have to come with appropriate financial support for all affected.
