Rant alert! How do those who want Lockdown to continue justify the suffering of everyone else?

[Thefrenchbaguette]

My 3 month old has been waiting for a hip scan to confirm her rather obvious DDH. She needs a harness, the GP already confirmed she will need one and put in an urgent referral at her 6 week review and still nothing because they're not doing them at all here! You can only use a harness up until 6 months and after that the treatment for DDH is an operation! My baby is going to have to have a completely unavoidable operation or suffer lifelong damage to her hips because the NHS is just not interested in anyone who doesn't have Covid19! There isn't even the option to pay for it to be done privately! I am furious and so sick of seeing countless threads and comments about how lockdown needs to be continued and even stricter! All very well with your comfortable house and perfectly secure income and no real risk to your overall well-being but what about everyone else who is suffering?!
A friend had an abnormal smear come back in January but the follow up has been indefinitely postponed! How many people are going to miss life saving diagnosis', life saving treatments! It's disgusting and I feel so unbelievably angry at what this country has come through so 90% of people can avoid getting what is essentially a bad cold!

[MarginalGain]

OK, so why do you disagree with what I've said? You do realise that the study itself states that their baseline assumption of non-intervention deaths (500,000 or thereabouts) is derived from their own model which the study purports to test?

I consider myself a science enthusiast. I',m a lifelong subscriber to National Geographic and Scientific American (although not Nature) and I was raised on a pretty steady diet of PBS.

I'm sad to say I no longer believe that 'the science' is apolitical - everyone has a dog in this race, and most of them are aligned with lockdown.

[MarginalGain]

^^homogeneously rather than hetero.

[mrpumblechook]

There are many critiques of Ferguson's work, namely that he has overestimated IFR, assumed an heterogeneously susceptible population, and a herd immunity achieved at 80% - none of these are reasonable assumptions at this point.

The peer reviewers of the Nature publication obviously disagree with you that his assumptions aren't reasonable considering the study has been published in what is one of the most respected journals in the world.

I

Nature wouldn't publish

[MarginalGain]

You mean the study where Professor Ferguson goes back and compares his predictions of how many people would die against the actual number of people who died and determines not only that his predictions were correct but that the lockdown was directly causal in preventing this unfolding of events, i.e. that lockdown saved 3.1 million lives in Europe?

There are many critiques of Ferguson's work, namely that he has overestimated IFR, assumed an heterogeneously susceptible population, and a herd immunity achieved at 80% - none of these are reasonable assumptions at this point.

I think Sweden will continue to throw doubt on the 'proven' (by way of circular modelling) efficacy of lockdown, particularly into 2021.

[mrpumblechook]

@MarginalGain

www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2020-opinion-coronavirus-europe-lockdown-excess-deaths-recession/

Consider googling the worldwide body of epidemiological studies.

Have you read this study?

www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2405-7

[mrpumblechook]

That doesn't account for the dramatically different levels of success in care home fatality rates between different states having different lockdown policies. Sweden and the UK and NY (and others) were derelict in testing hospital discharges to care homes. It's not rocket science.

It's not just those in care homes who are vulnerable though.

I don't understand why people continue to insist that a third of the population is at such elevated covd19 risk that it's sensible and proportional for them to fundamentally alter their way of life. This is not true.

I haven't said that a third of the population are at risk though.I said it could be about a third of the population once you take into account other household members. You would need to isolate them all if you are going to "ring fence".

[MarginalGain]

That doesn't account for the dramatically different levels of success in care home fatality rates between different states having different lockdown policies. Sweden and the UK and NY (and others) were derelict in testing hospital discharges to care homes. It's not rocket science.

I don't understand why people continue to insist that a third of the population is at such elevated covd19 risk that it's sensible and proportional for them to fundamentally alter their way of life. This is not true.

And now I must get on with my day.

[mrpumblechook]

I would guess that what the analysis would reveal is that locking down a state and allowing only essential employees to work results in the same general death profile as ring fencing vulnerable populations and allowing everyone to get on with it.

Very hard to "ring fence" vulnerable people and their households as demonstrated by Sweden. Even if they did it wouldn't help the economy considering it's about a third of the population.

[MarginalGain]

Florida, for example, having a much older population (avg 42 vs 35 in NY) ring fenced their care homes and had a much softer lockdown (huge amounts of criticism for DeSantis and his 'reckless' policies).

Florida had 4 deaths per 100,000 vs NY's 76 per 100,000.

The US is an interesting comparison because unlike the UK, different regions had different lockdown policies.

[MarginalGain]

I agree with you, further analysis required.

I would guess that what the analysis would reveal is that locking down a state and allowing only essential employees to work results in the same general death profile as ring fencing vulnerable populations and allowing everyone to get on with it.

[mrpumblechook]

So if only key workers are working, and everyone else is under lockdown, and the people under lockdown are winding up in ICUs more than the key workers, what's the point of lockdown?

The number of people in the "everyone else" category would be much higher than those who are keyworkers so doesn't tell you much. They would need to compare the proportion of people who are keyworkers who are hospitalised with the proportion of non keyworkers hospitalised and then adjust the data to take into account age and other factors that would increase the risk.

[MarginalGain]

So if only key workers are working, and everyone else is under lockdown, and the people under lockdown are winding up in ICUs more than the key workers, what's the point of lockdown?

[MarginalGain]

[quote Stuckforthefourthtime]**@MarginalGain* but did you see the chart? The 66% at home referred to where they were living not* that they had never left. It could include key workers who were living at home.

And for the rest, the shelter in place didn't mean they lived in a bubble. Carers came and went. Delivery drivers came and went. Children in key worker jobs came and went. People needed to visit the shops, or chose not to follow the rules etc etc[/quote]
It specifically did not include key workers. That's the point. The might have had key workers living with them, we don't know, but why are those who were at home, sheltering in place, so overrepresented in the ICU figures?
------

“If you notice, 18% of the people came from nursing homes, less than 1% came from jail or prison, 2% came from the homeless population, 2% from other congregate facilities, but 66% of the people were at home, which is shocking to us,” Cuomo said.

“This is a surprise: Overwhelmingly, the people were at home,” he added. “We thought maybe they were taking public transportation, and we’ve taken special precautions on public transportation, but actually no, because these people were literally at home.”

Cuomo said nearly 84% of the hospitalized cases were people who were not commuting to work through car services, personal cars, public transit or walking. He said a majority of those people were either retired or unemployed. Overall, some 73% of the admissions were people over age 51.

He said the information shows that those who are hospitalized are predominantly from the downstate area in or around New York City, are not working or traveling and are not essential employees. He also said a majority of the cases in New York City are minorities, with nearly half being African American or Hispanic.

Cuomo said state health officials had thought a high percentage of people who were hospitalized would be essential employees, like health-care workers or city staff, who are still going to work.

“Much of this comes down to what you do to protect yourself. Everything is closed down, government has done everything it could, society has done everything it could. Now it’s up to you,” Cuomo said.

[Nihiloxica]

The one thing we know for certain is that IT CAN NOT BE BELGIUM because Belgium's PM is a woman and they are EU members.

👌🏻

[Stuckforthefourthtime]

@MarginalGain but did you see the chart? The 66% at home referred to where they were living not that they had never left. It could include key workers who were living at home.

And for the rest, the shelter in place didn't mean they lived in a bubble. Carers came and went. Delivery drivers came and went. Children in key worker jobs came and went. People needed to visit the shops, or chose not to follow the rules etc etc

[Inkpaperstars]

Are those staying at home over represented if that included key workers, and also presumably the majority of the population live at home rather than being homeless or in an institution or facility. Sorry, I may be missing something really obvious here.

[Inkpaperstars]

Well we don't know the circumstances of the cases in NYC. Some may not have lived alone, some may have been going out for permitted purposes, some may caught it before lockdown, some may have caught it via surface transmission on an item coming into the home, some may have lied. Surely we just can't draw a conclusion from what we have there.

[MarginalGain]

Suggesting a high likelihood that a decent chunk either lived with a partner or other cohabitant who WAS working out of the home, or had carers coming. The stats are fine but the analysis is a bit dodgy.

This was under a shelter-in-place order, so only key workers would be working. I don't agree it makes sense to assume that they were living with key workers but let's assume they were - why would those staying at home be so overrepresented?

[stayclosetoyourself]

Puffin. Yes the GP can call the ortho on call. Or relevant consultant secretary for their Trust. Are you a GP? Why are you saying that?
Do not go to AE that is ridiculous advice .

[Stuckforthefourthtime]

@MarginalGain it actually says that 66% of the people were living at home.(Vs assisted living, jail etc). 84% were apparently not keyworkers/commuting etc, but most were retired or unemployed, and a high percentage were from ethnic minorities... Suggesting a high likelihood that a decent chunk either lived with a partner or other cohabitant who WAS working out of the home, or had carers coming. The stats are fine but the analysis is a bit dodgy.


Totally agree with you re Cuomo though. He's getting plaudits for dealing well with a terrible situation that he helped to create..

[Iggi999]

Marginal how on earth did they get it then? That's really interesting

[MarginalGain]

Here's another interesting statistic: 66% of the ICU patients in NYC were staying at home scrupulously. The city had assumed that the majority of people succumbing to covid19 would be key workers, or irresponsible lockdown flouters, but that wasn't the case.

www.cnbc.com/2020/05/06/ny-gov-cuomo-says-its-shocking-most-new-coronavirus-hospitalizations-are-people-staying-home.html

Interestingly, Cuomo won lots of accolades for his coronavirus efforts. They had a pretty austere lockdown and he accused Trump of prioritising money over people, so it was assumed that he was doing a good job.

Ultimately NY performed pretty badly - 76 deaths per 100,000 - mostly because he focused on emptying the hospitals into care homes, like Johnson.

Florida, on the other hand, had a much softer lockdown and has a governor that supports Trump, so it was assumed that he was doing a bad job/prioritising money over lives. Ultimately they had 4 deaths per 100,000 (despite having an average age of around 42 vs NY's 35) but he's still considered to have done a terrible job. Weird!

[AnyFucker]

Please do not turn up at A+E. That is ridiculous advice.

[puffinkoala]

OP needs to call the GP tomorrow and the GP will call the orthopaedic team for her

If only. GPs don't have a hotline to the consultants anymore, they have to battle to get through to the part-time PA like the rest of us.

I would say going to A&E and making a nuisance of yourself is the only way. Or going to the orthopedic ward in person. The latter approach worked for my mum last year when she hadn't been able to get through to her consultant or his PA for weeks. Someone saw her and rang her back that evening with a plan.

[MarginalGain]

I thought the UK had the worst death rate, because of Johnson? Or the US, because of Trump? Or is it now Sweden, because they didn't lock down? Or is in Brazil because of Bolsonaro?

The one thing we know for certain is that IT CAN NOT BE BELGIUM because Belgium's PM is a woman and they are EU members.