To think these are the stats noone talks about

[TMIincoming]

Just that really. Deaths aren't really any higher than usual and hospital beds are less occupied than usual. Or are people going to say these figures aren't accurate

Source? You can get rubbish like that from any fake news site

Hospital beds in my area will be lower than usual but maybe because they have cancelled all elective surgery.

You're very knowledgeable OP - why don't you run the NHS and advise the government. I'm sure you'll do a much better job as you've obviously studies all the statistics so carefully.

@sst1234 - join forces with the OP and sort it out.

The rest of us are too hysterical to think.

People always struggle understanding the “counter factual”. What sound have happened if we hadn’t done the thing. It’s tricky because there’s no definitive evidence to prove it, so people look at what they can see and assume it would have been fine. It’s a lack of understanding.

I’ve seen a quote that says it’s like saying “my rate of decent is fine therefore there was no need for this parachute”

50,100 excess winter deaths in England and Wales in 2017/18 - the highest recorded since winter 1975/76. From week 40 2017 to week 15 2018. Not much different to this year. We didn’t lock everyone up then.

People are dying from suicide and not being able to get treatment as COVID-19 takes priority over everything. Many people no longer have a stable income and worry about money. Disadvantaged children are way way behind for their age due to school closures.

Just to clarify. I fully supported the first lockdown. It should have been longer and tougher and with quarantine for people coming in from overseas. Life could then have largely gone back to normal (bar travel)

Plenty of other countries managed this, look at Singapore, in fact most of Asia.

The current restrictions aren't justified in my opinion and in history the wY Europe has handled this will be looked back upon in disbelief

didn't we have this thread yesterday?

Yes, and if not the same OP they had a similar username.

Those stats are from 2 weeks ago and straddle the day when this lockdown started. Stats from one week ago will definitely be higher, and those for today may have started to turn down, but probably not yet given the lag between people being exposed, showing symptoms, and then being ill enough to need hospital care.

Current Scottish Government figures show 100 people in ICU & over 1000 people in total in hospital. Pre-Covid Scotland had around 190 ICU beds in total (also Scottish Gov figures). The number has been drastically increased by using other hospital areas & staffed by pulling in theatre nurses, increasing the number of patients each nurse looks after, and rapidly upskilling other nurses. This all means: cancelling routine surgery (as no ICU beds for post-op period & no theatre staff); huge levels of stress for ICU staff; knock on effects down to other NHS areas who have lost nursing staff (this is directly affecting patient care where I work). And this is WITH LOCKDOWNS, and with a rapid learning curve in how to treat Covid which means the proportion of sick people needing a ventilator has fallen. Without lockdown we would be even worse off. UK has 50,000 excess deaths this year officially & that's definitively going to be an under-estimate. I just don't get people minimising Covid- not having lockdown might keep restaurants alive but would kill a lot more people!

Here's yesterday's thread, different username but...

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/coronavirus/4085550-Covid-What-they-don-t-tell-you

The figures would be lower if the recommendations of SAGE on 21 September had been acted upon immediately not five weeks later.

"If we were living a normal life would the virus have peaked and things be pretty much back to normal by now? Most likely!" completely wrong IME.

Where are the graphics from, OP? I can see the alleged source references but one key thing about statistics is the selection and presentation, range chosen, scale, what is left out and so on. Is it the Daily Wail, Torygraph or some other reputable scientific journal without an agenda?

Regarding a PP about suicides, FWIW, our caseload shows reduced suicide rates across each month from March.

@TMIincoming

Just to clarify. I fully supported the first lockdown. It should have been longer and tougher and with quarantine for people coming in from overseas. Life could then have largely gone back to normal (bar travel)

Plenty of other countries managed this, look at Singapore, in fact most of Asia.

The current restrictions aren't justified in my opinion and in history the wY Europe has handled this will be looked back upon in disbelief

Look at Singapore? Really?

www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/amp/world-asia-54082861

Surely this is good news, that demonstrates that the objective of lockdown (not overwhelming the nhs) is being achieved and thus provides evidence that the restrictions are the right thing to be going?

*doing

@Zilla1

"If we were living a normal life would the virus have peaked and things be pretty much back to normal by now? Most likely!" completely wrong IME.

Where are the graphics from, OP? I can see the alleged source references but one key thing about statistics is the selection and presentation, range chosen, scale, what is left out and so on. Is it the Daily Wail, Torygraph or some other reputable scientific journal without an agenda?

Regarding a PP about suicides, FWIW, our caseload shows reduced suicide rates across each month from March.

It’s the Daily Mail

But what about ventilation machines? I would be interested to see the stats on those

@Greyishdays, Thank you. I was in two minds whether to throw a hostage to fortune about the source of the graphic as it could have been a reputable source but if it was the Wail then my instincts were confirmed and I simultaneously despair. I've just realise I forgot to mention the Spectator as a possibility.

The second graph shows a dip the last 10 weeks or so below the maximum.

But look at the large red spike. It stands to reason some of those were people who would have died anyway in the past 10 week period.

The rest were not. The deaths over a 12 month period compared to average give a better idea. The same as when we have a bad flu season.

And beds probably are less occupied. But that's not because covid isn't an issue. It's because it is. Because they cannot do many elective surgeries due to covid and therefore the beds are empty. They can't have full capacity because of the risk of covid spread.

Statistics can say what you want them to say.

It was in the Mail a couple of days ago.

It seems a very obtuse graph.

To my mind, the fewer beds in ICU is because we have a type of lockdown. And also because many operations are cancelled. And also there may be fewer road traffic accidents as people are working from home and not going on holiday.

Having lost a healthy, young relative in the last few weeks to COVID, who having had the flu in recent years and barely needed a few days to recover, I think YABU, this is entirely needed, and isn’t just like any other year. Have some compassion to those who have lost loved ones, the statistics are so much more than just numbers, and unfortunately until it’s close to home, I don’t think you’ll truly appreciate the effect of this virus.

The first graph is accurate but misleading. As recently as March there were 3,636 adult critical care beds available. Now there are 4,277, a 17.5% increase in 8 months. The reason the occupancy rate is lower is that there are more beds, not that there are fewer patients.

The death rate is less misleading and shows that the second wave is, so far, less deadly than the first.

There is no way of knowing what these figures would look like without the measures that have been taken to reduce infection rates.

I can't talk for all, but my Trust's beds are less occupied for multiple reasons:

1. staff are off either sick, self isolating with families or shielding. Making it dangerous to fill the beds as they normally would be (95% occupancy in my trust over winter normally. Dangerous levels)

2. we are prioritising cancer patients (all hospitals should be) but our theatres can only accommodate 60-80% of normal amounts of activity depending on the procedure - as they have to allow time to clean/change PPE between patients. Therefore, there are less elective patients in the beds waiting for/recovering from surgery. Our cancer wait times have significantly improved as there are less routine patients in the system.

3. non elective patients (emergencies) aren't coming in as much as normal via A&E. Even the rise we usually see in children during Oct/Nov with respiratory issues hasn't happened at the rate we'd expect - which is a worry. Are they just staying home and suffering, or are those viruses which cause them lower due to all the lockdowns and distancing? A&E is starting to pick up again now

4)If a patient on a non-covid ward is subsequently found to be covid positive, they have to shut the whole bay, move the other patients and do a clean. We have a very low number of side rooms, so this causes a logistical nightmare. But has to be done so we don't risk a hospital-acquired covid outbreak

@Birdsong111

But what about ventilation machines? I would be interested to see the stats on those

What about them? There’s number of people on mechanical ventilators here. I believe the treatment has changed since the first wave and they are putting fewer people on them. Or less quickly. coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/healthcare