How many lives are we actually saving

[Baaaahhhhh]

An interesting read from the BBC, and a question that I have been wondering about since the ONS released figures last week.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-51979654

Article talks about the effect of different scenarios on the number of excess deaths ie: over and above what would be expected, and versus other seasonal illnesses like normal flu.

Watch this to see how many lives you save:

www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/fqf9tv/working_on_a_covid19_simulator_heres_a_few/

That is really interesting @Oneliner

Those clutching at the annual flu data need to try to remember that those cases of flu are still out there. Again, corona isn’t acting in isolation it is a cumulative effect with other diseases. But it will be the corona cases the knock over the system. Once the system has been overwhelmed then we are all completely screwed.

The greater good is actually in preserving our welfare systems by reducing the strain on them in the short term to preserve them for the long term.

And just focusing on the deaths is unhelpful. They maybe what some consider a small percentage of the population. What you want to looks at is the number of worker debilitated by the disease at any one time. The reason why corona is so disruptive is that it takes so long to get over and can leave patients with permanent lung damage.

@bellesausage

Ok so you think you can survive if you have to and will use food banks etc.

But if the entire country is in the same boat, who will be donating to and running the food banks?

I don't understand why people are looking at the figures for up to 20th March and saying "Well, that's not too bad, I can't see what all the fuss is about".

OBVIOUSLY if deaths were going to stay at the same rate as in the 3 weeks up to the 20th, we wouldn't have taken these actions. But they aren't. We know this without fear of contradiction, because two weeks from the 20th we are in a situation where instead of around 20-30 deaths a day we have around 500-600. And there is no reason at all for that number not to keep rising for the next two weeks.

We can't say for sure how many lives will be saved overall, but statistically the number of deaths per day should keep rising until around 50-60% of the population have caught CV. The numbers will then fall - but won't stop entirely. So, basically, any number of deaths less than 1% of 60% of the population - around 400,000 - will be a life saved.

Probably causing more deaths due to the closure of the entire nhs system to anyone without Covid-19.

My OH has had his "essential" cancer treatment stopped. Just a curt phone call on the morning to say not to come in, no information at all as to whether it's just delayed for a few days or whether it's cancelled for the duration. Tried phoning the oncology dept - promises that someone will call him back with "the plan", but no one every does. He's trying phoning the GP surgery several times to get advice re ongoing complications, no one ever phones back.

Up to last month, the GP insisted on me having blood tests before issuing my prescription, now they don't want me near - so much for regular monitoring?

We need to get the NHS open again - the closure will kill more people than Covid-19 would.

We need to get the NHS open again - the closure will kill more people than Covid-19 would.

Of course, this would happen without a lockdown too, as there wouldn't be enough space in hospitals...

It is a very difficult balancing act. I hope your oh gets his treatment soon, though.

@user1471439240 that’s so horrible for you both. It’s so unfair. There will be lots of stories like this and it’s a big risk they are taking by delay / cancelling.

@user1471439240 that’s so horrible for you both. It’s so unfair. There will be lots of stories like this and it’s a big risk they are taking by delay / cancelling.

No matter how bad things are now with coronavirus, it won't last forever. The amount of time it will take people to regain their livelihoods if at will take a very long time. There will be an entire generation young people who will suffer on many levels because of the economic ramifications of what's going on now.

It's impossible to know how things could have turned out if we took different actions earlier but give it a few years. When people are still suffering from the long term impact of what this lockdown has done to them, I think they will judge current actions unfavourably and decide that no, it was not worth it. I'm not saying all young people are immune but they will be the younger you are, the longer you're going to have to live with the consequences of what this lockdown is doing to peoples lives.

Nobody seems to be coming up with any reasonable alternatives to "let's just stay in lockdown indefinitely or whenever there's a virus or illness doing the rounds".

I think the damage to the NHS would be greater with no lockdown

Less PPE as fewer supply chains working.
More contamination of 'clean' areas because of vastly higher infection rates.

Far more NHS staff ill and dead (HCPs sadltpy often get it worse because of repeated exposure)

The damage done in the weeks of an uncontrolled spread is just unimaginable. It's where the Imperial model comes in for transmission/death rates and both society and the economy could take a generation to get over it

If you're a key worker, then why are you complaining about wanting to go back to work? Bizarre.

Because my income is a fraction of what it was? What's so hard to understand?

The government do not want to save lives. They want to keep everyone out of hospital at the same time. They're not arsed about saving people.

Roughly 3000 people die in this country every day. You can't save everyone. As harsh as that is to face it is the truth.

This is exactly right. The little saying the government developed 'Stay at home, Protect the NHS, Save Lives' is in that order for a reason. Saving lives is actually not the point really, protecting the NHS (and all the other vital services that keep life going) is. If the NHS is overwhelmed by Covid-19 cases, it will not be able to cope with its normal workload, which has its hospitals full to around 96% capacity year-round. The NHS simply doesn't have the capacity normally to cope with an epidemic on top of everything else. That's why we got locked down - to buy the NHS time to cancel stuff deemed less urgent, to free up wards and beds, to quickly open things like the Nightingale Hospital. We didn't lock down to save the save the lives of people who are old and sick already, we locked down to prevent our essential services being overwhelmed. At the point that infection rates drop to manageable levels, things will open up again so that our economy doesn't completely tank to the point where we cannot get it back. And that's not callous, it's essential!

Saving lives is actually not the point really, protecting the NHS (and all the other vital services that keep life going) is.

Well, protecting the NHS will save lives.

So really it is "keep the number of infections down so that the NHS can keep operating and the number of deaths won't go crazy mad, whilst keeping as many people as possible working to protect the economy".

Probably not as catchy as a slogan, though.

@ChardonnaysPetDragon I admire your stamina, please keep it up. I no longer have it in me to explain why the at-risk group is not entitled to unlimited quantities of my life - twas ever thus.

We've done our bit, we need an exit strategy ASAP.

Well, protecting the NHS will save lives.

It will - but it's a happy bi-product of protecting the NHS, not the point of staying at home!

I work in a hospital, this is how we have successfully spread the virus this week:

1 patient symptomatic on the ward. Moved into isolation and then the results come through the next day. In the meantime the staff from that ward are sent to another hospital to man a new ward. 4 more positive tests on the original ward which is being staffed by new staff members to replace the staff which have left. Patient 1 dies. 14 of the original staff members are now in self isolation with symptoms which they've taken to the other hospital. Discharges have gone ahead from the original ward putting those who were discharged back into the community with family and carers without knowing they could be at risk. Now we have the new staff displaying symptoms and 2 more patients have died.

It makes my head hurt to think about the amount of spread we've just created. Care homes who have closed are also being forced to take admissions meaning that a 'closed' care home now has 5 positive people because they accepted a hospital discharge. This is what's going on and it's appalling.

Very interesting article. The knee jerk response to lockdown as others have said was because other countries did it so we did it too.
This is not the Black Death that killed healthy people of working age and children -that is truly devastating situation that would set us back a thousand years. This disease kills people who are already likely to die within a year. To destroy civilisation to give them a couple more months will likely be judged bonkers when the dust settles.

Care homes who have closed are also being forced to take admissions meaning that a 'closed' care home now has 5 positive people because they accepted a hospital discharge. This is what's going on and it's appalling.

What usually happens to elderly/stable/infectious hospital discharges?

MarginalGain. I have a very thick skin.

I have elderly relative with very high risk, and I'm happy for them to stay in for as long as needed, but I have to get on with my life eventually. I'm aware of the risks,

Relatives, plural.

But what about the knock on - the additional deaths that wouldn’t have happened were the NHS not bursting at the seams?

Are any of you massively keen on rolling blackouts and food shortages?

Or the collapse of the social care system?

Stay home, save lives is not about the corona patients. It is also saving the lives of anyone who relies on a government or utilities service.

By staying home you are shielding our vital workers who give you electricity, gas, water, policing, nursing, food production etc. The fewer people they come into contact with the less likely they get sick and the more likely that service is to keen going in the long term.

Stop being bitter about giving up your life to protect the vulnerable (which speaks volumes really) and start considering that you are saving yourself too.

Things could be much, much worse. Thing can get much, much worse. It is all dependant on how much we are willing to help ourselves and each other with our actions.

@Stellamboscha but that's not what we're doing, which if you'd RTFT you'd know! We've locked down to protect the NHS from being overwhelmed (supposedly - although what @C19iswank says means whatever we're all doing is fairly pointless).

We most definitely haven't locked down in order to save the lives of people who are already elderly and sick. The government has a much bigger picture to worry about than that. And all the people saying that the government 'worries more about the economy than it does about saving people's lives' are right - it does and quite rightly so. When you're running a country you cannot afford to be sentimental and crash the economy in order to prolong the lives of those who would be dying soon anyway.

This disease kills people who are already likely to die within a year.

Care to share your source for this data?

C19iswank

I think they proved this in South Korea - that hospital staff were vectors for the spread of covid19. It was when they realised this and tightened up massively on infection control procedures within the hospitals that they controlled the spread.