Why isn’t this information getting more air time?

[Floralapron]

I heard on the radio earlier that when infections in Leicester rose, the hospital admissions and deaths didn’t.
Surely this information should be made more of? I’m confused!

Hospital admission and deaths lag behind infection numbers. For a variety of reasons. See America.

There’s really not much point in giving it any airtime.

@RafaIsTheKingOfClay but they were talking about when Leicester’s cases were highest...so at least a month ago.

A death from covid can be weeks after catching the infection. The registration of a death takes time as well

And deaths/hospital admissions still haven’t gone up.

People are getting infected still thats the first thing we need to prevent if we can achieve that then the death rate will decrease as a natural consequence

Covid doesn't just kill it does lasting damage to the body

I believe it's thought that the increase in cases now has been amongst younger people, who are not requiring hospital admission for their symptoms.

Yeah you're right OP it's all a conspiracy and Bill Gates etc. Everyone is being lied to but you know the truth. Preach.

But Leicester only went into local lockdown just over a month ago. The very end of June?

I think most people in Leicester who have has it recently have been young (or under 50, anyway) so at much lower risk of serious illness or death.

It doesn’t matter. If infection rates rise enough (and R is above 1 with exponential growth), then the hospital admissions and deaths WILL rise at some point.
Trying to keep infection rates low is a must

@slipperywhensparticus how can they categorically say that it’ll have long term health implications when it hasn’t even been known about for a year?

@Floralapron

I heard on the radio earlier that when infections in Leicester rose, the hospital admissions and deaths didn’t. Surely this information should be made more of? I’m confused!

Actually, it's been talked about a lot in many places. Primarily it's because younger people are catching it.

I have read a lot about Europe recently and their rise in cases, and it’s widely thought that the younger generation are now getting infected - which means less serious infection / lower hospitalisations.

Because you get covid you die was the first MN mantra. Now that's clearly bullshit, the new line is everyone has long term damage and eventually will die. Just own up to the fact that 99.999999999% of people will be absolutely fine.

There are several reasons, some of which are discussed here that might account for this.

www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/health-53192532

The press love a negative news story. Positive ones, not so much.

For example when Germany's R value went right up very quickly due to a big outbreak in a meat factory, the press were all over it. When it fell just as quickly a few days later it was hardly mentioned.

But hospital admission rates for covid in Leicester in June were going up before lockdown, from what I understand and the number they had were much higher than most of the rest of the country. And they’ve been decreasing since.

And part of the point of lockdown is to prevent getting to the point where lots more people are being admitted to hospital or dying. If hospital d’admissions and deaths didn’t rise it’s because lockdown did it’s job and reduced the infection rates before people got sick enough to need hospitalisation.

Do you really think we should have done what the US did and spend weeks talking on air about how the hospital admission rates and death rates weren’t increasing and perhaps the virus had mutated to become weaker before going ‘shit, maybe we should have locked down 4-6weeks ago’ - long before we started running out of ICU beds and mortuary space?

@Floralapron

They know because of a little piece of medical equipment called xrays, that shows permanent damage to lungs, or scans that show permanent damage to hearts

They don’t just make it up

[quote Floralapron]@slipperywhensparticus how can they categorically say that it’ll have long term health implications when it hasn’t even been known about for a year?[/quote]
Are you seriously saying that well trained doctors can't tell lung damage or heart damage? My doctor heard a hole in my sons heart apparently its pin hole size he heard it with his stethoscope and confirmed it by scan im pretty fucking impressed by that (can you tell)

@slipperywhensparticus ok, but how many people have they given x-rays to?

@slipperywhensparticus or listened to their hearts/done any other investigation? Most people who had Covid haven’t even been hospitalised...many more are mild or asymptomatic. I don’t see how they know all this already.

Because they are studying it floral. This illness presents like nothing we’ve seen before. There are still a lot of unknowns. There’ll be people all over the world studying those that have recovered and are recovering to work out what the medium/long term effects are. There’s a lot of interest in the ‘long termers’ who might be mildly affected at the start but are still symptomatic 4-5 months down the line.

Because that's just not exciting enough and nor is the fact that WHO have said today that 99.4% of people survive it

I wondered about it a few months ago - I felt the easing of lockdown measures will almost certainly lead to an increase of cases given how easily the virus is transmitted - cases will be localised and identified faster with testing and tracing so a higher number of people will be diagnosed while asymptomatic - but unless it is accompanied by an increase in hospital admissions/deaths I think it's still a sign we're on the right track - I hope. Yes it is not ideal - the virus is still there and will be for who knows how long - but the pandemic seems to follow this pattern in several countries.

Does anybody know what the current English ICU occupancy data is? I found Scotland’s data which was 2 in ICU and 233 hospitalised,