Are we delaying the inevitable?

[Slytherin]

I am wondering if we are delaying the inevitable here with continued lockdowns/social distancing etc.
These events surely happen in the world and over history to ensure population reduction and control.
Surely the virus will continue to circulate whatever happens, until it has burnt itself out/finished its natural run?
Unless a vaccine/decent treatment is found sooner.

What do you think would happen if you gave cancer patients chemo in the middle of an epidemic?

Let's turn that around. What did you think would happen if you didnt give cancer patients chemo? They would die of cancer... maybe not immediately but eventually. Otherwise why do we bother with chemo at all?

But ideally, you'd be giving them the treatment they need, whuch may be chemo, safely

Emphasis on the last word.

Because having a treatment which can domappalling things to your immune system when your hospital cannot guarantee safe areas (which was the case early on) is bloody terrible.

So yes, all sorts of treatments were scaled back to the minimum that would avoid death in the following 4-6 months or so, in the hope that the proper treatment courses wouid be safe again by then,

Outcomes nit as good, but not killed by iatrogenic disease.

@KitKatastrophe

What do you think would happen if you gave cancer patients chemo in the middle of an epidemic?

Let's turn that around. What did you think would happen if you didnt give cancer patients chemo? They would die of cancer... maybe not immediately but eventually. Otherwise why do we bother with chemo at all?

Clearly dying of covid is much much worse than dying of cancer!

Personally if I was mid chemo I'd want to continue. Id much rather take my chances and risk catching Corona, rather than ignore the illness I already have and hope it doesn't get worse.

Surely you deal with the illness you actually have first and foremost not the one you might get?

@MarshaBradyo - you can't compare England to Western Australia any more than you can compare it to NZ; there's a whole square km per person of space for one thing. If you want an example, research the things Germany do and have done better and why, then use those as examples. There is at least some relevance if you compare with Germany; population size, large cities, climate, travel through Europe and beyond, BAME population in cities etc etc etc. There are also differences such as the amount of travel and funding of health service, but those won't be relevant to every piece of good practice.

You can’t generalise about chemo like that

I am on cancer treatment. I’m lucky, mine was wholly unaffected for various reasons

But others had extensive alterations made - with the sole aim of keeping them alive

The aim is to live, not to deal with one thing before turning attention to other factors

And when the hospital is not safe, and they want to reschedule whilst they transfer you to a completely different site - are you really going to try to insist on the riskier schedule?

MRex no, I’m fully aware. Also aware that Germany is closest and have said this a fair few times in posts. Also that I’ve appreciated Merkel’s approach. If we should follow any country it would be Germany.

It was musing on who has done it, given NZ hasn’t now, the number of places in the world is diminishing. Not to say U.K. could do the same.

Agree with you, OP. We are ruining the economy and people’s health ( gasp, people die of things other than COVID). Need to get back to normal ASAP.

@iVampire

You can’t generalise about chemo like that

I am on cancer treatment. I’m lucky, mine was wholly unaffected for various reasons

But others had extensive alterations made - with the sole aim of keeping them alive

The aim is to live, not to deal with one thing before turning attention to other factors

And when the hospital is not safe, and they want to reschedule whilst they transfer you to a completely different site - are you really going to try to insist on the riskier schedule?

If I thought it would save my life I absolutely would yes. Why wouldn't you?

Obviously like you say every case is different.

The aim is to live but unfortunately I think that has actually been missed in a lot of cases. The aim has been not to get covid and sod everything else.

Surely you deal with the illness you actually have first and foremost not the one you might get?

No. The comments here are really enlightening about how little these issues are understood.

1. It's not your call to get chemo in the middle of an epidemic. Your doctor treats you and they decide. They have a remit to do no harm, quite rightly. They are weighing up delaying treatment against embarking on a treatment that might well kill you in the current circumstances. When you have an illness, you treat that illness as soon as you can. You don't go out and raise your chances of dying sooner from something different. Many people with cancer aren't likely to die of it in the next few months, unless they get Covid while suffering from a vastly reduced immune system in which case cancer may well not be their final problem. Doctors are trained to help and don't even have the power to take a risk like that with your life. You couldn't expect it and it would be unreasonable to redefine medicine like that.

Comic Whatever you say. Your sentences seemed to be bits of Daily Mail soundbites cobbled together without conjunctions.

Some cancer treatment continued so it's not true it was stopped "for the patients own good"

You sound about twelve. Can you really not see that the circumstances in some areas, the risks with some individual patients, the types of cancer involved may have played a part in these decisions? Rather than assuming that because chemo went ahead in one particular case, it must be true that nobody was weighing up risk with the patients best interests in mind for anyone else? I hardly care what you think, it's so silly. The only thing that really concerns me is you can vote.

I don't read the Daily Mail...hardly watch any news to be honest. Sorry for the lack of full stops. Will reply tomorrow with a more 'coherent' paragraph tomorrow. ✌

No it's quite alright, I'm really not that interested.

I think it is worth remembering that the % of people who die from Covid is low but not nothing. The % of people who have long term cardiac and neurological damage is high. THIS will cost the country a shit load in medical care and people unable to work.

And besides which, it's awful for them!

Before thinking Covid isn’t so serious and should be left to run it’s course, have a look at what could happen. Do you want the dead in the streets? Services overwhelmed? We avoided that.

Do you all forget the beginning? Hundreds dead every day? This in addition to normal death numbers?

m.youtube.com/watch?v=Tak_fw_0QbM

Need to get back to normal ASAP

This is becoming a common refrain, but little explanation of how, or what specifically is meant by normal.

It is an empty slogan.

@mrbob

I think it is worth remembering that the % of people who die from Covid is low but not nothing. The % of people who have long term cardiac and neurological damage is high. THIS will cost the country a shit load in medical care and people unable to work.

Is it high? Genuine question. Do we actually have stats on the number of people who end up with long term consequences?

(According to some on mumsnet its practically everyone but I seriously doubt it. A recent thread about "do you know anyone who had it and was then fine" suggested the vast majority did not have serious complications.)

[quote AdoreTheBeach]Before thinking Covid isn’t so serious and should be left to run it’s course, have a look at what could happen. Do you want the dead in the streets? Services overwhelmed? We avoided that.

Do you all forget the beginning? Hundreds dead every day? This in addition to normal death numbers?

m.youtube.com/watch?v=Tak_fw_0QbM[/quote]
Well obviously not, but there is a middle ground. For example keeping up test and trace, but not wearing masks. Social distancing from strangers, but not having to with close family and friends. Frequent hand washing/sanitizing but being able to go swimming, soft play, toddler groups. Protecting the elderly if they choose, but younger people able to work. For example.

If the cases and hospitalizations start increasing then things could be restricted again, or local lockdowns.

At present the virus is at incredibly low levels, maintaining a high level of social distancing etc seems OTT. Things have to end eventually.

Do we actually have stats on the number of people who end up with long term consequences?

Ish!

It's an area which is receiving attention, and some info is more readily available than others, but perhaps not yet collated/published - such as the number (young, no risk factors) having a stroke during the illness, as we know that strokes have permanent damage though some functions can be improved if not restored.

But it's too soon to fully describe other damage, as the disease is too new and other function losses need more investigation as to their nature and prognosis.

"Protecting the elderly if they choose, but younger people able to work"

What about protecting the exceptionally medically vulnerable as fist priority?

Including the 90,000 recently deshielded children?

The elderly are not the most at risk group. The 2.5 million - of any and every age - who were required to shield are.

Please do not be so heartless as to ignore families like mine. Or to think it is just common sense for some DC to be isolated, rigidly and long term, so the others are OK. If that has to happen, please at least spare a thought to the additional damage of continuing isolation amongst those already most vulnerable.

Jiherry here you go:

1. Protect and shield the vulnerable (lock down) until R rate is low
2. All people under the age of 60 continue to work
3. Lockdown individual cities where necessary, dependent on R rate
4. Less vunerable are infected with Covid = less pressure on hospitals
5. Economy remains stable and we are not thrown into the worst recession since World War 1

I think long-term complications will pose a significant problem with the NHS finding sufficient resources to help them, the services are struggling as it is. Flu comparison up front - ~1% need hospital treatment; you still get post viral complications for non hospitalised etc.

You can presume that anyone in ICU will have some form of long-term issues; anyone ventilated needs years of recovery both physical and mental (PTSD is common) and balancing quick recovery outliers there will be additional cases who didn't go into ICU but have long-term complications from lungs / kidneys / heart / etc. Then there are the chronic fatigue additions who weren't in ICU but get post-viral complications; it can't be possible to work out how many will be affected yet because taking a few months to recover from a serious illness is normal. 8% of covid cases tend to go to ICU and a further 12% tend to need hospitalisation, so that's probably a fair approximation for people who will have some long-term impact. Removing the deaths reduces just a few percent.

Sometimes people can be in recovery but still able to work, so the impact falls on them and their families more than the economy and they are less visible, but there will still be additional healthcare costs to help them during that time with scans, counselling, occupational therapy, physical therapy, check-ups etc. A family member was like this after being in ICU for something else, although back at work so people might superficially think she was well again, she had to have regular lung scans, physio etc and wasn't declared "better" for 2 years.

@Slytherin

I am wondering if we are delaying the inevitable here with continued lockdowns/social distancing etc. These events surely happen in the world and over history to ensure population reduction and control. Surely the virus will continue to circulate whatever happens, until it has burnt itself out/finished its natural run? Unless a vaccine/decent treatment is found sooner.

I totally agree.

The virus is not going anywhere. The only long term solution is herd immunity, through exposure or vaccine.

And even if a vaccine is available soon, it will be unproven and the immunity might not last either.

There was an interesting article in the New Scientist, that made sense to me. Or at least the bit that isn't behind the Paywall did.

www.newscientist.com/article/mg24632800-700-what-four-coronaviruses-from-history-can-tell-us-about-covid-19/

Comicstar

Run for office, I'll vote for the other guy.

even if a vaccine is available soon, it will be unproven and the immunity might not last either.

It won't be unproven due to a little thing called third stage trials. The virus doesn't mutate very quickly so there is no overwhelming reason to write off waiting for a vaccine on the basis that it won't last. It may well last. The reality is that we don't know. I find it distasteful and manipulate to understate the very real possibility of a vaccine/effective treatment because it involves waiting. We have never had a sustained global, round the clock effort to find a vaccine, with limitless resources and the best minds in the world. That is actually the best news available in the current climate and dismissing the likelihood of this global effort to be successful is insane. Most of us would wait if we knew that it would save the lives of our parents etc. Actually, it doesn't even need to be a parent. There are younger people dying too and suffering damage that may be life-long. No argument here is cut and dried but there are some enduring realities:
(1) You can't have chemo in the middle of a pandemic without running a high chance of dying of covid, not cancer.
(2) You can't have a thriving economy in an unchecked pandemic. Look at New York.
(3) You can't have a functioning health system catering for the broad spectrum of other illnesses in a country with a struggling health care system.
(4) You can't bring back schools, especially at secondary level, with no social distancing, without seeing an increase in infection levels.
(5) Anyone who thinks our government is over cautious should look at our death toll and footage of Boris extolling the virtues of herd immunity through infection and leaping about refusing to avoid shaking hands. We are not over cautious.
(6) A test and trace system that works effectively was always crucial and a minimum requirement for coming out of lockdown. We don't have one. Therefore we can't expect to come out of lockdown well.
(7) There's no point waiting until the public see the point of a lockdown. By then too many of the public will be seeing the point of lockdown in the most unpleasant way imaginable.
(8) The virus does not know or care what you consider is a reasonable precaution. It is more virulent than you realise. It doesn't care that you have a mask around your neck and your wore your gloves to the shop today. These arguments are about sentiment, not reality. The virus exists in reality.
(9) Most counties in Europe are experiencing a marked increase in cases. This may be driven by younger people so may not track over into hospital admissions but it will.

Jihhery I bet you're a right barrell of laughs. Take care mate ✌