What Would Happen Without Lockdowns

[Flaxmeadow]

Just that really. What would have happened if we hadn't locked down in March or if we don't have lockdowns now

@TrustTheGeneGenie
I think we have different understandings of what exponential growth is

@DougRossIsTheBoss

It's not just due to staff and bed shortages that routine work has to stop during Covid (although that is a huge factor)

We do have 'locum staff' BTW most of them are the regular staff doing extra shifts on 'bank'. There's no army of spare Drs and nurses waiting in the wings.

It's also that you cannot have COVID and non Covid sick people on the same areas. The non Covid sick people will get it and die. With asymptomatic spread and an incubation period plus delays to test results hospitals were and are a great place to catch Covid.
I would not allow my immune suppressed mum anywhere near one.

The NHS cannot carry on other work unless cases are low. They were in the summer and we tried to get back in track but now we have lost it again.

They will get it and die? That's a certainty is it?

When I said locums I meant agency staff. We have bank staff as well but as you say they're regular staff generally.

[quote GalesThisMorning]@TrustTheGeneGenie
I think we have different understandings of what exponential growth is[/quote]
No I don't think we do. Difference is I'm not trying to make you feel stupid.

No they're not super humans but most of them ime just get on with it. The NHS has been overwhelmed for much longer than covid has existed.

“Getting on with it” doesn’t mean the quality of care and number of services available won’t be affected. You are expecting them to be super human if you believe otherwise.

@turnitonagain

No they're not super humans but most of them ime just get on with it. The NHS has been overwhelmed for much longer than covid has existed.

“Getting on with it” doesn’t mean the quality of care and number of services available won’t be affected. You are expecting them to be super human if you believe otherwise.

Services are not always affected if you can get in more staff as in they will still run. The quality of care should not be affected if you have replacement staff.

I'm not expecting anyone to be superhuman.

trust

Yes I know it's my job to sort this out. I'm well aware what staffing issues we have in the nhs. I'm also well aware of what we do when people are off sick

Is there a magic cupboard full of NHS staff I don’t know about? I’m genuinely shocked that it’s your job to deal with staffing in the NHS, and you don’t see Covid as an issue.

You’ve already said the NHS has been overwhelmed long before Covid. If the NHS is already overwhelmed, how is it capable of dealing with Covid?

@WhenSheWasBad

trust

Yes I know it's my job to sort this out. I'm well aware what staffing issues we have in the nhs. I'm also well aware of what we do when people are off sick

Is there a magic cupboard full of NHS staff I don’t know about? I’m genuinely shocked that it’s your job to deal with staffing in the NHS, and you don’t see Covid as an issue.

You’ve already said the NHS has been overwhelmed long before Covid. If the NHS is already overwhelmed, how is it capable of dealing with Covid?

Sorry when I have said it's "not an issue"?

I can only speak from personal experience in that we haven't had to cancel any services and have always managed to get in replacement staff. Maybe other departments dont do this? Maybe in a few weeks time we'll just shut down and kick all our service users out into the street who knows!

Most of them will only be sick for 2 weeks

Maybe but that's not necessarily the maximum time they'd be off for, more like the minimum. Anyone who spreads it to their household may then pick up caring duties for an extra week or two. And it's not unusual for people to be properly poorly for 2 weeks then need a week or two convalescence.

If you look at what's happening in Belgium it's clear that the health system doesnt carry on chugging unimpeded once rates get beyond a certain point.

There will not be enough locum agency staff to compensate as you well know. Shifts often remain uncovered even in normal times

You should also know that the quality of locum agency staff vs regular is not comparable. They do not know the hospital or the routines and quite frankly many of them are locum because they can't get a regular job. Not all of them of course but many locum agency staff are shit.

Not all vulnerable people in hospital with another condition will die if they get Covid but the odds are very high of them at least being very ill and having a long stay further overwhelming services.

Really you need COVID and non Covid hospitals or areas but when community cases are high the chances of a breach of that and the service shutting anyway are high

The best chance for everyone is to keep community case numbers low but we have failed to do it.

There is no good solution. Lockdown is hard on many people, and is having a negative impact on the economy, causing widespread mental health issues and leading to poor outcomes for people with non-COVID related conditions. Without lockdown the virus would spread unchecked, resulting in the NHS being overwhelmed, workers in essential roles (police, military, teaching etc) falling sick, with the end result being damage to the economy, widespread mental health issues and poor outcomes for people with non-COVID related conditions. There is no way to come through this unscathed.

The U.K. government, along with many others, has taken the decision that attempting to contain the virus will ultimately cause less harm than leaving it to run through society. They have chosen what they believe to be the lesser of two evils. I don’t know if they are right or wrong - I don’t have the expertise. But I will follow the rules on the assumption that no government would apply deeply unpopular measures that will tank the economy unless they really thought it was necessary.

The best chance for everyone is to keep community case numbers low but we have failed to do it

I hope when you say "we" you mean the government.

So many experts. If we hadn’t locked down I suspect this would be a thread slating that decision and debating how much better life would be now if we had... People just like moaning.

Can we cope with twice as many people in hospital for Covid as we have now? Four times? Eight times? All with less and less staff?

Reading the threads by hospital staff written right now, I don't think that's sustainable. I also don't think it's fair to write off their physical and mental health like that. All the anti lockdown crew are all so concerned about mental health and suicides, but never amongst health care workers, who were probably the very worst affected by this crisis.

What happened to clapping for the NHS? Now it's fuck them all, we're sacrificing them for the sake of the economy?

Sweden hasn't locked down. Their deaths per capita are lower than in the Uk and their economy is doing better.

Given the factual mortality rates and hospitalisation rates of the under 60s there is no reason for this section of society to lockdown. The NHS and nightingale hospitals can cope.

We will be dragged into this strategy eventually, by working out lockdowns don’t work.....Leicester has been in lockdown since March....

Additionally Lockdowns cause economic carnage, massive mental heath issues and undiagnosed non Covid diseases all of which cause more deaths in the long run than we believe we are saving with lockdowns.

There is no good solution. Lockdown is hard on many people, and is having a negative impact on the economy, causing widespread mental health issues and leading to poor outcomes for people with non-COVID related conditions. Without lockdown the virus would spread unchecked, resulting in the NHS being overwhelmed, workers in essential roles (police, military, teaching etc) falling sick, with the end result being damage to the economy, widespread mental health issues and poor outcomes for people with non-COVID related conditions. There is no way to come through this unscathed.

Well said. Many people seem to be in utter denial that there is no “normal life” when a dangerous new virus is spreading around the world. Without lockdowns there would also be economic problems, mental health issues, and of course physical illness.

The countries that have balance economy and health best are not the ones who’ve put their heads in the sand. They are those who have implemented effective isolation, track and trace, and testing.

Unfortunately the UK is well beyond the point of getting any proper systems working before winter. So now it’s a matter of what’s the least worst option. Restrictions on movement are all that’s left in the bag now. After that...who knows but it doesn’t look good.

The statement about shielding the vulnerable is a naïve one to be honest.

What's a vulnerable person? I have friends who have had cancer - vulnerable. I have a friend who has an immune system problem - vulnerable. I have a child who has a heart condition - vulnerable in most people's eyes but his consultant is happy for him to go to school.

Both my friend's have children, one is a single parent. So, let's take her. What happens to her child? He can't go to school or out anywhere if his mother shields. She has no family in this part of the country and her son's father is in Scotland - she lives in Sussex. Who takes the boy? His father lives with his aged parents (who would have to shield too).

What happens to my friend who is in remission from cancer? Her husband, like her, works. Does he move out with the kids? Who pays for two homes? They're just holding it together with one mortgage and both of them working?

And, assuming my son was a little older and working. He'll always have a heart condition - aged 13, 23, 33 etc., It won't go away or get better. So does he shield? We all pay his rent and benefits? There are many like him - type 1 diabetics (young), kidney problems (young), cancer (young). Not every person who would have to shield is elderly.

And many of those who had to shield last time were children who belong to the same hospital as my heart child. Their parents had to shield too (obviously). Without those parents working (many of whom are in their 30s and 40s), the rent/mortgage does not get paid. So we, the tax payers, have to pay it.

And, of course, we not even adding in the elderly who need help at home. If they shield, who does the care? Or do they go into those magic pop up care homes that don't exist for the duration?

Saying 'the vulnerable can shield' is far, far too simplistic.

@Lavenderseas

Sweden hasn't locked down. Their deaths per capita are lower than in the Uk and their economy is doing better.

People are still choosing to limit their movements significantly, and a huge percentage of Swedish households only have one member. Anyway two regions now have asked people to stay home unless necessary to go out so it’s not so different from parts of Britain.

@Lavenderseas

Sweden hasn't locked down. Their deaths per capita are lower than in the Uk and their economy is doing better.

Yes but you're forgetting that Sweden is populated only with magical law abiding super humans who never do anything bad and therefore it's not comparable at all to anything ever if they were all dropping dead I bet it would be classed as comparable mind you

Brazil didn’t lock down did it?

It looked pretty grim there. Those mass cemeteries

It’ll be fun if the Chinese release another Coronavirus & make it a trilogy won’t it?

It may be too late to deal with this virus optimally but lessons clearly need to be learned going forward.

I’m not too critical of the Trace & Test farce because not too many countries outside of SE Asia have built an adequately functioning T&T system in the limited time they had. NZ & Australia only ‘worked’ due to geographic advantages and limited cases at the point the virus was going global.

I don’t think too many were screaming for harsh lockdowns in the UK in January were they? & the WHO certainly weren’t advising against International travel as they rebuked Trump for banning Chinese flights at the beginning of February!

@Strawberrypancakes I absolutely agree. We could have just kept it to masks and hand sanitizer, people needing cancer treatment would have been treated instead of dying, heart patients would carry on being treated instead of dying, less suicides and homes not suffering with money worries! It's an absolute joke!!! I'm so glad I have a good family network and have been visiting my mother weekly from the start so she didn't struggle alone.

And the death statistics are a lie. My friends family member died in a car crash and it was put on death certificate as Covid!!!! Most deaths are from cancer and heart issues and old age. Thousands die of flu a year and no panicking with this!

I wouldn't have been seriously considering suicide in March.

Over 600,000 die in the UK every year, that‘s over 1700 a day but we only hear about covid deaths. I want a balanced, realistic approach that considers all the harms and what is actually possible to achieve. Nothing should stop those vulnerable from isolating if they want to and they should be supported to do so but those that aren‘t should go about their lives with as few restrictions as possible. Probably no large gatherings, social distancing and hand washing, wfh if possible, stay at home if any symptoms or a positive test or contact would give us most of the benefits without so many of the harms.