90% of ICU patients admitted with COVID haven't been vaccinated.

[Desithebulldog]

Been listening to the news and they've said that 90% of the patients admitted to ICU with COVID haven't been vaccinated. For each patient admitted they are denying 10 other patients who need surgery their ICU beds. So currently (I'm sure there are more) there are 1,000 patients holding up 10,000 operations. I find this absolutely gobsmacking. Why, why, why would people not get vaccinated to help the NHS? They are on their knees and need all the help they can get. I know it's a personal choice but why are all the non-believers making it so hard for others to get a much needed operation? I just don't get it.

@Jobseeker19

Why dont they reopen the nightingale hospitals? Were they ever used to begin with?

No they were never used and never could be. There was no one to staff them. They were a PR exercise.

@Jobseeker19

Why dont they reopen the nightingale hospitals? Were they ever used to begin with?

No staff & no equipment.

Its also why the 40 hospitals we were promised in the 2019 GE will never happen.

Sorry missed that post but as proved we can oen find studies to support our case.

[quote Northsoutheastwest76]@bumbleymummy again you are lumping the overweight in with the obese to get your 80% figure. Yet studies have shown that being overweight is not a risk factor.
So it us looking at more 50/50 between the obese zbd everyone else.[/quote]
@Northsoutheastwest76 did you see the article about the lancet study above?

“ A study by University of Oxford researchers has found that the risk of admission to hospital, admission to ICU or death from COVID-19 increases progressively above a ‘normal’ BMI of 23, even without other comorbidities.”

@Innocenta I said I was a doctor in response to a pp who didn’t think there was any point in linking me to an official data source because ‘professors and doctors’ would be able to understand it better.

And no, definitely not a covid ‘denialist’ - what definition of that are you using? Pretty sure my pp about the benefits of the vaccine acknowledges that the virus very much does exist!

[quote Innocenta]@EnidSpyton It isn't medical fascism. Speaking with a lot of privilege, there. [/quote]
What privilege?

Please explain.

Buzzwords don't wash with me.

The Times articles on this have been very poor reporting for months. They trot out an old statistic which is inaccurate as refers to the period from January when virtually everyone was unvaccinated and then quotes some professionals who appear to make up their own statistics because there is never a source to back them up. They often have a highly emotive quote from a Dr. It is poor journalism but lapped up, as this thread shows by people with fixed views who feel better hating on other people.
One example, they had a whole article last week by a Dr who said most ICU patients were unvaccinated and a large part of the article described a poor 35 year old unvaccinated cancer patient suffering terribly in ICU from... pneumonia not COVID at all.
The Times article quotes one professor saying 90%of ICU are unvaccinated but neither he nor any one has come up with the data for it.
This sort of poor journalism helps no one. Tbf the Times is no worse than most others.

And patients that are in hospital for obesity or smoking related ill health does the same apply in terms of your indignation

Smokers- absolutely. And I include my own mother in that who has a sizeable blood clot on her lung after smoking for 30+ years including throughout my childhood until I was in my late twenties. As far as I’m concerned she brought that on herself, I only look forward to finding out how much my own lungs are damaged from her shitty choices at some time in the future.

Obesity- would depend on how they became obese to be honest. I’m aware it’s not always simply the result of gluttony.

Well thankfully we don't live in a country that would leave people dying on the streets. You sound bloody awful.

Given that this thread is discussing people being prevented from receiving desperately needed life saving treatment thanks to ITU beds being occupied by unvaccinated covid patients, it could be argued that that is exactly what’s happening. Just not to covid patients.

Everyone knows by now, or should know, that the jabbed are in no way “safer” than the unjabbed when it comes to spreading CV19.

The point of the jab isn’t to stop people spreading it, it’s to stop them becoming so unwell that they require hospital treatment, and thus preventing other non-covid patients receiving treatment. Kind of why this whole thread was started.

If the numbers of accidental injuries were such as to massively impact necessary surgery for a large enough chunk of the population, we'd already have done something about it.

This, above. If the incidental societal risk from climbers, riders and rugby players were considered sufficient to destabilise national healthcare delivery, then there would quickly be a requirement for any participants in these sports to insure themselves. Perhaps this should be considered: I don't have a considered view or enough knowledge of injury rates among participants to say. An actuary might. But it's plain that the handful of severe injuries, while desperately sad for the individuals who are affected, are derisory in number compared to the everyday wave of ill people presenting to the NHS... for diabetes, heart issues and geriatic medicine.

At population level, it mitigates risk if there's mass acceptance of a vaccine.

Can't recall the poster's name, but on the previous page, someone provided a distinction between choice and coercion using, IMO, fallacious comparisons. There is a much more direct correlation between one's private rights/freedoms and one's civic responsibility to your fellow citizens. In matters of public health, the government (appointed by a popular mandate) is not acting (or shouldn't be) as a political entity but as the elected arm of the demos, and therefore responsible to direct events and set rules in the best interest of the whole electorate as they see fit having taken the best advice available to them.

And yes those who should know better trot out incorrect statistics. The NHS CEO said in Nov than COVID admissions were 14times higher this November than last but they were actually 1.6times lower see this from full fact which are Facebook funded so are not even that independent

Ms Pritchard’s comments were reported by a number of news outlets including Sky News, ITV News and the i, but it is not true.

The latest data shows there were 7,072 patients in English hospitals with Covid-19 on 5 November 2021.

On 5 November 2020 there were 10,994. That makes the current figure 1.6 times lower, not 14 times higher as Ms Pritchard claimed.

The NHS has never had fourteen times the number of people in hospital with Covid than it did in November 2020 (which would be roughly 154,000 people).

To date, the highest number of people in hospital in England with Covid-19 was 34,366, recorded on 18 January 2021.

NHS England told us Ms Pritchard was not talking about data from “this time last year” but data comparing August 2021 compared to August 2020.

Additionally, the figures don’t refer to the number of people currently in hospital, as claimed, but the number of people admitted to hospital. (This isn’t currently 14 times higher either, but again around 1.5 times lower than last November.)

A spokesperson explained Ms Pritchard was using August data to make a comparison with the latest available figures for elective operations.

In an article in the Health Service Journal on 8 November, Ms Pritchard wrote: “The latest monthly figures show that in August, for example, diagnostic tests were up around a fifth and elective procedures up around a third compared to a year ago despite admitting 14 times more covid patients in hospital.”

@icedpuddles well given that a COVID infection can lead to pneumonia it may not actually be that inaccurate.
I agree 90% is a red herring as the 90% plus seems to refer to a subset of very poorly ICU patients on ECMO.
However there is data to indicate that 60 to 70% are unvaccinated which given approx 80% of the adult population are vaccinated and 20% aren't.
60 to 70% of 20% is a significant majority over 30 to 40% of 80%
Sorry I am sure someone can explain that better.
Disclaimer The latest ICNAR reports are not the most up to date but certainly from age 60 up they would have had the opportunity to be fully vaccinated and lots of 50 plus too.

Data lags... Statistics are normally several months behind what's actually happening in real time, because it takes time to gather and analyse figures, so in times like now when the picture is moving fast, snapshots of real life anecdata (ie the poster from early today who knew that at least one elective and possibly important surgery, would be cancelled are often more representative of the truth on the coal face.

MN has conniptions at anecdata but assuming it is truthfully presented, it is often more valuable than volumes of statistics.

[quote Northsoutheastwest76]@icedpuddles well given that a COVID infection can lead to pneumonia it may not actually be that inaccurate.
I agree 90% is a red herring as the 90% plus seems to refer to a subset of very poorly ICU patients on ECMO.
However there is data to indicate that 60 to 70% are unvaccinated which given approx 80% of the adult population are vaccinated and 20% aren't.
60 to 70% of 20% is a significant majority over 30 to 40% of 80%
Sorry I am sure someone can explain that better.
Disclaimer The latest ICNAR reports are not the most up to date but certainly from age 60 up they would have had the opportunity to be fully vaccinated and lots of 50 plus too.[/quote]
In addition you need to bear in mind that the UK vaccinated population skews much older than the unvaccinated population. There are far more unvaccinated twenty-somethings than there are unvaccinated seventy-somethings, so if you want to compare the full benefit of vaccination you'd need to adjust for age.

[quote Uhuhher]www.thetimes.co.uk/article/doctors-and-nurses-vent-anger-as-unvaccinated-covid-cases-delay-vital-operations-z3zchvv9l[/quote]
Well researched articles from established national newspapers like The Times or the BBC or even the NHS itself are not reliable information sources according to quite a few anti-vaxxers on this thread!

[quote Northsoutheastwest76]@GETTINGLIKEMYMOTHER my elderly mother was on 3 pages worth of prescriptions. £3 per item would have crippled her.
My DH alone is on 7 items including an injectable that costs thousands per year. Some might say he is crippling the NHS despite not being overweight and only drinking occasionally. He already pays almost 5K a year in NI so some kind of Co pay arrangement over an above a prepayment would be crippling.[/quote]
I did quote the Swedish system, where there’s an annual cap - of around the equivalent of £100 IIRC - for those who need a lot.

@bumbleymummy

Not having a vaccine when there is a killer infection out there is just stupid.

Flu is also a ‘killer infection’ but we don’t judge people as ‘stupid’ for deciding not to have the vaccine if they don’t want it - even if they are at increased risk.

We would be if there was currently a flu pandemic. Flu has been around forever, so many people have some immunity to it, even if they didn't get the flu vaccine that year. It might also be less contagious than Covid although on that I'm not sure.

@ichundich, there are so many opinionated eejits on social media who feel their opinion is more valid than those of established and respected news organisations, with huge news-gathering, statistic-crunching resources and big reputations for truth to protect, that I sometimes despair.

I know a woman who bangs on about the vaccine being ‘toxic’ but is happy to sniff all matter of Columbian dandruff up her schnoz without the slightest concern for the source or the ingredients. She doesn’t see the irony

[quote XingMing]@ichundich, there are so many opinionated eejits on social media who feel their opinion is more valid than those of established and respected news organisations, with huge news-gathering, statistic-crunching resources and big reputations for truth to protect, that I sometimes despair.[/quote]
Me too @XingMing.

I’d really like to know why those who’ve had covid and have recovered with no issues are still expected to have vaccines or boosters. How can this make sense?
Why isn’t it a choice?

“However there is data to indicate that 60 to 70% are unvaccinated”

Do you have the source for this please. Or are you referring to the data from July?

@ichundich flu is actually more contagious than previous covid strains. Not sure about delta/omicron though. And the hospitals have been ‘overwhelmed’ by flu for years - we still don’t threaten to deny people treatment or lock them down because they decided not to have the flu vaccine - even if they are more at risk.

If that was directed at me you are showing your own ignorance. I highlighted some issues with the accuracy of their reporting. I didn't state my opinion. I work in a specialist area and at least 50% of press reporting on it is inaccurate so I find it unlikely other reports are always accurate. If you have a different option fine but my different opinion doesn't make me stupid, ill informed or lacking critical thinking, quite the opposite.

I’d really like to know why those who’ve had covid and have recovered with no issues are still expected to have vaccines or boosters. How can this make sense?Why isn’t it a choice?

If you have recently had covid and fully recovered then you will have a limited amount of protection, if you are then vaccinated this boosts that protection, you still have a choice to be vaccinated or not, or do you mean you can show you have recovered from covid recently to be able to access things like they are doing in Germany ?