Omicron variant could cause 75,000 deaths by April

[AchillesLastStand]

As stated in thread title if we stay in Plan B according to government scientists.

www.theguardian.com/world/2021/dec/11/omicron-covid-variant-could-cause-75000-deaths-in-england-by-end-of-april-say-scientists

Does anyone recall how many died in the wave last winter to compare?

I disagree. It is.

Tired, unthinking and trotted out as soon as someone sees a phrase

Anyone can see the difference is important and useful.

@rruth you haven’t answered my question though.

such a small sample as to be irrelevant.

And yet relevant enough for it to breaking news.

There are two versions of same admissions one is clear why the other is not.

Breaking news to stoke an emotive reaction and mixed statements too.

I’m all for waiting for the data so let’s wait and lose the breaking news altogether.

@MarshaBradyo

I disagree. It is.

Tired, unthinking and trotted out as soon as someone sees a phrase

Anyone can see the difference is important and useful.

Nope, I didn't trot it out.

I'm not unthinking.

[quote Whattochoosenow]@rruth you haven’t answered my question though.[/quote]
About being afraid?

Looking nationally, i think a 1.8 day doubling time is obviously a big worry and we don't know how big until we know the severity in twice-vaccinated older and CEV/CV people. Transmissibility in vaccinated people is also clearly a big worry.

For me personally not worried about catching Omicron any more than catching Delta (and maybe less) because of my personal health/vaccine position.

I'm worried that so many people don't understand that whilst a milder virus is better on an individual basis, nationally it could be far worse due to the case explosion everyone is expecting. This will impact political decision-making, which has been poor to date anyway. Vallance was trying hard to communicate this last week.

What about you?

My mum was admitted to hospital (on two occasions) when she had covid a couple of months ago.
Her blood sugar levels were awful and she had worrying ketone levels. At points she was almost unconscious.

This was a result of continuous vomiting, caused by covid.

But technically she was admitted because of her diabetes??

Is that admission because of covid, or with covid? It isn't always as obvious, especially early on admittance.

But then, she doesn't matter, with a pre-existing condition.

@kittensinthekitchen

My mum was admitted to hospital (on two occasions) when she had covid a couple of months ago. Her blood sugar levels were awful and she had worrying ketone levels. At points she was almost unconscious.

This was a result of continuous vomiting, caused by covid.

But technically she was admitted because of her diabetes??

Is that admission because of covid, or with covid? It isn't always as obvious, especially early on admittance.

But then, she doesn't matter, with a pre-existing condition.

Is she diabetic?

@kittensinthekitchen I hope your mum is ok now

@Tabbacus

Yes, that's why I said technically she was admitted because of diabetes, and referenced that she has a pre-existing condition.

Why?

@rrhuth

Thank you she is much better. She was really struggling for about a month afterwards, but is now back at work and doing well, though still taking things easy.
My dad was fairly unwell (at home) at the same time, so it was a worrying time for us all.

I feel like, ironically, part of the reason why people are becoming desensitized to big numbers and other realities is actually because of the doomsayers--on here and in the wider media.

When people hear ONE MILLION CASES A DAY, and then they get 200,000 cases a day, they think "Oh phew! That sounds like a lot less!"

When people hear PREMATURE BABIES WILL BE LEFT OUT OF INCUBATORS AND HOSPITAL CORRIDORS WILL BE FULL OF PEOPLE ON GURNEYS, DYING, and then they actually get "longer waiting times in A&E and some operations being cancelled," they think "Oh good, so nowhere near as bad as we were told it would be. This covid stuff seems to be a load of exaggeration."

@rrhuth I’m not afraid of covid. I’ve had my vaccines.
We are never going to be covid free - it’s going to keep mutating . We are going to have to live with it and at some point we need to return to a more normal way of life.
I think we are storing up massive problems for the future because of areas of life that have been neglected/put on hold for this.

I know people get angry when the phrase ”live with it” is used, but what’s the alternative? We live with cancer, heart attack, stroke etc , all manner of diseases that cause death, and we accept those risks. We know if we were to lose weight for example, that our cancer and heart disease risks would be cut- but we don’t. We live with the risk.

I've spent time in parts of the world where people routinely live with fairly lethal stuff, like falciparum malaria in Papua New Guinea. Even middle class PNG nationals and wealthy expats, who "could" choose to live in a very closeted manner (you know, avoid any action which might possibly expose you to a malaria infected mosquito), didn't. They took preventive medications and took reasonable steps to reduce exposure, and knew what to do right way in the event of dubious looking symptoms. But they still lived their lives and went out for outdoor dinner and drinks at mosquito-o' clock and took river trips in areas that had lots of malaria--with precautions. Nobody wants to be a shut-in.

I think a lot of online covid discourse is dominated by people who are very risk averse by nature, and who have also never lived anywhere where there are a few nasty diseases around already.

A bit over 1% of Omicron cases hospitalized so far in Denmark. Expect many more from this cohort as hospitalizations lag cases. Most Omicron cases from past 2-3 days

Small sample, but how does this compare to past cases/hospitalizations?

twitter.com/graemeblake/status/1470222952717328386

[quote Whattochoosenow]@rrhuth I’m not afraid of covid. I’ve had my vaccines.
We are never going to be covid free - it’s going to keep mutating . We are going to have to live with it and at some point we need to return to a more normal way of life.
I think we are storing up massive problems for the future because of areas of life that have been neglected/put on hold for this.

I know people get angry when the phrase ”live with it” is used, but what’s the alternative? We live with cancer, heart attack, stroke etc , all manner of diseases that cause death, and we accept those risks. We know if we were to lose weight for example, that our cancer and heart disease risks would be cut- but we don’t. We live with the risk.[/quote]
This is why I said 'with not of' is a covid denial trope. It goes hand in hand with the 'live with it' line.

Please explain how heart attacks/stroke/other are going to double every two days? It is not the same at all. Making false comparisons is a form of lying.

This sentence: We are going to have to live with it and at some point we need to return to a more normal way of life is just a platitude. Please explain - in scientific terms - how this happens if (note use of the word if, please) the hospitalisations from the Omicron wave are double what we have now, or triple, or quadruple?

'Live with it' really means 'pretend it isn't happening'.

However, the data is coming. Perhaps Omicron will be so much milder it'll be fine. But not to understand the concern suggests a lack of awareness.

@user1477391263

I've spent time in parts of the world where people routinely live with fairly lethal stuff, like falciparum malaria in Papua New Guinea. Even middle class PNG nationals and wealthy expats, who "could" choose to live in a very closeted manner (you know, avoid any action which might possibly expose you to a malaria infected mosquito), didn't. They took preventive medications and took reasonable steps to reduce exposure, and knew what to do right way in the event of dubious looking symptoms. But they still lived their lives and went out for outdoor dinner and drinks at mosquito-o' clock and took river trips in areas that had lots of malaria--with precautions. Nobody wants to be a shut-in.

I think a lot of online covid discourse is dominated by people who are very risk averse by nature, and who have also never lived anywhere where there are a few nasty diseases around already.

You are ignoring the problem of covid potentially swamping a complex universal healthcare system that is expected and relied upon, and the impact of that on death and health in the UK.

I accept all you say about the virus compared to other viruses.

What is the impact in the UK of covid overwhelming the healthcare system? Or would you just let that happen?

I'm talking about the long-term picture, Ruth, more than this winter.

I am not actually arguing against the need for some sort of action this winter; we are not at the endemic stage yet and we do need to avoid excessive pressure on hospitals this winter, sure.

As the virus beds in and future waves start to look more like echoes of this one, then pressure on the NHS will dissipate and yes, my above comments about "living with it" will indeed be reasonable and relevant.

In the unlikely even that this does NOT happen and that we continue to see the NHS falling apart every winter? Then, frankly, the UK is going to have to grow up a bit, stop worshipping the sacred cow of "It's the NHS, everything must be 100% free at point of use and nobody must ever be charged or judged," and start moving towards a system which is either insurance based, or which ensures proper funding by making sure that people are required to pay for some of their costs (appointments, for example)--and where vaccine refusers can be billed for some or all of the cost of their care.

I don't like the idea of the above happening. But if it's a choice of that OR lockdowns every winter OR cancer patients getting shafted again and again, that's my suggestion for least-worse outcome.

The British do seem a bit wedded to the NHS as it is. I'm not sure why--my own observation is that making everything endlessly 100% free merely encourages pisstakers and timewasters. Other countries have better organized systems.

Yes, people live with cancer and strokes and heart disease, but the difference is someone with these health problems not have the ability to pass on a virus that could , potentially, kill you. They can still mix and work and go out .
That is the difference.
The ones having treatment must feel absolutely terrible that it is all stopping again , I can't imagine how they feel, but this virus has a sting its tail and people have to isolate for 10 days because it can be so dangerous even people who are relatively healthy.
It's something a few rebel MPs and friends of mine seem to have a problem understanding

Heart attacks, strokes, cancer and even the MN favourite, obesity are not contagious.

That's like saying "I don't know why all the outcry about litter filling up the see, i saw someone compost their Xmas tree last January".

*sea

The British do seem a bit wedded to the NHS as it is Yes, we are. Most British voters value the 'free at the point of delivery' model. This is a totally separate debate and those who want to promote private healthcare models are not usually given a warm hearing!

Then, frankly, the UK is going to have to grow up a bit, stop worshipping the sacred cow of "It's the NHS, everything must be 100% free at point of use and nobody must ever be charged or judged," and start moving towards a system which is either insurance based, or which ensures proper funding by making sure that people are required to pay for some of their costs

This is hard to hear, and hard to imagine, but I really think it may be need to be a future reality. There just isn't any cut off in what the public seem to think should be funded. We want absolutely everything paid for in a timely, quality manner and I think it's proving impossible. Covid aside.

My parents ( both now deceased) were born in the 1920s and they used to tell me about the penny needed to see the doctor and how home remedies were the norm , they also remember the ' work houses' for the really poor.
It sounded so grim and hard and living with real poverty and death was just normal for them ( not to mention over crowding and having to leave school at fourteen and find a job)
Then they lived through WW2 and dad was conscripted into the army!
They were fans of the NHS because it meant they had somewhere to go if they were ill and saw the difference it made to people's health and well being. It even made me appreciate it ( it had been going years by then ) because how it was before its invention was just awful . It's sad it's in the state it is in now and I agree that things have to change , but to lose it completely would be a travesty.

[quote rrhuth]@DockOTheBay

• the data will be clear when the data is clear
• people who ask 'with covid or of covid' will think what they want anyway, it is a covid denial trope[/quote]

I actually disagree with you there. It is relevant. If people are being hospitalised because of covid it indicates that they have become seriously ill with it. If they test positive while in hospital for other reasons but are otherwise well, they have not become seriously ill with it.

At this stage of the game, that is the type of data that is needed in order to determine whether the new variant is more severe, milder or similar to Delta.

There just isn't any cut off in what the public seem to think should be funded. We want absolutely everything paid for in a timely, quality manner and I think it's proving impossible. Covid aside.

Exactly. It's one thing being wedded to a 'free at the point of delivery' service, but that has to come with realistic expectations about funding. And what should be within the nhs remit.

It was coming anyway, but we need a radical overhaul of how healthcare is viewed, delivered, managed and funded. Covid has made that much more pressing obviously.

It won't be pretty at all, but we'll see a number of shifts I think in the next few years.

A curtailing of the nhs remit and what it can be expected to achieve, greater emphasis on individual responsibility to make good health choices, increasing privatisation. Ironically, given all that, a higher proportion of public funding being allocated to it.

Addressing the social care crisis is also critical.