Independent sage: circuit breaker lockdown needed now

[XmasGoose]

I see Independent Sage have said that an immediate circuit breaker lockdown is needed to protect the NHS.

This would involve a total ban on household mixing, all bars, restaurants and indoor venues closing and schools shutting early for Christmas.

Is this needed now to protect the NHS and save lives? Personally I wouldn’t comply with another lockdown.

twitter.com/chrischirp/status/1471160024005324804?s=21

Unless you think that only covid patients should be allowed hospital care?

I think that the most sick people should be prioritised for hospital care and that non-COVID patients should be safely isolated from COVID+ patients to avoid uncessary risk.

Neither of these things can happen if healthcare is overwhelmed with coronavirus patients, or if we lose too many staff to isolation or illness. Everyone, with COVID or non-COVID health issues, benefits by keeping coronavirus at manageable levels. It isn't one or the other.

What you are suggesting makes no sense.

@ChequerBoard

"I did not say they should be denied hospital care, I said they might start having to restrict care of covid patients, if things get as bad as they predict!"

Can you explain the difference (in your head) between denying care and restricting care??

Well quite, I'm also still waiting for a answer on this one.

JUST STOP IT BOTH OF YOU. @Starcup @ollyollyoxenfree

Go to your rooms and don't come out until you can think of something nice to say.

@ChequerBoard

"I did not say they should be denied hospital care, I said they might start having to restrict care of covid patients, if things get as bad as they predict!"

Can you explain the difference (in your head) between denying care and restricting care??

Let’s turn this around.

I assume with you think only covid patients should be allowed to be treated? Sod everyone else eh.

"Let’s turn this around."

You mean you can't answer the question.

I very clearly do NOT think only Covid patients should be treated. That's a fantasy you have created all on your own.

Back to the question - what's the difference between being denied care and restricted care?

@ollyollyoxenfree

Unless you think that only covid patients should be allowed hospital care?

I think that the most sick people should be prioritised for hospital care and that non-COVID patients should be safely isolated from COVID+ patients to avoid uncessary risk.

Neither of these things can happen if healthcare is overwhelmed with coronavirus patients, or if we lose too many staff to isolation or illness. Everyone, with COVID or non-COVID health issues, benefits by keeping coronavirus at manageable levels. It isn't one or the other.

What you are suggesting makes no sense.

Perhaps it doesn’t make sense to you, but that’s no concern of mine.

They can’t refuse thousands of people access to accident and emergency because they are overwhelmed with covid.

If you think they (the government) will allow healthy people to die at the roadside, due to lack of spaces in icu or general beds, then you a naive. If you think they’ll jut ‘say oh well’, you’re deluded.

They will have to remove some peoples care worst case scenario.

It’s as if you think it wouldn’t happen….

@ChequerBoard

This should answer you too!

Must read

www.spectator.co.uk/article/my-twitter-conversation-with-the-chairman-of-the-sage-covid-modelling-committee

To add, this was always the concern regarding ventilators so I don’t know why the pair of you are acting so shocked that it could happen again…

They can’t refuse thousands of people access to accident and emergency because they are overwhelmed with covid.

If you think they (the government) will allow healthy people to die at the roadside, due to lack of spaces in icu or general beds, then you a naive. If you think they’ll jut ‘say oh well’, you’re deluded. "

I've said this to you already on this thread, but it's very clear that you are totally unable to imagine what a works without a functioning healthcare system would be like.

When Chris Whitty is talking about the healthcare system being overwhelmed he's not meaning that the queue in A&E will be a bit longer than usual.

He is absolutely meaning that healthy people will die at the roadside and hospital doors may have to close.

Did you not see the pictures from Italy last year?

@ChequerBoard

They can’t refuse thousands of people access to accident and emergency because they are overwhelmed with covid.

If you think they (the government) will allow healthy people to die at the roadside, due to lack of spaces in icu or general beds, then you a naive. If you think they’ll jut ‘say oh well’, you’re deluded. "

I've said this to you already on this thread, but it's very clear that you are totally unable to imagine what a works without a functioning healthcare system would be like.

When Chris Whitty is talking about the healthcare system being overwhelmed he's not meaning that the queue in A&E will be a bit longer than usual.

He is absolutely meaning that healthy people will die at the roadside and hospital doors may have to close.

Did you not see the pictures from Italy last year?

He is absolutely meaning that healthy people will die at the roadside and hospital doors may have to close

No way will that be allowed to happen. Something will have to give and that something is the poor doctors having to decide who has the best outcome.

@Starcup

To add, this was always the concern regarding ventilators so I don’t know why the pair of you are acting so shocked that it could happen again…

Ok - no that did not answer either question

I've already posted on this which you promptly ignored - rationing ventiliators (or indeed the expensive treatments) for COVID patients based on clinical criteria is not the same thing as denying them hospital care entirely, or removing them from hospitals because they have got too busy.

I would also love to know your criteria for this - 30-40 year olds with COVID are allowed to be admitted? Or is it everyone who is COVID+ denied care?

Just because someone was getting treatment first, it doesn’t mean they’ll continue to get treatment, if it gets as bad as what we’re discussing.

Meetings will take place and measures out in place.

**Ok - no that did not answer either question

I've already posted on this which you promptly ignored - rationing ventiliators (or indeed the expensive treatments) for COVID patients based on clinical criteria is not the same thing as denying them hospital care entirely, or removing them from hospitals because they have got too busy.

I would also love to know your criteria for this - 30-40 year olds with COVID are allowed to be admitted? Or is it everyone who is COVID+ denied care**

Jesus wept, sound like a broken record.

You’re just being pedantic. Doctors will have to decide who had the best outcome.

That’s is it.

Doctors will have to decide who had the best outcome.That’s is it

@Starcup

You seem to have gone round full circle - and are no longer stating care should be dependent on if someone has COVID or not. Which is what I and other posters said to you many many posts ago.

@Trixiefirecracker

Did any nightingale’s actually ever get used???

I'm not sure if they got used at all, a few have been repurposed and are now used for other things - testing facilities for example. I know they did not have enough patients to make them worthwhile.

(Witty) is absolutely meaning that healthy people will die at the roadside and hospital doors may have to close
Did you not see the pictures from Italy last year?

Would that be the ones where patients "were being treated outside because there was no room left"?
Except they turned out to have come from another country altogether, and were of TB patients recuperating in the fresh air, as was the practice for ages

Then there's this: www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-italy-coffins-idUSKBN21F0XL

I'm only waiting for the reappearance of "Look at India, where they even have to cremate te dead outside", when that particular cultural practice has always happened ...

[quote AlecTrevelyan006]Must read

www.spectator.co.uk/article/my-twitter-conversation-with-the-chairman-of-the-sage-covid-modelling-committee[/quote]
Wow. That is terrible.

@ollyollyoxenfree

Doctors will have to decide who had the best outcome.That’s is it

@Starcup

You seem to have gone round full circle - and are no longer stating care should be dependent on if someone has COVID or not. Which is what I and other posters said to you many many posts ago.

And there we have it again, twisting of words and making your own inferences to suit your agenda.

Never once did I say covid patients shouldn’t be treated. I said that hospital care shouldn’t just be available to covid patients and that triage should take place, if it comes to that.

But you know that already, because you kept banging on about how triage couldn’t be possible.

To add, I said they wouldn’t allow healthy young people to be left to die in their thousands and that this would be the point they would need to be prioritised.

When certain quarters are exerting themselves to discretion the modellers you know lockdown (or something like it) is near.

@IWannaWishYouANutNutsChristmas

When certain quarters are exerting themselves to discretion the modellers you know lockdown (or something like it) is near.

Discredit not discretion!

Can anybody summarise the Spectator piece for me?

What easily disproven old nonsense are they saying now?

I skimmed it; along the lines that SAGE aren't modelling scenarios in which omicron isn't a major disaster and that this is bias.