The typical hospital occupancy is shown on the diagram. I would be astounded if the the managers of the NHS had filled all their beds with routine surgeries without allowing a 15% (at least) for a CV19 wave. On your point of when the capacity is at 100% is difficult. Operationally, 100% would be different to an actual 100% use. Not knowing what the above variable are, and what they have been in previous years makes comparisons between years unrepresentative. Lastly, flu and pneumonia patients are likely to be lower than previous years, perhaps dramatically so, as a secondary result of social distancing. I am fairly confident that the ONS figures on actual England/ Wales deaths do reflect CV19 deaths, as opposed to "died but happen to have CV19" simultaneously. These are highly professional, well trained people working on evidence supplied by doctors. I accept there is a variance in what individuals in the public ascribe these deaths. Some would say if a person has a chronic disease, or is very old -perhaps both- that they would have died anyway so the cause it NOT CV19. Personally I would say that unless the person was expected to die within the immediate period, any shortening of their life due to CV19 is the cause of their death as it would not have occurred otherwise. To be honest I don't think given the current situation any of the above is really worth worrying about. As the government has imminent access to a vaccination program which will commence within months, there will be no deviation from the current path. Sometimes its life is better when we accept what we cannot change?
Hospitals do run to 85% before saying capacity. That's something I've found online from various sources after hearing a Dr state that during an interview a few weeks back. So capacity isn't technically capacity as it were, it is 85% and that's not a new thing, it's years old, was last year and the year before As for the notion that you believe that the listed deaths are all accurate, well, I'll never persuade you differently if that's your acceptance of the numbers. You're far more trusting than I All I can say is what I hear and the read, and it's quite obvious that the statistics aren't accurate as so many caveats are put in place when they are cited and it's absolutely assured that each case of death has not had a full and concise coronary report or post mortem. We'll always differ on that I can see, I just hope that this is fully investigated by someone in a few years because the fact they're not even releasing any cost benefit analysis says it all. The impact of the cure is easily outside weighing the virus, it's just easier to hide behind 'covid' than it is admit that some people will die to save many others with far many more years ahead.
Many good points; though I did think I would ask you how the NHS would be able to autopsy so many deceased people? There is definitely no provision for such an undertaking AFAIK.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-55040635 "The Oxford researchers have performed the normally decade-long process of developing a vaccine in around 10 months." Would a global 'push' mean other diseases could be 'cured' or better treated, money better spent than crashing expensive hardware into a comet ?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-55039662 Covid-19: China pushes for QR code based global travel system There we have it, a bar code on your forehead, and all's good.
it probably depends on the financial cost of any disease. everything has a value. if they cant generate the cash to fly shit to the moon because of a pandemic, the pandemic will take precedence.
Yes, I'm sure a global effort, with global rewards would improve almost anything. In regard to the vaccine there seems to be two types about to become available. One is a traditional type, based on injection of a small amount of the virus which does not make the recipient ill but which the immune system learns from and stops future attacks of CV19. This vaccine has been developed using refinements of tech we have had for decades - its similar to the TB measels diptheria shots we had as kids. The other type of vaccine being produced is also not new. It is based on the cancer drugs which have been researched intensely and trialled over the last ten years. These change elements that make up of a persons immune system. Patients living in western countries with access to these drugs including the UK are beginning to survive some types of cancer. I do not want to take anything away from the amazing effort and success of producing these vaccines in a short time frame. It is worth knowing though that both are based on tried and tested methods, and not a "new miracle" which may be seen as extremely risky.
Of course they could. Problem is that of cost. Make a vaccine for a global pandemic and you get a huge prize at the end. Make a cure for some obscure illness affecting a few thousand people a year you lose money. Unfortunately Pharma companies are there to make profit. Saying that, the company my wife works for gives away millions of doses of vaccines anti malaria medication and other tropical disease medication for free. They also invested 1 billion into a new way of treating cancer. If it works it's a game changer. 1 billion gives them a 5 percent chance of being successful. Scale that up and 20 billion would probably do it. Not a lot between the countries of the world but governments don't pay for that kind of thing.
Of course they could. But you would have to ask if that is a good thing in an already overpopulated world. Pharma companies are not driven by the greater good, they are driven by money and profit. The son of a friend works for one of them and he says they prefer to produce a drug that the patient has to take for life and controls their condition than one that cures it for good, simply because the difference in profitability is huge.
Vaccine update: The traditional style vaccine produced in the UK has a 70% effective result based on trials which could improve with dosage changes "When volunteers were given two "high" doses the protection was 62%, but this rose to 90% when people were given a "low" dose followed by a high one2. With a price of £3 a pop is pretty damned good. 40m x 3 = £120 The immune changing drugs are 90% effective but cost £15 (Pfyzer) £600m for UK or £25 (Moderna) £1Bn Another new vaccine is also going to trial for people who are immune deficient due to other conditions or medicines they are taking. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-55022288 Looks like this pandemic will be "under control" by mid summer.
I see a cap on the amount of children people can have being mostly positive tbh. But then I'd also like to see people means tested to have kids, preferably involving an IQ test
How many are we allowed ? How much do you have to earn (per child) ? (I might not be voting for you).
i'v got a tenner in the bank and one of my mates is a tory, can i sell you something? depends. if yer a tory MSP on a lower wage in a previous life then all of the 6 you have had.
Sorry, off topic I know. I can't imagine what it would be like if voting were restricted to 'educated people'
