Current Affairs Coronavirus Thread - Serious stuff !!!

[Tubey]

I'm clearly no doctor or expert - I wouldn't know, just asking the question.

Countries have been doing it. Germany, for a start, though they did it on the basis of only counting deaths of people with no serious underlying conditions, I believe.

Also think they changed their tact on that in the last 10 days or so.

Sort of don't need to be a doctor for that mate - it's just common sense.

Say a patient deteriorates due to COVID-19 but ultimately it's an in theory totally unrelated heart attack that "pulls the trigger" on the death rather than asphyxiation, because of stress on the body.

In that case, you'd have to mark the death as "with" the virus instead of "from", because technically the heart attack killed him.

Simply wouldn't work and would make the stats useless.

 

[navidson]

That excuse is 100 male cows as well.

It would take one person at each hospital (or if you want to be really economical, one person at each trust) to send in that hospitals return, and one person centrally to collate the returns and then publish them as interim findings.

No one else would be required - the detailed work that would require many more folk would all come later.

That's going to be the problem - There's no way the hospitals be be relied on across the board to submit their daily returns in a timely and accurate manner (and i'm not really sure they can be expected to given the circumstances)

 

[BlueToff]

The cause of death as always will depend on the clinical picture that precedes the death.

If someone with an underlying condition gets hit by a car walking down the street, would you say they died because of the condition or because they were hit by a car?

Right, but that's a much clearer example, isn't it.

Going into an ICU unit because your heart is failing (after what has been reported as a 'long-standing heart problem') and then getting tested for COVID-19 as you're dying?

Maybe it was COVID-19 which, in this case, sadly proved the last straw, but it also seems extremely likely that he died from his heart problem, doesn't it?

Like, if there was no virus, but he had the flu (just as an example) when he went into hospital because his heart was failing, what would his death had been put down to?

 

[BlueToff]

Sort of don't need to be a doctor for that mate - it's just common sense.

Say a patient deteriorates due to COVID-19 but ultimately it's an in theory totally unrelated heart attack that "pulls the trigger" on the death rather than asphyxiation, because of stress on the body.

In that case, you'd have to mark the death as "with" the virus instead of "from", because technically the heart attack killed him.

Simply wouldn't work and would make the stats useless.

Okay that's fair enough. Yep, I understand why they're doing it.

If there was a definite way to tell, it'd be clearer and all the better for it. But if there isn't, there isn't, nothing which can be done. Just like there's not much that can be done to determine how many people have had this thing already either.

 

[tsubaki]

That's going to be the problem - There's no way the hospitals be be relied on across the board to submit their daily returns in a timely and accurate manner (and i'm not really sure they can be expected to given the circumstances)

TBF if the claim is that a hospital cannot send one email in at a certain time of day containing a set of statistics that will basically be two separate numbers, each between one and three digits long, then the NHS may as well pack up and go home.

 

[navidson]

TBF if the claim is that a hospital cannot send one email in at a certain time of day containing a set of statistics that will basically be two separate numbers, each between one and three digits long, then the NHS may as well pack up and go home.

Having dealt with Public Health England over the years - I fully expect this to be the case!

 

[RAFUH]

Right, but that's a much clearer example, isn't it.

Going into an ICU unit because your heart is failing (after what has been reported as a 'long-standing heart problem') and then getting tested for COVID-19 as you're dying?

Maybe it was COVID-19 which, in this case, sadly proved the last straw, but it also seems extremely likely that he died from his heart problem, doesn't it?

Like, if there was no virus, but he had the flu (just as an example) when he went into hospital because his heart was failing, what would his death had been put down to?

We all ultimately die of a heart problem. It is what led up to it that matters for an official cause of death.

And yes, it could quite possibly be attributed to flu....It depends on the full clinical picture that we will never know, but the treating physician will.
Physicians train for years to understand a clinical picture and all contributing factors and I'll trust their judgement on a specific cause of death.

 

[BlueToff]

We all ultimately die of a heart problem. It is what led up to it that matters for an official cause of death.

And yes, it could quite possibly be attributed to flu....It depends on the full clinical picture that we will never know, but the treating physician will.
Physicians train for years to understand a clinical picture and all contributing factors and I'll trust their judgement on a specific cause of death.

That's fine and obviously the right thing to do.

In the case of Eddie Large, it was reported not as being from COVID-19, but that he tested positive for it after going into hospital and then ICU due to a heart problem.

That was how it was reported a few days ago.

I probably phrased it poorly, but will he then be counted among the COVID-19 deaths? Because it doesn't look like his cause of death was officially put down to it, just that he was positive when he passed.

 

[tsubaki]

That's fine and obviously the right thing to do.

In the case of Eddie Large, it was reported not as being from COVID-19, but that he tested positive for it after going into hospital and then ICU due to a heart problem.

That was how it was reported a few days ago.

I probably phrased it poorly, but will he then be counted among the COVID-19 deaths? Because it doesn't look like his cause of death was officially put down to it, just that he was positive when he passed.

the statistics appear to be "tested positive for COVID-19 and died", not "died from COVID" (edit: so yes Large should appear in them)

 

[Harryflashman]

So raab hasn’t spoken to the PM for what 48 hrs ? Doesn’t seem particularly reassuring regarding his health .

as regards that briefing , seems the press are finally focusing a little more on the exit strategy and asking a few relevant questions , even if they mostly seem to be the same ones .

 

[PhilM]

So raab hasn’t spoken to the PM for what 48 hrs ? Doesn’t seem particularly reassuring regarding his health .

as regards that briefing , seems the press are finally focusing a little more on the exit strategy and asking a few relevant questions , even if they mostly seem to be the same ones .

If I was Boris, I'd be stringing it out untill at least 72 hours before I had to talk to the Dominic Draab. I wonder what Cummuings is up to at the moment...

 

[Jebus_lives]

That's going to be the problem - There's no way the hospitals be be relied on across the board to submit their daily returns in a timely and accurate manner (and i'm not really sure they can be expected to given the circumstances)

They can't manage this when it's not critical let alone when it is.

 

[Harryflashman]

If I was Boris, I'd be strining it out till at least 72 hours before I had to talk to the Dominic Draab.

yeah I mean you wouldn’t do it by choice would you ?

in all seriousness though given he’s the number two in this you’d think they’d be in contact . The lack of contact could indicate he isn’t too well , personally I can’t believe they take the PM to hospital and keep him in for ‘tests ‘ sounds like absolute BS to me . And if it is you have to ask yourself why

 

[PhilM]

yeah I mean you wouldn’t do it by choice would you ?

in all seriousness though given he’s the number two in this you’d think they’d be in contact . The lack of contact could indicate he isn’t too well , personally I can’t believe they take the PM to hospital and keep him in for ‘tests ‘ sounds like absolute BS to me . And if it is you have to ask yourself why

Personally, I am bit unsure what to think about the whole situation although the longer it goes on the more I'm leaning towards the belief that he's worse than said.

He could quite easily have been admitted to hospital for X-Rays etc, however I would then have thought it may have been prudent to undertake a PR exercise...

... you know, a little Twitter video from his bed: I am fine, but look at this great work through difficult times. If he's worse than they're saying, that really isn't possible.

You really would be thinking that they'd still be in communication, and if they're not it questions whether how the mechanics of government are working.

Who is in charge? If it's Boris, they definitely should be communicating. If it isn't Boris, does Raab really have the power (this should be clear) or is it someone else?

The last thing we need or want is a rudderless government or even worse letting the odious Cummings cement more power.

 

[peteblue]

The WHO guy is going to be toast.

Senator McSally....

”The senator said: 'Dr Tedros deceived the world. At one point, he even praised China's 'transparency during its coronavirus response efforts'' despite a mountain of evidence showing the regime concealed the severity of the outbreak. This deception cost lives.'

In February, when China had reported 17,238 infections and 361 deaths, Tedros said there was no need impose travel restrictions.

He said measures that 'unnecessarily interfere with international travel and trade' were not needed in trying to halt the spread of the virus.

On March 20, he praised the Chinese regine, saying 'For the first time, #China has reported no domestic #COVID19 cases yesterday. This is an amazing achievement, which gives us all reassurance that the #coronavirus can be beaten.“........