OV9

I spent a large part of yesterday at A&E. Very different systems in place to process people with distancing maintained. Much quieter than normal thankfully.

NotoriousREV wrote: Tue Apr 28, 2020 11:13 am

Broccers wrote: Tue Apr 28, 2020 11:01 am “The NHS is open. Help us to help you. Come forward and seek help as you always would.”

So not closed, then?

Of course they arent fucking fully closed otherwise where would the c19 peeps go. They have been closed for normal business - context lad, context.

Broccers wrote: Tue Apr 28, 2020 11:49 am

NotoriousREV wrote: Tue Apr 28, 2020 11:13 am

Broccers wrote: Tue Apr 28, 2020 11:01 am “The NHS is open. Help us to help you. Come forward and seek help as you always would.”

So not closed, then?

Of course they arent fucking fully closed otherwise where would the c19 peeps go. They have been closed for normal business - context lad, context.

No, they've suspended routine and scheduled non-urgent care. Context, lad, context.

Its having a pretty severe effect outside of scheduled non-urgent.

https://scienceblog.cancerresearchuk.or ... in-the-uk/

GG. wrote: Tue Apr 28, 2020 12:05 pm Its having a pretty severe effect outside of scheduled non-urgent.

https://scienceblog.cancerresearchuk.or ... in-the-uk/

So how many people do you think have died so far due to disrupted treatment over the past few weeks, who would have ordinarily survived? There will definitely be a rise in cancer deaths in the near future, I suspect, as a result, but those numbers won't be reflected in current figures (which is what we're discussing).

I'm not saying there isn't disruption, but for people who need urgent treatment, they were able to get treated. Keeled over from a heart attack? You'll get treated. Stroke? Treated. Bad car accident? Treated. Broken leg? Treated.

Difficult to say how many deaths in that period across all treatments that were aborted as too high risk but I don't disagree, not likely to be statistically significant in the scheme of the Covid deaths.

It's not right to say if you need urgent treatment you'll get it though. Those surgical cancer interventions are most definitely urgent and very many will be time critical, you may just die outside of your reference period (which I understand is what you're arguing with Broccers about re Covid non Covid deaths to be fair).

GG. wrote: Tue Apr 28, 2020 12:18 pm Difficult to say how many deaths in that period across all treatments that were aborted as too high risk but I don't disagree, not likely to be statistically significant in the scheme of the Covid deaths.

It's not right to say if you need urgent treatment you'll get it though. Those surgical cancer interventions are most definitely urgent and very many will be time critical, you may just die outside of your reference period (which I understand is what you're arguing with Broccers about re Covid non Covid deaths to be fair).

Non-urgent means not immediately life threatening, so it is right to say it. Cancer surgery is rarely "we need to operate in 30 minutes or you'll die". If anyone has died from a lack of cancer treatment in the last 6 weeks, their prognosis was likely pretty grim anyway, sadly.

It's hard to understand what Broccers is arguing at the best of times. As far as I can tell, he seems to think that the spike in deaths is somehow not actually from Coronavirus but from the hospitals being closed (or not closed, or open but not open, who knows?).

GG. wrote: Tue Apr 28, 2020 12:05 pm Its having a pretty severe effect outside of scheduled non-urgent.

https://scienceblog.cancerresearchuk.or ... in-the-uk/

Exactly.

I did try to look at the ONS figures to see if there was any inferences to be drawn on non-COVID deaths but there's limitations to the data they're supplying.

They have broken out deaths that mention COVID on the death certificate and deaths from respiratory illnesses but there's no comparison with the average so you can't easily see whether there's a rise of respiratory illnesses and remove those from the data, plus, they're double-counting i.e. if a death certificate has COVID and a respiratory illness mentioned, it gets counted in both sets of figures (but only once in the total).

Broccers wrote: Tue Apr 28, 2020 12:28 pm

GG. wrote: Tue Apr 28, 2020 12:05 pm Its having a pretty severe effect outside of scheduled non-urgent.

https://scienceblog.cancerresearchuk.or ... in-the-uk/

Exactly.

So how many people have died in the last 6 weeks from cancer who would have survived long enough to die from something else if they'd had their treatment?

NotoriousREV wrote: Tue Apr 28, 2020 12:24 pm

GG. wrote: Tue Apr 28, 2020 12:18 pm Difficult to say how many deaths in that period across all treatments that were aborted as too high risk but I don't disagree, not likely to be statistically significant in the scheme of the Covid deaths.

It's not right to say if you need urgent treatment you'll get it though. Those surgical cancer interventions are most definitely urgent and very many will be time critical, you may just die outside of your reference period (which I understand is what you're arguing with Broccers about re Covid non Covid deaths to be fair).

Non-urgent means not immediately life threatening, so it is right to say it. Cancer surgery is rarely "we need to operate in 30 minutes or you'll die". If anyone has died from a lack of cancer treatment in the last 6 weeks, their prognosis was likely pretty grim anyway, sadly.

It's hard to understand what Broccers is arguing at the best of times. As far as I can tell, he seems to think that the spike in deaths is somehow not actually from Coronavirus but from the hospitals being closed (or not closed, or open but not open, who knows?).

I'm sure there are various definitions floating around but I think anything which, if postponed, would become life threatening is 'urgent'. A brief and helpful breakdown is here (though aimed at whether overseas patients can access treatment):

https://www.bma.org.uk/advice-and-suppo ... s-visitors

NHS seems to even define 'urgent' care as other more minor, non-life threatening things such as cuts, sprains, etc. but even I'm not going to argue a sprained ankle is 'urgent'

GG. wrote: Tue Apr 28, 2020 12:45 pm

NotoriousREV wrote: Tue Apr 28, 2020 12:24 pm

GG. wrote: Tue Apr 28, 2020 12:18 pm Difficult to say how many deaths in that period across all treatments that were aborted as too high risk but I don't disagree, not likely to be statistically significant in the scheme of the Covid deaths.

It's not right to say if you need urgent treatment you'll get it though. Those surgical cancer interventions are most definitely urgent and very many will be time critical, you may just die outside of your reference period (which I understand is what you're arguing with Broccers about re Covid non Covid deaths to be fair).

Non-urgent means not immediately life threatening, so it is right to say it. Cancer surgery is rarely "we need to operate in 30 minutes or you'll die". If anyone has died from a lack of cancer treatment in the last 6 weeks, their prognosis was likely pretty grim anyway, sadly.

It's hard to understand what Broccers is arguing at the best of times. As far as I can tell, he seems to think that the spike in deaths is somehow not actually from Coronavirus but from the hospitals being closed (or not closed, or open but not open, who knows?).

I'm sure there are various definitions floating around but I think anything which, if postponed, would become life threatening is 'urgent'. A brief and helpful breakdown is here (though aimed at whether overseas patients can access treatment):

https://www.bma.org.uk/advice-and-suppo ... s-visitors

NHS seems to even define 'urgent' care as other more minor, non-life threatening things such as cuts, sprains, etc. but even I'm not going to argue a sprained ankle is 'urgent'

So which conditions do you think people have died from in the last 6 weeks that they would not have received medical treatment for?

I'm not stating that (as noted above). Just that your conflation of urgent care with something that is life threatening is incorrect. It's a tangent, I know.

NotoriousREV wrote: Tue Apr 28, 2020 12:52 pm

GG. wrote: Tue Apr 28, 2020 12:45 pm

NotoriousREV wrote: Tue Apr 28, 2020 12:24 pm

Non-urgent means not immediately life threatening, so it is right to say it. Cancer surgery is rarely "we need to operate in 30 minutes or you'll die". If anyone has died from a lack of cancer treatment in the last 6 weeks, their prognosis was likely pretty grim anyway, sadly.

It's hard to understand what Broccers is arguing at the best of times. As far as I can tell, he seems to think that the spike in deaths is somehow not actually from Coronavirus but from the hospitals being closed (or not closed, or open but not open, who knows?).

I'm sure there are various definitions floating around but I think anything which, if postponed, would become life threatening is 'urgent'. A brief and helpful breakdown is here (though aimed at whether overseas patients can access treatment):

https://www.bma.org.uk/advice-and-suppo ... s-visitors

NHS seems to even define 'urgent' care as other more minor, non-life threatening things such as cuts, sprains, etc. but even I'm not going to argue a sprained ankle is 'urgent'

So which conditions do you think people have died from in the last 6 weeks that they would not have received medical treatment for?

i expect there’ll be daft things like cuts that should have been properly dressed (where people haven’t gone to a&e for fear of C19) that have led to deaths from infections, but unsurprisingly there isn’t a list on the internet for us to quickly quote from as it isn’t really possible to prove either way.

Rich B wrote: Tue Apr 28, 2020 12:59 pm

NotoriousREV wrote: Tue Apr 28, 2020 12:52 pm

GG. wrote: Tue Apr 28, 2020 12:45 pm

I'm sure there are various definitions floating around but I think anything which, if postponed, would become life threatening is 'urgent'. A brief and helpful breakdown is here (though aimed at whether overseas patients can access treatment):

https://www.bma.org.uk/advice-and-suppo ... s-visitors

NHS seems to even define 'urgent' care as other more minor, non-life threatening things such as cuts, sprains, etc. but even I'm not going to argue a sprained ankle is 'urgent'

So which conditions do you think people have died from in the last 6 weeks that they would not have received medical treatment for?

i expect there’ll be daft things like cuts that should have been properly dressed (where people haven’t gone to a&e for fear of C19) that have led to deaths from infections, but unsurprisingly there isn’t a list on the internet for us to quickly quote from as it isn’t really possible to prove either way.

So our victim gets a cut and lets it get infected. Do they just stay at home until they die, or do you think there would come a point where they'd decide "I should probably get this looked at"? If the former, what proportion of the current death toll do you think that would realistically account for? 1%? 10%? 50%?

NotoriousREV wrote: Tue Apr 28, 2020 1:04 pm

Rich B wrote: Tue Apr 28, 2020 12:59 pm

NotoriousREV wrote: Tue Apr 28, 2020 12:52 pm

So which conditions do you think people have died from in the last 6 weeks that they would not have received medical treatment for?

i expect there’ll be daft things like cuts that should have been properly dressed (where people haven’t gone to a&e for fear of C19) that have led to deaths from infections, but unsurprisingly there isn’t a list on the internet for us to quickly quote from as it isn’t really possible to prove either way.

So our victim gets a cut and lets it get infected. Do they just stay at home until they die, or do you think there would come a point where they'd decide "I should probably get this looked at"? If the former, what proportion of the current death toll do you think that would realistically account for? 1%? 10%? 50%?

I’m not a doctor Rev. Ease off the gas a little - you’re coming across as a bit of a nutter - it’s only people on a car forum chatting bollocks.

I think REV is morphing into a left-wing Broccers

New advice in Jockland is we should be wearing “face coverings” when in shops or on public transport..

Rich B wrote: Tue Apr 28, 2020 1:16 pm

NotoriousREV wrote: Tue Apr 28, 2020 1:04 pm

Rich B wrote: Tue Apr 28, 2020 12:59 pm i expect there’ll be daft things like cuts that should have been properly dressed (where people haven’t gone to a&e for fear of C19) that have led to deaths from infections, but unsurprisingly there isn’t a list on the internet for us to quickly quote from as it isn’t really possible to prove either way.

So our victim gets a cut and lets it get infected. Do they just stay at home until they die, or do you think there would come a point where they'd decide "I should probably get this looked at"? If the former, what proportion of the current death toll do you think that would realistically account for? 1%? 10%? 50%?

I’m not a doctor Rev. Ease off the gas a little - you’re coming across as a bit of a nutter - it’s only people on a car forum chatting bollocks.

I’m just trying to make a simple point: the deaths as an indirect result of the lockdown are likely to be a tiny proportion of the increase in deaths we’ve seen over the last 6 weeks, contrary to what Broccers appears to believe.

I’m only responding to people trying counter this point in some way, but suddenly I’m a nutter for engaging in the conversation you voluntarily joined in with? Er, OK?

Sundayjumper wrote: Tue Apr 28, 2020 1:18 pm I think REV is morphing into a left-wing Broccers

I’m not left wing. I’m a liberal capitalist but not entirely in favour of a completely free market. I don’t know what you call that.