Dave B
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
There has been about 18 serological, non PCR , investigations.
The following one is interesting as you could think the Iran has passed through it and is at the end game and it is in English
Abstract
Background: The extent of infection by coronavirus disease 2019 has not been well documented. In this study we aimed to determine seropositivity of COVID-19 virus infection in population of a highly affected area in north of Iran. Methods: In a population-based cluster random sampling design through phone call invitation, a total of 196 household including 552 subjects agreed to participate in this study. Each participant were taken 50ml blood sample at health care center. Rapid test kits were used to detect antibody against COVID-19. Crude, population-weight adjusted and test performance adjusted prevalence of antibody seropositivity to SARS-CoV-2 were reported. Results: The prevalence of antibody seropositivity was 0.22 (95%CI: 0.19-0.26). The population weight adjusted estimate was 0.21 (95%CI: 0.14-0.29) and test performance adjusted prevalence was 0.33 (95%CI: 0.28-0.39). Based on these estimates the range of infected people in this province would be between 518000 and 777000. Conclusion: The population seropositivity prevalence of COVID-19 virus infection indicated that the asymptomatic infection is much higher than the number of confirmed cases of COVID-19. This estimate can be used to better detect infection fatality rate and decide for public policy guidelines.
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.26.20079244v1
the population of this province is about 2.5 million
There has been about 18 serological, non PCR , investigations.
The following one is interesting as you could think the Iran has passed through it and is at the end game and it is in English
Abstract
Background: The extent of infection by coronavirus disease 2019 has not been well documented. In this study we aimed to determine seropositivity of COVID-19 virus infection in population of a highly affected area in north of Iran. Methods: In a population-based cluster random sampling design through phone call invitation, a total of 196 household including 552 subjects agreed to participate in this study. Each participant were taken 50ml blood sample at health care center. Rapid test kits were used to detect antibody against COVID-19. Crude, population-weight adjusted and test performance adjusted prevalence of antibody seropositivity to SARS-CoV-2 were reported. Results: The prevalence of antibody seropositivity was 0.22 (95%CI: 0.19-0.26). The population weight adjusted estimate was 0.21 (95%CI: 0.14-0.29) and test performance adjusted prevalence was 0.33 (95%CI: 0.28-0.39). Based on these estimates the range of infected people in this province would be between 518000 and 777000. Conclusion: The population seropositivity prevalence of COVID-19 virus infection indicated that the asymptomatic infection is much higher than the number of confirmed cases of COVID-19. This estimate can be used to better detect infection fatality rate and decide for public policy guidelines.
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.26.20079244v1
the population of this province is about 2.5 million
so we are talking 20-30% again.
I do this kind of thing as part of my job as an investigative analytical chemist.
trawling through scientific literature.
I have a Grade A in A’ level statistics as well.
So to keep this simple.
From 5 March to 5 May on a ship 1,156 out of 4,500 tested positive
[One died.]
% infected 1156/4500 x 100 = 26%
26% in two months ,
We just need to try and remember that
“26% in two months”
for a couple of minutes.
Lets go somewhere else then; for two months.
…….Evidence before this study……..
Following the first recorded cases of SARS-CoV-2 on the 29 January in the
United Kingdom (UK), the COVID-19 pandemic has taken a rapidly developing
Course ………………..providing evidence that by the end of the second week in April, 29% of the population may already have had the disease and so have increased immunity……….
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/ijcp.13528
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_pandemic_on_USS_Theodore_Roosevelt#Deaths
There was not much of a lockdown on the aircraft carrier though!
This is the very recent banned viral youtube with already 4.3 million views done by two frontline doctors in front of a hostile pro-lockdown press
Watch it to the very end after it looks like it has finished.
https://off-guardian.org/2020/04/29/watch-dr-erickson-covid19-briefing-censored-by-youtube/
FYI only – don’t expect many people to want to trawl through it- it is from the NHS frontline and not particularly a total endorsement of my position.
The hospital bed occupancy seems to vary from region to region.
The second wave stuff is bollocks [mostly].
It has RNA instead of DNA ; RNA is more ‘unstable’ so it mutates faster.
That is not automatically good as many of new generation virus’s are total duds.
Some will be improvements, for the virus, and not kill or seriously debilitate the host and send them to bed.
Whilst treacherously conferring immunity from the more nasty varieties.
Eg cowpox viz smallpox and Jenner was it?
Some mutants might be really horrible but they can come from anywhere.
That Chris Whiity person is a cretin or a liar ; How can you say correctly that the doubling time is 3-4 days; as I said here about 2 weeeks ago.
And say there might be a second wave; which is predicated on the idea of <5% infection rate.
Get a calculator out and multiply 2 by 2 and keep going and see how many you need to do to get to 35 million.
I know it pushes back and slows down; just like in chemistry.
14 Apr
London’s Nightingale hospital has remained largely empty, with just 19 patients being treated at the facility over the Easter weekend, HSJ understands.
According to draft plans, the temporary hospital in the Docklands was designed to have 2,900 intensive care beds, along with 750 further beds.
In early March, there were fears the capital’s existing intensive care units, which had around 770 beds combined, would be overwhelmed by coronavirus patients. This prompted national and regional leaders to target a four-fold increase in ICU capacity, and to build the Nightingale at the Excel conference centre.
However, internal data circulated to senior leaders over the Easter weekend, and seen by HSJ, suggested the established hospitals have been able to double their ICU capacity on their existing estates, raising the total available ICU beds to 1,555.
The same data showed 1,245 of these beds were occupied on Easter Sunday (80 per cent), suggesting the established hospitals have so far been able to cope with the surge in demand, without relying on large numbers being admitted to the Nightingale.
HSJ has seen data showing 19 patients were at the London Nightingale over the bank holiday, which has been confirmed by a senior figure who did not want their name to be published.
The low numbers at the Nightingale are also likely to be influenced by the tight criteria that was agreed for patients to be admitted there, which excluded the most frail patients.
According to the circulated data, south west London had the most spare capacity, with 67 per cent of ICU beds occupied on Sunday. At Croydon Health Services Trust, just 46 per cent of the 37 intensive care beds were occupied.
North London had the least spare capacity, with 204 beds (86 per cent) occupied.
There were two trusts with more than 90 per cent occupancy: Imperial College Healthcare Trust (95 per cent) and University College London Hospitals Foundation Trust (91 per cent).
An NHS England spokesman said: “While the data quoted here are not complete and validated, they confirm continuing success in ensuring we have available capacity to look after patients who need our care, which has been one of our overarching operational goals since the start of the coronavirus pandemic.”
Several acute trust chief executives have told HSJ they are keen to resume more planned operations, as the peak of new coronavirus cases has passed and many hospital beds remain empty.
Some trust leaders said they believed routine elective surgery could be restarted as early as next week. There is also tension between NHS hospitals — some of which are keen to resume their own planned care, especially the more urgent operations — and a desire to use private hospitals, which have been booked out by NHS England.
The government said yesterday the number of people in hospitals with covid-19 has fallen by 10 per cent over the last week. Around 42 per cent of acute beds are now unoccupied, according to figures seen by HSJ. The peak of new infection cases in hospitals was at about 3,000 on 1 April — the number is now about half that figure.
However, there will be fears nationally about the NHS seeking to return to normal and being caught out by ongoing covid-19 pressures, or by a second peak of infections.
One chief executive running several NHS acute hospitals said regulators had indicated private sector hospitals should be prioritised for returning general elective operations, over NHS sites, but argued against this.
The chief executive said: “The empty beds in my hospitals have been paid for also, as have the staff. I do not agree with the school of thought which suggests that you should push all elective care out to the independent sector as we also need to show patients that it’s safe to use the NHS again for non-covid-19 urgent care.
“The sooner we can show that we are managing the safety issues the better. Otherwise we risk taking years off lives through debilitating conditions which could have been treated.”
David Hare, chief executive of the Independent Healthcare Providers Network, wrote in HSJ this week that some of the “‘buffer capacity’ provided by the independent sector has not yet been needed”, and added: “As more urgent and possibly even routine elective care takes place under the instruction of NHSE, however, then it is clear that many independent hospital facilities can be used as ‘clean’ non-covid sites, ideally placed to help mitigate the inevitable backlog of patients that will build up over this period, guided of course by appropriate clinical guidance.”
Several NHS chief executives said they were considering how to reorganise the split of covid-19 and non-covid-19 areas to enable more normal activity to return.
However, others highlighted that a large amount of NHS capacity would need to be kept free in case of another covid-19 surge, and said guidance from the Department of Health and Social Care or NHS England would be needed on how many beds, including what critical care capacity, needed to be allocated to that.
Bringing back substantial elective care would also need staff such as anaesthetists to be taken off their covid-19 duties, and some equipment, such as ventilators which have been moved from operating theatres.
Several local NHS chief executives sources said consideration was being given to allocating some hospital sites as “hot” or “red” covid-19 sites and others for other care — but this would prove contentious, with most trusts keen to keep their elective work, and potentially public and politicians not wanting their local hospital to be coronavirus-only.
The temporary Nightingale hospitals are likely to have a role in providing some form of coronavirus care, as has already been signalled in London.
Matt Hancock earlier this week appeared to indicate operations could resume soon, but said the NHS needed to wait until it was “safe”.
An NHSE spokesman told HSJ this afternoon: “Next week we will set out guidance to the service on releasing and redeploying some of the treatment capacity that needed to be created while the number of covid-19 patients was rising so sharply.
“A public information campaign beginning this weekend will remind people that the NHS remains open for business, and it is important that non-covid19 patients can also still safely access the appropriate care and treatment they need.”
NHS England will next week set out a plan for “releasing and redeploying some of the treatment capacity” created to deal with coronavirus, now the healthcare impact of the peak of the virus has passed.
As cases mounted in mid March, NHSE asked the service to release 30,000 beds, by cancelling routine care and rapidly discharging patients, and block booked private sector hospitals to create nearly a further 10,000.
The government said yesterday the number of people in hospitals with covid-19 had fallen by 10 per cent over the last week. Around 42 per cent of acute beds are now unoccupied, according to figures seen by HSJ — much greater than normal for this time of year. The peak of new infection cases in hospitals was at about 3,000 on 1 April — the number is now about half that figure.
An NHSE spokesman told HSJ this afternoon: “Next week we will set out guidance to the service on releasing and redeploying some of the treatment capacity that needed to be created while the number of covid-19 patients was rising so sharply.
“A public information campaign beginning this weekend will remind people that the NHS remains open for business, and it is important that non-covid19 patients can also still safely access the appropriate care and treatment they need.”
There has been mounting concern about the impact of delaying so much planned care, and that people are avoiding emergency care partly because they think the NHS is closed. Emergency department attendances have fallen by about half, and emergency admissions have also plummeted.
HSJ today reported several trust chief executives are keen to resume routine elective work and are exploring how.
Yet there will be concern about releasing the freed up space, staff and kit — much of which was used to create spaces with oxygen support, and some critical care, for patients with coronavirus — in case there are further peaks of the virus and associated demand.
Bringing back more normal work may also require further major restructure to try to separate ”hot” or “red” covid-19 services from “cold” or “green” covid-19-free areas. There is a debate about how much the private sector should be relied on for routine elective care; and how to use the new temporary Nightingale hospitals.
Health and social care secretary Matt Hancock told the Commons on Wednesday government wanted to “reopen the NHS” to patients with non-coronavirus conditions “as soon as it is safe to do so”.
24 apr
The government has announced that the “restoration of other NHS services” will start tomorrow on a “hospital-by-hospital” basis.
Health and social care secretary Matt Hancock used today’s daily ministerial coronavirus briefing to announce that resumption of healthcare which has been suspended due to coronavirus will begin on Tuesday. He said the initial focus would be on the most urgent services, citing cancer and mental health as examples.
They will be reintroduced on a locally-decided basis, depending on the level the virus is currently impacting different areas and trusts, which varies widely, and how easily they can reintroduce the work, he said.
Mr Hancock, asked about the plan by HSJ during the briefing, indicated that a large-scale return would be enabled because the government is setting out to avoid a so-called second peak of the virus spreading, so the NHS will not need to keep tens of thousands of extra beds free in readiness. Experts and governments around the globe are concerned about the prospect of further peaks of the virus spread as they move to release distancing measures.
Further NHS England guidance on the plan is expected this week.
Just over 40 per cent of acute beds are currently unoccupied — much greater than normal for this time of year — but many acute hospitals have been reorganised to separate covid and non-covid areas, and make way for large numbers of beds with critical care facilities, and oxygen support.
Mr Hancock announced the resumption of services will be done through a “locally driven approach, system-by-system. The principle is that the most urgent treatment should be brought back first and that it needs to be done according to local demands on the system. There are parts of the country where coronavirus numbers are much lower than others”.
He said he could not give a “concrete answer” to when the bulk of general planned care would return, “but it will take place gradually over weeks, starting from tomorrow”.
NHS England’s national medical director, Stephen Powis, added: “It will occur hospital-by-hospital and region-by-region as infection rates are different, and different organisations have stepped up to manage the surge in slightly different ways.”
The plan may frustrate some who are waiting for surgery in areas — such as London, Birmingham, Greater Manchester and Cheshire and Mersey — which still have more coronavirus patients in hospital.
On the NHS’ readiness for a potential second coronavirus peak, Mr Hancock said: “One of the tests we set before we adjust social distancing measures is that we should avoid the risk of a second peak because that means we would have to halt the restoration of the NHS for non-covid treatment. That has an impact itself on the health of a nation, and an impact on the indirect death rate.
“We have to be sure we don’t have that second peak so the NHS is making sure it can reopen where that locally is appropriate given local pressure on the system and taking into account [the capacity] of Nightingale hospitals.”
He added that the eight Nightingales currently confirmed “are not going to be used for non-covid patients” as they are designed for people that need intubation but said “the fact they are there does help us restore the core NHS”. London has said it wants to move covid-19 critical care and step-down patients there so hospitals can move back to normal work. They will all be used in some form initially, the health and social care secretary said, but this could change in future.
Professor Powis said the government will be “keeping their use under review”.
He added: “We are now in position to reinstate services [that have been] stepped down/interrupted… but it is not a sign the lockdown is about to be reduced, it’s the reverse, the lockdown… has provided the capacity to get back to restarting services such as elective.”
27 apr
A hospital trust is treating all its black, Asian and minority ethnic staff as “vulnerable and at risk” of coronavirus and is prioritising them for fitting of masks.
People from BAME backgrounds appear to be disproportionately likely to develop severe coronavirus symptoms. Analysis published by HSJ last week revealed 63 per cent of health and social care staff known to have died from the virus were black or Asian, despite these groups only making up 16 per cent of the NHS workforce.
Somerset Foundation Trust has now included all its BAME staff in the vulnerable and at risk group, and is asking managers to have conversations with them and discuss concerns. It is thought to be the first NHS organisation to take this step.
In a letter to staff, the trust’s chief executive Peter Lewis said: “While we don’t yet have any conclusive research or national guidance, we feel that is the right approach to take.
“We also hope that you feel comfortable sharing any concerns you have about any underlying conditions so that these can be taken into consideration when planning your work.”
The letter also said all BAME colleagues and their families will be able to access testing within the first five days of developing any symptoms, and any who require an FFP3 mask — which offers greater protection than a normal surgical mask — will be supported to be fit-tested as soon as possible. Staff were also reassured covid-19-related sick leave would not affect their future progress or job role.
Mr Lewis said: “We recognise how worrying it is at the moment for our colleagues and we want to provide them with as much support as we can.
“Our BAME colleagues make a significant contribution to our trust and the care we provide to patients. We are grateful for their ongoing commitment.”
Less than 10 per cent of the trust’s workforce are from a BAME background, although this rises to nearly 20 per cent among medical and dental staff. None are thought to have died from covid-19.
Yvonne Coghill, director of NHS England’s workforce race equality standard unit, tweeted “many should follow the lead of Somerset FT,” describing the trust as “compassionate” with strong leadership.
The government has launched an inquiry into why people from BAME backgrounds appear to be disproportionately affected by covid-19.
Government guidance states any adult who is normally advised to get a flu jab each year is regarded as at increased risk of severe illness from coronavirus. This includes people with chronic asthma and other respiratory conditions; chronic heart, kidney or liver diseases; those with weakened immune systems; those with diabetes; those who are pregnant; and those who are seriously overweight.
People in these groups have been “strongly advised” to follow the guidance on social distancing, which includes avoiding contact with anyone displaying symptoms of covid-19 and working from home, where possible.
27 apr
Stroke victims could be admitted to district general hospitals which do not normally provide such care if specialist units do not have the beds or staff as a result of the coronavirus pandemic.
Guidance published by NHS England states that freeing up beds usually occupied by stroke patients to care for those suffering from coronavirus is “paramount”.
The Stroke Association has said it is vital “high quality care” continues to be provided – and that they have access to thrombolysis, where clots blocking blood vessels are “dissolved,” during this time.
The move was proposed alongside “virtual consultant cover” to help specialist stroke units remain open if consultant staff are on sick leave. The guidance – which was updated on 16 April – suggests “shadow rotas” of additional consultant staff should also be set up where services have limited consultant cover.
Telemedicine use should be encouraged to allow remote review of patients in emergency departments who may need thrombolysis, and a regional telemedicine rota could provide continuity of service.
Stroke medicine has been the subject of significant consolidation in recent years, as evidence built that patients where best cared for specialist units even if they had to travel further to reach them. As a result, many DGHs no longer regularly treat the most seriously ill stroke patients.
The guidance said reducing the number of stroke beds to accommodate non-stroke patients was “paramount” but it was crucial to ensure stroke patients had access when needed.
Charlotte Nicholls, head of policy at the Stroke Association, said the guidance was understandable as a temporary measure, but added: “It is essential that any changes to the stroke pathway maintain high quality care for stroke patients, and remain committed to prioritising thrombectomy, mechanical removal of clots, and thrombolysis treatments for those eligible.
Asked how thrombolysis – normally delivered by specially trained nurses – would be delivered in units which do not normally admit stroke patients, Dr David Hargroves, GIRFT national clinical lead for stroke, replied: “While there is currently no need to use them, and every part of the country will be working to ensure that remains the case, this guidance – drawn up and endorsed by expert clinicians – provides contingency plans to ensure people will still have access to stroke experts, brain scanning and emergency interventions even if coronavirus puts unprecedented strain on local ambulance services.”
NHS England will next week set out a plan for “releasing and redeploying some of the treatment capacity” created to deal with coronavirus, now the healthcare impact of the peak of the virus has passed.
As cases mounted in mid March, NHSE asked the service to release 30,000 beds, by cancelling routine care and rapidly discharging patients, and block booked private sector hospitals to create nearly a further 10,000.
The government said yesterday the number of people in hospitals with covid-19 had fallen by 10 per cent over the last week. Around 42 per cent of acute beds are now unoccupied, according to figures seen by HSJ — much greater than normal for this time of year. The peak of new infection cases in hospitals was at about 3,000 on 1 April — the number is now about half that figure.
An NHSE spokesman told HSJ this afternoon: “Next week we will set out guidance to the service on releasing and redeploying some of the treatment capacity that needed to be created while the number of covid-19 patients was rising so sharply.
“A public information campaign beginning this weekend will remind people that the NHS remains open for business, and it is important that non-covid19 patients can also still safely access the appropriate care and treatment they need.”
There has been mounting concern about the impact of delaying so much planned care, and that people are avoiding emergency care partly because they think the NHS is closed. Emergency department attendances have fallen by about half, and emergency admissions have also plummeted.
HSJ today reported several trust chief executives are keen to resume routine elective work and are exploring how.
Yet there will be concern about releasing the freed up space, staff and kit — much of which was used to create spaces with oxygen support, and some critical care, for patients with coronavirus — in case there are further peaks of the virus and associated demand.
Bringing back more normal work may also require further major restructure to try to separate ”hot” or “red” covid-19 services from “cold” or “green” covid-19-free areas. There is a debate about how much the private sector should be relied on for routine elective care; and how to use the new temporary Nightingale hospitals.
Health and social care secretary Matt Hancock told the Commons on Wednesday government wanted to “reopen the NHS” to patients with non-coronavirus conditions “as soon as it is safe to do so”.
24 apr
The NHS has been warned of the “lasting impact” and worse outcomes likely to result from delaying cancer screening programmes amid the coronavirus pandemic.
The disruption or suspension of services has caused concern among patients, while cancer charities have told HSJ health leaders should move quickly to reinstate screening programmes where possible.
Current NHS England policy suggests screening programmes are supposed to be continuing, though whether to pause them officially is under review. However, HSJ understands disruption to screening is widespread across England.
In late March, London’s public health commissioner wrote to providers and commissioners in the capital to say the national adult screening services for cancer and other diseases were unable to provide screening to meet quality standards.
The threat from covid-19 infection and the national policies on social distancing meant “the benefits from maintaining screening through these programmes are outweighed by the risk posed to the NHS and the population,” the letter added.
However, on 21 April, NHSE’s national director of public health commissioning and operation sent an email to the NHS regions, seen by HSJ, under the subject “recovery of adult screening programmes”.
It said: “Service restoration will need to be undertaken as safely as possible and it needs to be undertaken in a methodical, planned and consistent way in order to minimise any risk to individuals receiving these services.”
Each screening programme has a national task and finish group that will “coordinate and ensure the necessary consistent systematic approach to maintaining these national population-based programmes and we will only achieve that by working on this collectively please,” the email added.
The screening programmes rely on the routine testing of sections of the population for the presence of cancer to catch the disease as early as possible. Delays caused by pausing the programmes now risks causing problems for years to come, HSJ has been told.
Genevieve Edwards, chief executive of Bowel Cancer UK, said: “The undeniable truth is that any decisions taken during this crisis regarding bowel cancer screening, either at a national or local level, will undoubtedly have a lasting impact. Those of screening age, 60-74, whose bowel cancer goes undiagnosed may suffer worse outcomes as a result of a later diagnosis.
“It’s vital that NHS England [has] clear, outlined plans in place to ensure any backlog in delivering bowel cancer screening; and the subsequent colonoscopies required for people with a positive screening test, can be cleared as soon as it is safe.”
Rob Music, chief executive of cervical cancer charity Jo’s Cancer Trust, said: “Data from our services show a high level of fear and confusion around cervical screening and colposcopy with many worried about the impact of delays on their health.
“Workforce across primary and secondary care will be an ongoing issue as greater numbers are accessing tests and receiving diagnoses.”
Baroness Delyth Morgan, chief executive of Breast Cancer Now, said: “We now need clear plans to be put in place to recover breast screening services once the crisis has passed, and to ensure catch-up appointments are offered to all those who have been affected.”
An NHS England and NHS Improvement spokeswoman said: “In areas where local providers have taken the decision to postpone screening due to the risk of coronavirus, they must now put plans in place to resume services for patients as quickly and as safely as possible.
“Patients are strongly encouraged to seek help from their GP if they have symptoms, as always.”
……..It is no surprise that my work as a [NHS] doctor has also been taken over with patients who have symptoms or concerns about the virus.
But something is worrying me. I do not see as many patients as usual about non-coronavirus health issues.
Before this pandemic, my list of patients to see was full. I never had an empty appointment slot: Patients were still getting sick from non-coronavirus-related illnesses.
Where have they all gone?
Granted, some of the patients I used to see did not really need a doctor to make them better, just time for their minor ailment to run its course. But there were some who came in with worrying signs and symptoms; things that would alert me to the possibility of cancer or a heart attack and warrant an urgent referral to my colleagues at the local hospital.
We are a large inner-city UK primary care medical practice with more than 25,000 registered patients. Before the coronavirus pandemic, we would average about 30 referrals to hospital per week for patients with suspected cancer. Since the lockdown, this has dropped to just three per week.
Speaking to colleagues in hospitals, I have been receiving reports of delayed presentations in patients with heart attacks and appendicitis leading to potentially avoidable deaths. It is impossible to say for sure, but there is a feeling among my colleagues that had these patients come in earlier, their outcomes may have been better.
Is this because people are worried about attending hospital for fear of catching coronavirus or do they simply assume healthcare professionals are too busy to see them?
I wanted to find out if these were just isolated incidents or whether they were part of a wider trend.
Earlier this month, the British Heart Foundation (BHF) stated: “New data from hospitals across England show that the number of people seen in hospital with a suspected heart attack has halved since the beginning of March … from an average of 300 per day at the beginning of March, to 150 per day. Across the UK, this could lead to unnecessary deaths and more people living with debilitating heart failure if they do recover.”
Although it is still too early to draw conclusions about the wider health implications of the coronavirus pandemic, there does appear to be a worrying downward trend in the numbers of people seeking medical help for other, non-coronavirus illnesses which could be life-threatening.
This picture is playing out globally. According to a poll conducted by the US-based Twitter group Angioplasty.Org, comprising US cardiologists, there has been a significant drop in the number of heart attack patients presenting for treatment.
Meanwhile, a study in Spain has shown a 40-percent reduction in emergency heart procedures since the coronavirus outbreak.
Last week, Sara Hiom, director of early diagnosis at Cancer Research UK, expressed concern about the drop in the number of referrals coming from primary care providers in the UK for those patients with suspected cancer, amidst the coronavirus pandemic.
She added she was aware of a 70-percent reduction in suspected cancer referrals in some areas.
A study in Hong Kong has shown that patients are presenting later in the course of their heart attacks during the coronavirus pandemic than before it.
In the UK, the government has repeatedly stressed that the National Health Service (NHS) remains open for business, so why are people not coming forward?
We believe the reasons are varied. Most people do not want to add to the burden of the already stretched health services, and they may not feel their health concern is as important as the wider coronavirus pandemic.
They may then wait until their condition significantly worsens before seeking medical attention.
People may also be worried about leaving their homes when we have all been told to practise social distancing – even to get medical help. They are naturally worried about catching the virus. Hospitals and primary care locations may be perceived as high-risk settings where the virus is more prevalent.
Whatever the reason, the message from healthcare staff is clear: Do not delay seeking medical attention for potentially life-threatening illnesses.
The effects of this pandemic are going to be felt for years to come in every sector of human life.
Once it is over, we may see a surge in numbers of those needing medical intervention for things that should have been treated earlier or have been left too late.
This will only add to the human suffering being felt already and to the demand being placed on healthcare systems around the world………..
……..There is emerging evidence that people could be dying as a result of the lockdown. It may be an indirect result – in the sense that the lockdown is not a sentient being that came to their homes and killed them – but it seems real nonetheless. Accident and Emergency chiefs in London are concerned that more people are dying of non-coronavirus-related illnesses than normal because they are reluctant to leave their homes and be a burden on their local hospital. They believe there has been a ‘sharp rise in the number of seriously ill people dying at home’. They report that dozens more people than normal are dying at home from cardiac arrests, for example, presumably because they do not want to impose upon our locked-down society and what is continually presented to us as a busy, stressed-out health service.
The Royal College of GPs says it has noticed a ‘spike’ in the number of people dying at home from salvageable illnesses. Paramedics report that they are attending more house calls than normal where patients suffering from cardiac arrest are already dead – presumably because people are calling 999 far later than they normally would. Things have got so bad that the NHS has had to issue a statement encouraging gravely ill or very concerned people to continue seeking emergency care. ‘Anybody who needs urgent help – people experiencing heart failure, or expectant mums worried about their baby – should absolutely come forward and seek help from their local NHS’, it said.
This follows a report last week that around half of beds in some English hospitals are currently empty. Health officials fear, in the words of the ……….that this is because ‘people may be failing to seek help for… life-threatening conditions during the coronavirus pandemic’.
The figures are extraordinary. In Week 14 of 2019, there were close to 160,000 emergency admissions to English hospitals (which was a higher-than-average number). In Week 14 of this year there were around 60,000.
Furthermore, the Office for National Statistics reported a very large spike in weekly deaths last week, which was latched on to by the pro-lockdown media and anti-government left as proof of the failings of Boris Johnson’s government over covid.
Yet what far fewer commentators focused on was the fact that out of these extra 6,000 deathsjust over half of them were officially recorded as deaths from or with coronavirus. That leaves a question mark over more than 2,500 of the extra deaths. It is entirely possible, of course, that some or even many of these deaths were virus-related but for some reason were not recorded as such. But these unclear extra deaths also raise the distinct possibility that the lockdown is harming people’s health in a very significant way. …………
………………There seems to be a similar situation in Scotland. Last week, Scotland’s interim chief medical officer Gregor Smith expressed concern about how ‘eerily quiet’ the health system has become (aside from coronavirus cases). Scotland recorded 1,741 deaths in the week to the 5 April, which is 643 higher than the average for that week over the past five years. Yet coronavirus was on the death certificate for just 282 of those extra 643 deaths. Again, it is very likely that some of the other extra deaths were also virus-related but for some reason were not recorded as such. But it seems pretty clear that there were also non-virus related ‘extra deaths’ – that is, deaths that might otherwise not have occurred in that week. Gregor Smith says the eerie quietness of the health system is ‘immediately disconcerting’ because it suggests people are no longer presenting with illnesses. ‘[But] that illness hasn’t gone away somewhere’, he says…………..
…………..
…………There seem to be similar developments in other countries, too. The New York Times published a piece on 6 April headlined, ‘Where have all the heart attacks gone?’. It was written by a doctor who likewise described hospitals in the US as being ‘eerily quiet’. He has heard from colleagues who are seeing fewer patients with heart attacks, strokes, acute appendicitis and acute gall-bladder disease than they would normally see. In Spain, health investigators found a 40 per cent reduction in emergency procedures for heart attacks at the end of March compared with a normal period. Doctors in Hong Kong reported a rise in the number of patients coming to hospital late in the process of cardiac arrest, when life-saving surgery becomes more difficult………
————————————————————-
I had a personal report yesterday from a medical nurse working in a Preston hospital that the beds were “halve empty and A&E was very quiet”.
They have emptied the beds of fairly seriously ill people to make way for the Covid rush, that never came; a lot of them probably won’t come back.
I know someone with a serious cancer at a fairly advanced stage who has her treatment postponed.
I did this before using similar material from elsewhere ; I have loads of it.
Why can’t you seem to find it?
In the wide-ranging grilling from backbenchers, Prof Whitty also warned that health issues other than coronavirus could be brought about by the epidemic.
<p id=”ext-gen74″>Delayed treatment for non-Covid-19 patients, such as elective surgery, would likely see their pre-existing conditions slide, he said.</p>
<p id=”ext-gen72″>He also braced MPs for growing medical issues brought by an economic downturn, which often triggers mental health problems</p>
This is from the daily mail ; my crappy computer can’t deal with pop up overload and it crashes.It looked “interesting”
If anybody can find a transcript of what Prof Whitty said that would be useful.
the leaked 150,000 lockdown deaths estimate by a civil service technical sub committee report looks like it might be real as it has not been fully denied.
The Bill Gate’s rabbit hole, The neo Malthusians and Niander Wallace?????
https://www.liberationnews.org/real-agenda-gates-foundation/
I supplied you with the Swedish professor material I think.
do you really think Adam I had forgotten what was in it?
it was “Petty bourgeois” ideology.
which is different
even the revolutionary workers in the dreaded transition state can suffer from “bourgeois limitations”
The story of panicked politicians was supposed to be illustrative rather than precise.
just as is epidemiology being non interventionist is relative and a bit of a over generalisation.
I think you were ok Alan
The people who are pushing this lockdown thing are the least likely at first to be affected by it.
There is nothing anti Marxist about potential differences between “Petty bourgeois” and “proletarian” ideology.
The scientist who pushed this at first eg Neil Fergussons lot were intimately linked
to big pharma as are and were the WHO.
They spent there whole lives frustrated no doubt in an observational non interventionist science.
Suddenly something happens or appears to have happened as a result of a new testing system or application of it.
Journalist always interested in “Shock, Horror , Terror” story pour petrol on it.
Politicians respond with panic ; what can we do,
Responsible epidemiologists say “fuck all”.
Narcissists like Niel Fergusson who have always had wet dreams about being famous for a day and being stroked by politicians and journalists alike can’t help telling them what they want to hear.
Really I have dealt with serious crises in my work, you never hear about it that is the whole point, so trust me; I know all about the psychology of telling them what they don’t want to hear.
As do many other different kinds of people or the ones I know who have found themselves in similar places in different industies.
The shit really hits the fan for me about once every ten years and it is always good fun.
It seems to be the women in technical , and there aren’t many of them, who stay the most calm.
I will start double spacing again the next time I see a Guardian and BBc VMD quotation.
I like to write in word then just paste in; no I am not interested I am a computer phobe with a tiny screen and like that way.
by the way
I don’t agree with all that article
it would have been dishonest to edit out the bits I didn’t like.
there was more of it and other interesting stuff in the paper on same subject.
it was dated around 10 april ; I can’t remember I just swiped it and saved it to word
He was expelled for putting stuff on Rubikon ; it is hard to research this stuff if your german is crap
Rubikon publisher Jens Wenicke [Former ? trade unionists? ]
. “If we do not believe that we are worth being treated well and loved, we tend to submit to the interests and ideologies of the powerful. Then we give in again and again small when people are looking to ‘sell’ us the next war or measures against our common good – because the others know what is best for us all. .“ The establishment of a better, more human world therefore always begins with the rediscovery of our own dignity, firm belief in it and our own perception: only if we value ourselves and trust our feelings can we recognize and resist lies, betrayal and abuse . “
