The scores on the doors will be much of a muchness across Europe...all our health systems will collapse and most people will probably suffer at home...but yes, in the kick off the Germans are doing quite well....
You're probably right. In the end it will be a wash.
If I had to construct a plan B (given that my North Korean autarky won't work) then I would do this: I would say to any 70 year old (or older) who presents with coronavirus; "Sorry, we cannot treat you in a hospital, here is a load of antibiotics and heroin, go home and pray".
Let God decide. But mitigate the pain.
We risk overwhelming the health system with hundreds of thousands of oldsters who may or may not live, at the expense of younger people who still have a life to live and babies to breed. Triage needs to get a bit medieval.
Comrade...why should a 70 year old or 80 year old pass over treatment in preference to a younger person???
Surely the clinical presentation takes priority--and on that basis the elderly and those with co-morbidity must be prioritised.....
No, that's wrong. This is beyond normal protocol. Save the young.
Just outrageous and you are so wrong.
It's late. eadric is back into this being Black Death mk III mode.
I suspect it's more that he's been getting into his Rioja tbh.
The scores on the doors will be much of a muchness across Europe...all our health systems will collapse and most people will probably suffer at home...but yes, in the kick off the Germans are doing quite well....
You're probably right. In the end it will be a wash.
If I had to construct a plan B (given that my North Korean autarky won't work) then I would do this: I would say to any 70 year old (or older) who presents with coronavirus; "Sorry, we cannot treat you in a hospital, here is a load of antibiotics and heroin, go home and pray".
Let God decide. But mitigate the pain.
We risk overwhelming the health system with hundreds of thousands of oldsters who may or may not live, at the expense of younger people who still have a life to live and babies to breed. Triage needs to get a bit medieval.
Comrade...why should a 70 year old or 80 year old pass over treatment in preference to a younger person???
Surely the clinical presentation takes priority--and on that basis the elderly and those with co-morbidity must be prioritised.....
No, that's wrong. This is beyond normal protocol. Save the young.
I wonder if we can resurrect Goebbels et al....the gypsies and the jews...let's not treat those...
Sorry...but just where your argument takes us Ead
Triage will have to happen at some point. If you have two candidates for the last ECMO bed, both equally ill but one is 25, the other 65 there's no contest as to which should get the bed.
The reality is that most people appearing critically ill will be older and admitted...
If this crisis forces us to lose our compassion to old people...then sadly it is a country that has lost its perspective.....
No, a real perspective is achieved when you run out of hospital beds and respirators. Then you have to CHOOSE who gets to live.
Who do you choose? Doctors will be doing this in Italy already. As they did in Wuhan. I do not envy them, and I salute their bravery.
I think they're thinking of it like the trolley problem - diverting a runaway trolley from five people on a track, to a track with one person, is from a deontologist perspective murder because you're making the decision to kill one person. But it's not a trolley problem, and consequentialism is best at any rate.
The scores on the doors will be much of a muchness across Europe...all our health systems will collapse and most people will probably suffer at home...but yes, in the kick off the Germans are doing quite well....
You're probably right. In the end it will be a wash.
If I had to construct a plan B (given that my North Korean autarky won't work) then I would do this: I would say to any 70 year old (or older) who presents with coronavirus; "Sorry, we cannot treat you in a hospital, here is a load of antibiotics and heroin, go home and pray".
Let God decide. But mitigate the pain.
We risk overwhelming the health system with hundreds of thousands of oldsters who may or may not live, at the expense of younger people who still have a life to live and babies to breed. Triage needs to get a bit medieval.
Comrade...why should a 70 year old or 80 year old pass over treatment in preference to a younger person???
Surely the clinical presentation takes priority--and on that basis the elderly and those with co-morbidity must be prioritised.....
No, that's wrong. This is beyond normal protocol. Save the young.
I wonder if we can resurrect Goebbels et al....the gypsies and the jews...let's not treat those...
Sorry...but just where your argument takes us Ead
Triage will have to happen at some point. If you have two candidates for the last ECMO bed, both equally ill but one is 25, the other 65 there's no contest as to which should get the bed.
The reality is that most people appearing critically ill will be older and admitted...
If this crisis forces us to lose our compassion to old people...then sadly it is a country that has lost its perspective.....
No, a real perspective is achieved when you run out of hospital beds and respirators. Then you have to CHOOSE who gets to live.
Who do you choose? Doctors will be doing this in Italy already. As they did in Wuhan. I do not envy them, and I salute their bravery.
You are making wild accusations in your last paragraph
The scores on the doors will be much of a muchness across Europe...all our health systems will collapse and most people will probably suffer at home...but yes, in the kick off the Germans are doing quite well....
You're probably right. In the end it will be a wash.
If I had to construct a plan B (given that my North Korean autarky won't work) then I would do this: I would say to any 70 year old (or older) who presents with coronavirus; "Sorry, we cannot treat you in a hospital, here is a load of antibiotics and heroin, go home and pray".
Let God decide. But mitigate the pain.
We risk overwhelming the health system with hundreds of thousands of oldsters who may or may not live, at the expense of younger people who still have a life to live and babies to breed. Triage needs to get a bit medieval.
Comrade...why should a 70 year old or 80 year old pass over treatment in preference to a younger person???
Surely the clinical presentation takes priority--and on that basis the elderly and those with co-morbidity must be prioritised.....
No, that's wrong. This is beyond normal protocol. Save the young.
I wonder if we can resurrect Goebbels et al....the gypsies and the jews...let's not treat those...
Sorry...but just where your argument takes us Ead
Triage will have to happen at some point. If you have two candidates for the last ECMO bed, both equally ill but one is 25, the other 65 there's no contest as to which should get the bed.
The reality is that most people appearing critically ill will be older and admitted...
If this crisis forces us to lose our compassion to old people...then sadly it is a country that has lost its perspective.....
That's all very well, so are you advocating letting the 25 year old die to let the equally ill 65 year old survive, especially considering that with treatment the 25 year old should recover faster? They're hours away from having to make those calls in Italy.
The 25 year old will almost certainly survive at home with hot broth in bed anyway, the 65 year old however may need that hospital bed to survive
The scores on the doors will be much of a muchness across Europe...all our health systems will collapse and most people will probably suffer at home...but yes, in the kick off the Germans are doing quite well....
You're probably right. In the end it will be a wash.
If I had to construct a plan B (given that my North Korean autarky won't work) then I would do this: I would say to any 70 year old (or older) who presents with coronavirus; "Sorry, we cannot treat you in a hospital, here is a load of antibiotics and heroin, go home and pray".
Let God decide. But mitigate the pain.
We risk overwhelming the health system with hundreds of thousands of oldsters who may or may not live, at the expense of younger people who still have a life to live and babies to breed. Triage needs to get a bit medieval.
Comrade...why should a 70 year old or 80 year old pass over treatment in preference to a younger person???
Surely the clinical presentation takes priority--and on that basis the elderly and those with co-morbidity must be prioritised.....
No, that's wrong. This is beyond normal protocol. Save the young.
I wonder if we can resurrect Goebbels et al....the gypsies and the jews...let's not treat those...
Sorry...but just where your argument takes us Ead
Triage will have to happen at some point. If you have two candidates for the last ECMO bed, both equally ill but one is 25, the other 65 there's no contest as to which should get the bed.
The reality is that most people appearing critically ill will be older and admitted...
If this crisis forces us to lose our compassion to old people...then sadly it is a country that has lost its perspective.....
No, a real perspective is achieved when you run out of hospital beds and respirators. Then you have to CHOOSE who gets to live.
Who do you choose? Doctors will be doing this in Italy already. As they did in Wuhan. I do not envy them, and I salute their bravery.
You are making wild accusations in your last paragraph
Please show the link to your claims
There are not enough respirators in Italy....but I guess they are being allocated to the critically ill who are elder patients....there are just not enough to go around...
The scores on the doors will be much of a muchness across Europe...all our health systems will collapse and most people will probably suffer at home...but yes, in the kick off the Germans are doing quite well....
You're probably right. In the end it will be a wash.
If I had to construct a plan B (given that my North Korean autarky won't work) then I would do this: I would say to any 70 year old (or older) who presents with coronavirus; "Sorry, we cannot treat you in a hospital, here is a load of antibiotics and heroin, go home and pray".
Let God decide. But mitigate the pain.
We risk overwhelming the health system with hundreds of thousands of oldsters who may or may not live, at the expense of younger people who still have a life to live and babies to breed. Triage needs to get a bit medieval.
Comrade...why should a 70 year old or 80 year old pass over treatment in preference to a younger person???
Surely the clinical presentation takes priority--and on that basis the elderly and those with co-morbidity must be prioritised.....
No, that's wrong. This is beyond normal protocol. Save the young.
Just outrageous and you are so wrong.
It's late. eadric is back into this being Black Death mk III mode.
I suspect it's more that he's been getting into his Rioja tbh.
If it's the Macedonian wine he's advising Big G to go out on I fear for his head tomorrow morning.
The scores on the doors will be much of a muchness across Europe...all our health systems will collapse and most people will probably suffer at home...but yes, in the kick off the Germans are doing quite well....
You're probably right. In the end it will be a wash.
If I had to construct a plan B (given that my North Korean autarky won't work) then I would do this: I would say to any 70 year old (or older) who presents with coronavirus; "Sorry, we cannot treat you in a hospital, here is a load of antibiotics and heroin, go home and pray".
I would not recommend that approach. Diamorphine does relieve respiratory distress, but is a respiratory depressant so will kill some who would otherwise scrape through. I would recommend avoiding all respiratory depressants such as opiates, barbiturates, even benzodiazepines and alcohol.
When ICU capacity is reached, we will use operating theatres and recovery areas for overflow, but after that it gets to be a form of rationing, probably based on who is most likely to make it.
I don't think he intends the heroin to relieve respiratory distress.
lol, no, Exactly. I mean to make the end of times a little more serene.
We should be giving the crumblies the Brompton Cocktail
The scores on the doors will be much of a muchness across Europe...all our health systems will collapse and most people will probably suffer at home...but yes, in the kick off the Germans are doing quite well....
You're probably right. In the end it will be a wash.
If I had to construct a plan B (given that my North Korean autarky won't work) then I would do this: I would say to any 70 year old (or older) who presents with coronavirus; "Sorry, we cannot treat you in a hospital, here is a load of antibiotics and heroin, go home and pray".
Let God decide. But mitigate the pain.
We risk overwhelming the health system with hundreds of thousands of oldsters who may or may not live, at the expense of younger people who still have a life to live and babies to breed. Triage needs to get a bit medieval.
Comrade...why should a 70 year old or 80 year old pass over treatment in preference to a younger person???
Surely the clinical presentation takes priority--and on that basis the elderly and those with co-morbidity must be prioritised.....
No, that's wrong. This is beyond normal protocol. Save the young.
I wonder if we can resurrect Goebbels et al....the gypsies and the jews...let's not treat those...
Sorry...but just where your argument takes us Ead
Triage will have to happen at some point. If you have two candidates for the last ECMO bed, both equally ill but one is 25, the other 65 there's no contest as to which should get the bed.
The reality is that most people appearing critically ill will be older and admitted...
If this crisis forces us to lose our compassion to old people...then sadly it is a country that has lost its perspective.....
No, a real perspective is achieved when you run out of hospital beds and respirators. Then you have to CHOOSE who gets to live.
Who do you choose? Doctors will be doing this in Italy already. As they did in Wuhan. I do not envy them, and I salute their bravery.
You are making wild accusations in your last paragraph
Please show the link to your claims
The verbatim account from the doctor in Bergamo, linked severally by Ishmael etc, downthread. It's there for all to read.
In other words you are speculating with others but making it an accusation against Italian doctors to which you have no proof whatsoever
These numbers are way too high for Trump even *before* you price in a deadly pandemic that he's completely botched and a huge resulting economic shock.
Biden is popular. He has consistent head-to-head polling leads agains Trump, he has strong appeal with the demographics Hillary couldn't get (both black people and low-education white people), and he has strong appeal in the right places. He will probably win.
There are only two black voters left in the US?
Blimey, Republican voter suppression is even further advanced that I thought.
In other news, I have a cold. Which I really hope is just a cold.
If you are old...according to Eadric's advice...can you score a shedload of H and coke and save the NHS.....
The scores on the doors will be much of a muchness across Europe...all our health systems will collapse and most people will probably suffer at home...but yes, in the kick off the Germans are doing quite well....
You're probably right. In the end it will be a wash.
If I had to construct a plan B (given that my North Korean autarky won't work) then I would do this: I would say to any 70 year old (or older) who presents with coronavirus; "Sorry, we cannot treat you in a hospital, here is a load of antibiotics and heroin, go home and pray".
Let God decide. But mitigate the pain.
We risk overwhelming the health system with hundreds of thousands of oldsters who may or may not live, at the expense of younger people who still have a life to live and babies to breed. Triage needs to get a bit medieval.
Comrade...why should a 70 year old or 80 year old pass over treatment in preference to a younger person???
Surely the clinical presentation takes priority--and on that basis the elderly and those with co-morbidity must be prioritised.....
No, that's wrong. This is beyond normal protocol. Save the young.
I wonder if we can resurrect Goebbels et al....the gypsies and the jews...let's not treat those...
Sorry...but just where your argument takes us Ead
Triage will have to happen at some point. If you have two candidates for the last ECMO bed, both equally ill but one is 25, the other 65 there's no contest as to which should get the bed.
The reality is that most people appearing critically ill will be older and admitted...
If this crisis forces us to lose our compassion to old people...then sadly it is a country that has lost its perspective.....
No, a real perspective is achieved when you run out of hospital beds and respirators. Then you have to CHOOSE who gets to live.
Who do you choose? Doctors will be doing this in Italy already. As they did in Wuhan. I do not envy them, and I salute their bravery.
You are making wild accusations in your last paragraph
Please show the link to your claims
The verbatim account from the doctor in Bergamo, linked severally by Ishmael etc, downthread. It's there for all to read.
Random, possibly made up quote on internet used to prove specious point.
The scores on the doors will be much of a muchness across Europe...all our health systems will collapse and most people will probably suffer at home...but yes, in the kick off the Germans are doing quite well....
You're probably right. In the end it will be a wash.
If I had to construct a plan B (given that my North Korean autarky won't work) then I would do this: I would say to any 70 year old (or older) who presents with coronavirus; "Sorry, we cannot treat you in a hospital, here is a load of antibiotics and heroin, go home and pray".
Let God decide. But mitigate the pain.
We risk overwhelming the health system with hundreds of thousands of oldsters who may or may not live, at the expense of younger people who still have a life to live and babies to breed. Triage needs to get a bit medieval.
Comrade...why should a 70 year old or 80 year old pass over treatment in preference to a younger person???
Surely the clinical presentation takes priority--and on that basis the elderly and those with co-morbidity must be prioritised.....
No, that's wrong. This is beyond normal protocol. Save the young.
I wonder if we can resurrect Goebbels et al....the gypsies and the jews...let's not treat those...
Sorry...but just where your argument takes us Ead
Triage will have to happen at some point. If you have two candidates for the last ECMO bed, both equally ill but one is 25, the other 65 there's no contest as to which should get the bed.
The reality is that most people appearing critically ill will be older and admitted...
If this crisis forces us to lose our compassion to old people...then sadly it is a country that has lost its perspective.....
That's all very well, so are you advocating letting the 25 year old die to let the equally ill 65 year old survive, especially considering that with treatment the 25 year old should recover faster? They're hours away from having to make those calls in Italy.
The 25 year old will almost certainly survive at home with hot broth in bed anyway, the 65 year old however may need that hospital bed to survive
And that is a very important point to be honest
However - we're talking about two identically ill patients, one 25, one 65. Both will almost certainly die without the last ECMO machine. Which one do you give it to?
The scores on the doors will be much of a muchness across Europe...all our health systems will collapse and most people will probably suffer at home...but yes, in the kick off the Germans are doing quite well....
You're probably right. In the end it will be a wash.
If I had to construct a plan B (given that my North Korean autarky won't work) then I would do this: I would say to any 70 year old (or older) who presents with coronavirus; "Sorry, we cannot treat you in a hospital, here is a load of antibiotics and heroin, go home and pray".
Let God decide. But mitigate the pain.
We risk overwhelming the health system with hundreds of thousands of oldsters who may or may not live, at the expense of younger people who still have a life to live and babies to breed. Triage needs to get a bit medieval.
Comrade...why should a 70 year old or 80 year old pass over treatment in preference to a younger person???
Surely the clinical presentation takes priority--and on that basis the elderly and those with co-morbidity must be prioritised.....
No, that's wrong. This is beyond normal protocol. Save the young.
I wonder if we can resurrect Goebbels et al....the gypsies and the jews...let's not treat those...
Sorry...but just where your argument takes us Ead
Triage will have to happen at some point. If you have two candidates for the last ECMO bed, both equally ill but one is 25, the other 65 there's no contest as to which should get the bed.
The reality is that most people appearing critically ill will be older and admitted...
If this crisis forces us to lose our compassion to old people...then sadly it is a country that has lost its perspective.....
That's all very well, so are you advocating letting the 25 year old die to let the equally ill 65 year old survive, especially considering that with treatment the 25 year old should recover faster? They're hours away from having to make those calls in Italy.
The 25 year old will almost certainly survive at home with hot broth in bed anyway, the 65 year old however may need that hospital bed to survive
And that is a very important point to be honest
However - we're talking about two identically ill patients, one 25, one 65. Both will almost certainly die without the last ECMO machine. Which one do you give it to?
Is this one of those what weighs more a pound of lead or a pound of feathers questions?
Thoughts on FTSE and DOW by Friday close? And low point this year?
Im thinking 5500/20000 by Friday hitting 5000/17000 as lows in late March/April
Thinking about when to get long, perhaps drip it in through the 5750 to 5000 range?
I was annoyed I didn’t get to take profits before Friday’s pre-close surge, but am pleased I didn’t now.
From the beginning I have had 24,000 as the short term target, and it looks like we will reach that this week. We need to factor in that the US and central banks will be doing everything they can to prop up the markets - another surprise US interest rate is quite likely, as is rushing out some news on a vaccine or cure before they should. I am going to hold my sell positions to 24,000 and then take a view as to what to do next. The lower the market goes, the greater the risk of a bounce, even if the longer term trend is downward.
Previous crises, the market has been on the way back well before the underlying crisis is resolved. So it’s right to be looking for the turn. But I wouldn’t however think of buying back in just yet, there is clearly worse news to come.
The scores on the doors will be much of a muchness across Europe...all our health systems will collapse and most people will probably suffer at home...but yes, in the kick off the Germans are doing quite well....
You're probably right. In the end it will be a wash.
If I had to construct a plan B (given that my North Korean autarky won't work) then I would do this: I would say to any 70 year old (or older) who presents with coronavirus; "Sorry, we cannot treat you in a hospital, here is a load of antibiotics and heroin, go home and pray".
I would not recommend that approach. Diamorphine does relieve respiratory distress, but is a respiratory depressant so will kill some who would otherwise scrape through. I would recommend avoiding all respiratory depressants such as opiates, barbiturates, even benzodiazepines and alcohol.
When ICU capacity is reached, we will use operating theatres and recovery areas for overflow, but after that it gets to be a form of rationing, probably based on who is most likely to make it.
I don't think he intends the heroin to relieve respiratory distress.
lol, no, Exactly. I mean to make the end of times a little more serene.
We should be giving the crumblies the Brompton Cocktail
Yummy. And then a jazz cigarette to round it all out.
Ach ja! We are all going to die. It seems like quite a few of us are going to die unexpectedly quickly.
So be it. I would like it to be as painless as possible, and indeed a little euphoric, if that can be organised. A big fat Brompton Cocktail would sort me out completely. I love heroin. Others may like a massive big reefer.
Just allow us to choose.
It would be an inconvenient irony if flights to Switzerland were cancelled.
The scores on the doors will be much of a muchness across Europe...all our health systems will collapse and most people will probably suffer at home...but yes, in the kick off the Germans are doing quite well....
You're probably right. In the end it will be a wash.
If I had to construct a plan B (given that my North Korean autarky won't work) then I would do this: I would say to any 70 year old (or older) who presents with coronavirus; "Sorry, we cannot treat you in a hospital, here is a load of antibiotics and heroin, go home and pray".
I would not recommend that approach. Diamorphine does relieve respiratory distress, but is a respiratory depressant so will kill some who would otherwise scrape through. I would recommend avoiding all respiratory depressants such as opiates, barbiturates, even benzodiazepines and alcohol.
When ICU capacity is reached, we will use operating theatres and recovery areas for overflow, but after that it gets to be a form of rationing, probably based on who is most likely to make it.
I don't think he intends the heroin to relieve respiratory distress.
lol, no, Exactly. I mean to make the end of times a little more serene.
We should be giving the crumblies the Brompton Cocktail
Yummy. And then a jazz cigarette to round it all out.
Ach ja! We are all going to die. It seems like quite a few of us are going to die unexpectedly quickly.
So be it. I would like it to be as painless as possible, and indeed a little euphoric, if that can be organised. A big fat Brompton Cocktail would sort me out completely. I love heroin. Others may like a massive big reefer.
The scores on the doors will be much of a muchness across Europe...all our health systems will collapse and most people will probably suffer at home...but yes, in the kick off the Germans are doing quite well....
You're probably right. In the end it will be a wash.
If I had to construct a plan B (given that my North Korean autarky won't work) then I would do this: I would say to any 70 year old (or older) who presents with coronavirus; "Sorry, we cannot treat you in a hospital, here is a load of antibiotics and heroin, go home and pray".
Let God decide. But mitigate the pain.
We risk overwhelming the health system with hundreds of thousands of oldsters who may or may not live, at the expense of younger people who still have a life to live and babies to breed. Triage needs to get a bit medieval.
Comrade...why should a 70 year old or 80 year old pass over treatment in preference to a younger person???
Surely the clinical presentation takes priority--and on that basis the elderly and those with co-morbidity must be prioritised.....
No, that's wrong. This is beyond normal protocol. Save the young.
I wonder if we can resurrect Goebbels et al....the gypsies and the jews...let's not treat those...
Sorry...but just where your argument takes us Ead
Triage will have to happen at some point. If you have two candidates for the last ECMO bed, both equally ill but one is 25, the other 65 there's no contest as to which should get the bed.
The reality is that most people appearing critically ill will be older and admitted...
If this crisis forces us to lose our compassion to old people...then sadly it is a country that has lost its perspective.....
No, a real perspective is achieved when you run out of hospital beds and respirators. Then you have to CHOOSE who gets to live.
Who do you choose? Doctors will be doing this in Italy already. As they did in Wuhan. I do not envy them, and I salute their bravery.
You are making wild accusations in your last paragraph
Please show the link to your claims
The verbatim account from the doctor in Bergamo, linked severally by Ishmael etc, downthread. It's there for all to read.
In other words you are speculating with others but making it an accusation against Italian doctors to which you have no proof whatsoever
From my experience (limited though that is) Italian medics are top notch - like many Italian technical experts. Superb training, a great work ethic.... It's the system around them that lets them down.
Oh good another thread full of coronavirus gloom...
I think we know enough about it now to say it ain’t just the flu and it isn’t the Black Death either. People should be sensible take precautions and that’s all we can do.
The doom mongering on here is depressing, though. A sense of perspective wouldn’t go amiss.
The scores on the doors will be much of a muchness across Europe...all our health systems will collapse and most people will probably suffer at home...but yes, in the kick off the Germans are doing quite well....
You're probably right. In the end it will be a wash.
If I had to construct a plan B (given that my North Korean autarky won't work) then I would do this: I would say to any 70 year old (or older) who presents with coronavirus; "Sorry, we cannot treat you in a hospital, here is a load of antibiotics and heroin, go home and pray".
Let God decide. But mitigate the pain.
We risk overwhelming the health system with hundreds of thousands of oldsters who may or may not live, at the expense of younger people who still have a life to live and babies to breed. Triage needs to get a bit medieval.
Comrade...why should a 70 year old or 80 year old pass over treatment in preference to a younger person???
Surely the clinical presentation takes priority--and on that basis the elderly and those with co-morbidity must be prioritised.....
No, that's wrong. This is beyond normal protocol. Save the young.
I wonder if we can resurrect Goebbels et al....the gypsies and the jews...let's not treat those...
Sorry...but just where your argument takes us Ead
Triage will have to happen at some point. If you have two candidates for the last ECMO bed, both equally ill but one is 25, the other 65 there's no contest as to which should get the bed.
The reality is that most people appearing critically ill will be older and admitted...
If this crisis forces us to lose our compassion to old people...then sadly it is a country that has lost its perspective.....
That's all very well, so are you advocating letting the 25 year old die to let the equally ill 65 year old survive, especially considering that with treatment the 25 year old should recover faster? They're hours away from having to make those calls in Italy.
The 25 year old will almost certainly survive at home with hot broth in bed anyway, the 65 year old however may need that hospital bed to survive
And that is a very important point to be honest
However - we're talking about two identically ill patients, one 25, one 65. Both will almost certainly die without the last ECMO machine. Which one do you give it to?
Is this one of those what weighs more a pound of lead or a pound of feathers questions?
Unless it's a Heisenberg-27 ECMO machine that can probabilistically treat both patients at once when left unobserved, this will be a real choice.
The scores on the doors will be much of a muchness across Europe...all our health systems will collapse and most people will probably suffer at home...but yes, in the kick off the Germans are doing quite well....
You're probably right. In the end it will be a wash.
If I had to construct a plan B (given that my North Korean autarky won't work) then I would do this: I would say to any 70 year old (or older) who presents with coronavirus; "Sorry, we cannot treat you in a hospital, here is a load of antibiotics and heroin, go home and pray".
I would not recommend that approach. Diamorphine does relieve respiratory distress, but is a respiratory depressant so will kill some who would otherwise scrape through. I would recommend avoiding all respiratory depressants such as opiates, barbiturates, even benzodiazepines and alcohol.
When ICU capacity is reached, we will use operating theatres and recovery areas for overflow, but after that it gets to be a form of rationing, probably based on who is most likely to make it.
I don't think he intends the heroin to relieve respiratory distress.
lol, no, Exactly. I mean to make the end of times a little more serene.
We should be giving the crumblies the Brompton Cocktail
Yummy. And then a jazz cigarette to round it all out.
Ach ja! We are all going to die. It seems like quite a few of us are going to die unexpectedly quickly.
So be it. I would like it to be as painless as possible, and indeed a little euphoric, if that can be organised. A big fat Brompton Cocktail would sort me out completely. I love heroin. Others may like a massive big reefer.
Just allow us to choose.
I'm not ashamed to say that on the optimism/pessimism divide I'm quite close to your views. And on the Brompton Cocktail.
The scores on the doors will be much of a muchness across Europe...all our health systems will collapse and most people will probably suffer at home...but yes, in the kick off the Germans are doing quite well....
You're probably right. In the end it will be a wash.
If I had to construct a plan B (given that my North Korean autarky won't work) then I would do this: I would say to any 70 year old (or older) who presents with coronavirus; "Sorry, we cannot treat you in a hospital, here is a load of antibiotics and heroin, go home and pray".
Let God decide. But mitigate the pain.
We risk overwhelming the health system with hundreds of thousands of oldsters who may or may not live, at the expense of younger people who still have a life to live and babies to breed. Triage needs to get a bit medieval.
Comrade...why should a 70 year old or 80 year old pass over treatment in preference to a younger person???
Surely the clinical presentation takes priority--and on that basis the elderly and those with co-morbidity must be prioritised.....
No, that's wrong. This is beyond normal protocol. Save the young.
I wonder if we can resurrect Goebbels et al....the gypsies and the jews...let's not treat those...
Sorry...but just where your argument takes us Ead
Triage will have to happen at some point. If you have two candidates for the last ECMO bed, both equally ill but one is 25, the other 65 there's no contest as to which should get the bed.
The reality is that most people appearing critically ill will be older and admitted...
If this crisis forces us to lose our compassion to old people...then sadly it is a country that has lost its perspective.....
That's all very well, so are you advocating letting the 25 year old die to let the equally ill 65 year old survive, especially considering that with treatment the 25 year old should recover faster? They're hours away from having to make those calls in Italy.
The 25 year old will almost certainly survive at home with hot broth in bed anyway, the 65 year old however may need that hospital bed to survive
And that is a very important point to be honest
However - we're talking about two identically ill patients, one 25, one 65. Both will almost certainly die without the last ECMO machine. Which one do you give it to?
That is a choice for the medics as it raises a serious question of ethics
But this subject is just distastful and I would question the need to even raise it
It could be someones mother or father or close relative whose life is being discounted because they are not young
The scores on the doors will be much of a muchness across Europe...all our health systems will collapse and most people will probably suffer at home...but yes, in the kick off the Germans are doing quite well....
You're probably right. In the end it will be a wash.
If I had to construct a plan B (given that my North Korean autarky won't work) then I would do this: I would say to any 70 year old (or older) who presents with coronavirus; "Sorry, we cannot treat you in a hospital, here is a load of antibiotics and heroin, go home and pray".
Let God decide. But mitigate the pain.
We risk overwhelming the health system with hundreds of thousands of oldsters who may or may not live, at the expense of younger people who still have a life to live and babies to breed. Triage needs to get a bit medieval.
Comrade...why should a 70 year old or 80 year old pass over treatment in preference to a younger person???
Surely the clinical presentation takes priority--and on that basis the elderly and those with co-morbidity must be prioritised.....
No, that's wrong. This is beyond normal protocol. Save the young.
Just outrageous and you are so wrong.
It's late. eadric is back into this being Black Death mk III mode.
I suspect it's more that he's been getting into his Rioja tbh.
If it's the Macedonian wine he's advising Big G to go out on I fear for his head tomorrow morning.
It's Rioja for Sean, cheap Macedonian for everyone else.
The scores on the doors will be much of a muchness across Europe...all our health systems will collapse and most people will probably suffer at home...but yes, in the kick off the Germans are doing quite well....
You're probably right. In the end it will be a wash.
If I had to construct a plan B (given that my North Korean autarky won't work) then I would do this: I would say to any 70 year old (or older) who presents with coronavirus; "Sorry, we cannot treat you in a hospital, here is a load of antibiotics and heroin, go home and pray".
Let God decide. But mitigate the pain.
We risk overwhelming the health system with hundreds of thousands of oldsters who may or may not live, at the expense of younger people who still have a life to live and babies to breed. Triage needs to get a bit medieval.
Comrade...why should a 70 year old or 80 year old pass over treatment in preference to a younger person???
Surely the clinical presentation takes priority--and on that basis the elderly and those with co-morbidity must be prioritised.....
No, that's wrong. This is beyond normal protocol. Save the young.
The young will largely be saved anyway, coronavirus has a 0.2% death rate for under 40s, barely different from normal flu but an 8% death rate for over 70s and a 15% death rate for over 80s
The scores on the doors will be much of a muchness across Europe...all our health systems will collapse and most people will probably suffer at home...but yes, in the kick off the Germans are doing quite well....
You're probably right. In the end it will be a wash.
If I had to construct a plan B (given that my North Korean autarky won't work) then I would do this: I would say to any 70 year old (or older) who presents with coronavirus; "Sorry, we cannot treat you in a hospital, here is a load of antibiotics and heroin, go home and pray".
Let God decide. But mitigate the pain.
We risk overwhelming the health system with hundreds of thousands of oldsters who may or may not live, at the expense of younger people who still have a life to live and babies to breed. Triage needs to get a bit medieval.
Comrade...why should a 70 year old or 80 year old pass over treatment in preference to a younger person???
Surely the clinical presentation takes priority--and on that basis the elderly and those with co-morbidity must be prioritised.....
No, that's wrong. This is beyond normal protocol. Save the young.
I wonder if we can resurrect Goebbels et al....the gypsies and the jews...let's not treat those...
Sorry...but just where your argument takes us Ead
Triage will have to happen at some point. If you have two candidates for the last ECMO bed, both equally ill but one is 25, the other 65 there's no contest as to which should get the bed.
The reality is that most people appearing critically ill will be older and admitted...
If this crisis forces us to lose our compassion to old people...then sadly it is a country that has lost its perspective.....
No, a real perspective is achieved when you run out of hospital beds and respirators. Then you have to CHOOSE who gets to live.
Who do you choose? Doctors will be doing this in Italy already. As they did in Wuhan. I do not envy them, and I salute their bravery.
You are making wild accusations in your last paragraph
Please show the link to your claims
The verbatim account from the doctor in Bergamo, linked severally by Ishmael etc, downthread. It's there for all to read.
Random, possibly made up quote on internet used to prove specious point.
Look at the f*cking stats you blithering twat. Do you think Italy would be quarantining its most economically productive region on the basis of rumours??
Jesus your normalcy bias is so bad it reduces your IQ below its normal 86 to about 34.
The scores on the doors will be much of a muchness across Europe...all our health systems will collapse and most people will probably suffer at home...but yes, in the kick off the Germans are doing quite well....
You're probably right. In the end it will be a wash.
If I had to construct a plan B (given that my North Korean autarky won't work) then I would do this: I would say to any 70 year old (or older) who presents with coronavirus; "Sorry, we cannot treat you in a hospital, here is a load of antibiotics and heroin, go home and pray".
Let God decide. But mitigate the pain.
We risk overwhelming the health system with hundreds of thousands of oldsters who may or may not live, at the expense of younger people who still have a life to live and babies to breed. Triage needs to get a bit medieval.
Comrade...why should a 70 year old or 80 year old pass over treatment in preference to a younger person???
Surely the clinical presentation takes priority--and on that basis the elderly and those with co-morbidity must be prioritised.....
No, that's wrong. This is beyond normal protocol. Save the young.
I wonder if we can resurrect Goebbels et al....the gypsies and the jews...let's not treat those...
Sorry...but just where your argument takes us Ead
Triage will have to happen at some point. If you have two candidates for the last ECMO bed, both equally ill but one is 25, the other 65 there's no contest as to which should get the bed.
The reality is that most people appearing critically ill will be older and admitted...
If this crisis forces us to lose our compassion to old people...then sadly it is a country that has lost its perspective.....
That's all very well, so are you advocating letting the 25 year old die to let the equally ill 65 year old survive, especially considering that with treatment the 25 year old should recover faster? They're hours away from having to make those calls in Italy.
The 25 year old will almost certainly survive at home with hot broth in bed anyway, the 65 year old however may need that hospital bed to survive
And that is a very important point to be honest
You are aware that HYUFD has proven investments in British Hot Broth Inc? Otherwise known as Big Broth????
You are a knave.
You need to step back from your keyboard and have a good nights sleep
The scores on the doors will be much of a muchness across Europe...all our health systems will collapse and most people will probably suffer at home...but yes, in the kick off the Germans are doing quite well....
You're probably right. In the end it will be a wash.
If I had to construct a plan B (given that my North Korean autarky won't work) then I would do this: I would say to any 70 year old (or older) who presents with coronavirus; "Sorry, we cannot treat you in a hospital, here is a load of antibiotics and heroin, go home and pray".
Let God decide. But mitigate the pain.
We risk overwhelming the health system with hundreds of thousands of oldsters who may or may not live, at the expense of younger people who still have a life to live and babies to breed. Triage needs to get a bit medieval.
Comrade...why should a 70 year old or 80 year old pass over treatment in preference to a younger person???
Surely the clinical presentation takes priority--and on that basis the elderly and those with co-morbidity must be prioritised.....
No, that's wrong. This is beyond normal protocol. Save the young.
I wonder if we can resurrect Goebbels et al....the gypsies and the jews...let's not treat those...
Sorry...but just where your argument takes us Ead
Triage will have to happen at some point. If you have two candidates for the last ECMO bed, both equally ill but one is 25, the other 65 there's no contest as to which should get the bed.
The reality is that most people appearing critically ill will be older and admitted...
If this crisis forces us to lose our compassion to old people...then sadly it is a country that has lost its perspective.....
That's all very well, so are you advocating letting the 25 year old die to let the equally ill 65 year old survive, especially considering that with treatment the 25 year old should recover faster? They're hours away from having to make those calls in Italy.
The 25 year old will almost certainly survive at home with hot broth in bed anyway, the 65 year old however may need that hospital bed to survive
And that is a very important point to be honest
However - we're talking about two identically ill patients, one 25, one 65. Both will almost certainly die without the last ECMO machine. Which one do you give it to?
That is a choice for the medics as it raises a serious question of ethics
But this subject is just distastful and I would question the need to even raise it
It could be someones mother or father or close relative whose life is being discounted because they are not young
Agree it's distasteful; let's just be thankful that @eadric will never be making the decisions.
Oh good another thread full of coronavirus gloom...
I think we know enough about it now to say it ain’t just the flu and it isn’t the Black Death either. People should be sensible take precautions and that’s all we can do.
The doom mongering on here is depressing, though. A sense of perspective wouldn’t go amiss.
Did you miss Brexit on here - it was full of the same warning an predictions - only it was only going to happen to the Uk.
The scores on the doors will be much of a muchness across Europe...all our health systems will collapse and most people will probably suffer at home...but yes, in the kick off the Germans are doing quite well....
You're probably right. In the end it will be a wash.
If I had to construct a plan B (given that my North Korean autarky won't work) then I would do this: I would say to any 70 year old (or older) who presents with coronavirus; "Sorry, we cannot treat you in a hospital, here is a load of antibiotics and heroin, go home and pray".
I would not recommend that approach. Diamorphine does relieve respiratory distress, but is a respiratory depressant so will kill some who would otherwise scrape through. I would recommend avoiding all respiratory depressants such as opiates, barbiturates, even benzodiazepines and alcohol.
When ICU capacity is reached, we will use operating theatres and recovery areas for overflow, but after that it gets to be a form of rationing, probably based on who is most likely to make it.
I don't think he intends the heroin to relieve respiratory distress.
lol, no, Exactly. I mean to make the end of times a little more serene.
We should be giving the crumblies the Brompton Cocktail
Yummy. And then a jazz cigarette to round it all out.
Ach ja! We are all going to die. It seems like quite a few of us are going to die unexpectedly quickly.
So be it. I would like it to be as painless as possible, and indeed a little euphoric, if that can be organised. A big fat Brompton Cocktail would sort me out completely. I love heroin. Others may like a massive big reefer.
Just allow us to choose.
I'm not ashamed to say that on the optimism/pessimism divide I'm quite close to your views. And on the Brompton Cocktail.
The scores on the doors will be much of a muchness across Europe...all our health systems will collapse and most people will probably suffer at home...but yes, in the kick off the Germans are doing quite well....
You're probably right. In the end it will be a wash.
If I had to construct a plan B (given that my North Korean autarky won't work) then I would do this: I would say to any 70 year old (or older) who presents with coronavirus; "Sorry, we cannot treat you in a hospital, here is a load of antibiotics and heroin, go home and pray".
I would not recommend that approach. Diamorphine does relieve respiratory distress, but is a respiratory depressant so will kill some who would otherwise scrape through. I would recommend avoiding all respiratory depressants such as opiates, barbiturates, even benzodiazepines and alcohol.
When ICU capacity is reached, we will use operating theatres and recovery areas for overflow, but after that it gets to be a form of rationing, probably based on who is most likely to make it.
I don't think he intends the heroin to relieve respiratory distress.
lol, no, Exactly. I mean to make the end of times a little more serene.
We should be giving the crumblies the Brompton Cocktail
Yummy. And then a jazz cigarette to round it all out.
Ach ja! We are all going to die. It seems like quite a few of us are going to die unexpectedly quickly.
So be it. I would like it to be as painless as possible, and indeed a little euphoric, if that can be organised. A big fat Brompton Cocktail would sort me out completely. I love heroin. Others may like a massive big reefer.
Just allow us to choose.
I'm not ashamed to say that on the optimism/pessimism divide I'm quite close to your views. And on the Brompton Cocktail.
It pisses me off that Scott of the Antarctic died in a tent full of morphine (about the only useful thing in a medical kit in those days) and literally pounds of cocaine (for external use for snow blindness) and didn't take advantage of the fact.
The scores on the doors will be much of a muchness across Europe...all our health systems will collapse and most people will probably suffer at home...but yes, in the kick off the Germans are doing quite well....
You're probably right. In the end it will be a wash.
If I had to construct a plan B (given that my North Korean autarky won't work) then I would do this: I would say to any 70 year old (or older) who presents with coronavirus; "Sorry, we cannot treat you in a hospital, here is a load of antibiotics and heroin, go home and pray".
I would not recommend that approach. Diamorphine does relieve respiratory distress, but is a respiratory depressant so will kill some who would otherwise scrape through. I would recommend avoiding all respiratory depressants such as opiates, barbiturates, even benzodiazepines and alcohol.
When ICU capacity is reached, we will use operating theatres and recovery areas for overflow, but after that it gets to be a form of rationing, probably based on who is most likely to make it.
I don't think he intends the heroin to relieve respiratory distress.
lol, no, Exactly. I mean to make the end of times a little more serene.
We should be giving the crumblies the Brompton Cocktail
Yummy. And then a jazz cigarette to round it all out.
Ach ja! We are all going to die. It seems like quite a few of us are going to die unexpectedly quickly.
So be it. I would like it to be as painless as possible, and indeed a little euphoric, if that can be organised. A big fat Brompton Cocktail would sort me out completely. I love heroin. Others may like a massive big reefer.
Just allow us to choose.
I'm not ashamed to say that on the optimism/pessimism divide I'm quite close to your views. And on the Brompton Cocktail.
And on the youth aspect in the impending triage.
Hey Matthias, what's the thinking in Germany about how you've managed to keep the fatality rate so low there so far?
The scores on the doors will be much of a muchness across Europe...all our health systems will collapse and most people will probably suffer at home...but yes, in the kick off the Germans are doing quite well....
You're probably right. In the end it will be a wash.
If I had to construct a plan B (given that my North Korean autarky won't work) then I would do this: I would say to any 70 year old (or older) who presents with coronavirus; "Sorry, we cannot treat you in a hospital, here is a load of antibiotics and heroin, go home and pray".
Let God decide. But mitigate the pain.
We risk overwhelming the health system with hundreds of thousands of oldsters who may or may not live, at the expense of younger people who still have a life to live and babies to breed. Triage needs to get a bit medieval.
Comrade...why should a 70 year old or 80 year old pass over treatment in preference to a younger person???
Surely the clinical presentation takes priority--and on that basis the elderly and those with co-morbidity must be prioritised.....
No, that's wrong. This is beyond normal protocol. Save the young.
I wonder if we can resurrect Goebbels et al....the gypsies and the jews...let's not treat those...
Sorry...but just where your argument takes us Ead
Triage will have to happen at some point. If you have two candidates for the last ECMO bed, both equally ill but one is 25, the other 65 there's no contest as to which should get the bed.
The reality is that most people appearing critically ill will be older and admitted...
If this crisis forces us to lose our compassion to old people...then sadly it is a country that has lost its perspective.....
No, a real perspective is achieved when you run out of hospital beds and respirators. Then you have to CHOOSE who gets to live.
Who do you choose? Doctors will be doing this in Italy already. As they did in Wuhan. I do not envy them, and I salute their bravery.
You are making wild accusations in your last paragraph
Please show the link to your claims
The verbatim account from the doctor in Bergamo, linked severally by Ishmael etc, downthread. It's there for all to read.
Random, possibly made up quote on internet used to prove specious point.
Look at the f*cking stats you blithering twat. Do you think Italy would be quarantining its most economically productive region on the basis of rumours??
Jesus your normalcy bias is so bad it reduces your IQ below its normal 86 to about 34.
The scores on the doors will be much of a muchness across Europe...all our health systems will collapse and most people will probably suffer at home...but yes, in the kick off the Germans are doing quite well....
You're probably right. In the end it will be a wash.
If I had to construct a plan B (given that my North Korean autarky won't work) then I would do this: I would say to any 70 year old (or older) who presents with coronavirus; "Sorry, we cannot treat you in a hospital, here is a load of antibiotics and heroin, go home and pray".
Let God decide. But mitigate the pain.
We risk overwhelming the health system with hundreds of thousands of oldsters who may or may not live, at the expense of younger people who still have a life to live and babies to breed. Triage needs to get a bit medieval.
Comrade...why should a 70 year old or 80 year old pass over treatment in preference to a younger person???
Surely the clinical presentation takes priority--and on that basis the elderly and those with co-morbidity must be prioritised.....
No, that's wrong. This is beyond normal protocol. Save the young.
I wonder if we can resurrect Goebbels et al....the gypsies and the jews...let's not treat those...
Sorry...but just where your argument takes us Ead
Triage will have to happen at some point. If you have two candidates for the last ECMO bed, both equally ill but one is 25, the other 65 there's no contest as to which should get the bed.
The reality is that most people appearing critically ill will be older and admitted...
If this crisis forces us to lose our compassion to old people...then sadly it is a country that has lost its perspective.....
No, a real perspective is achieved when you run out of hospital beds and respirators. Then you have to CHOOSE who gets to live.
Who do you choose? Doctors will be doing this in Italy already. As they did in Wuhan. I do not envy them, and I salute their bravery.
You are making wild accusations in your last paragraph
Please show the link to your claims
The verbatim account from the doctor in Bergamo, linked severally by Ishmael etc, downthread. It's there for all to read.
Random, possibly made up quote on internet used to prove specious point.
Look at the f*cking stats you blithering twat. Do you think Italy would be quarantining its most economically productive region on the basis of rumours??
Jesus your normalcy bias is so bad it reduces your IQ below its normal 86 to about 34.
The scores on the doors will be much of a muchness across Europe...all our health systems will collapse and most people will probably suffer at home...but yes, in the kick off the Germans are doing quite well....
You're probably right. In the end it will be a wash.
If I had to construct a plan B (given that my North Korean autarky won't work) then I would do this: I would say to any 70 year old (or older) who presents with coronavirus; "Sorry, we cannot treat you in a hospital, here is a load of antibiotics and heroin, go home and pray".
Let God decide. But mitigate the pain.
We risk overwhelming the health system with hundreds of thousands of oldsters who may or may not live, at the expense of younger people who still have a life to live and babies to breed. Triage needs to get a bit medieval.
Comrade...why should a 70 year old or 80 year old pass over treatment in preference to a younger person???
Surely the clinical presentation takes priority--and on that basis the elderly and those with co-morbidity must be prioritised.....
No, that's wrong. This is beyond normal protocol. Save the young.
The young will largely be saved anyway, coronavirus has a 0.2% death rate for under 40s, barely different from normal flu but an 8% death rate for over 70s and a 15% death rate for over 80s
The scores on the doors will be much of a muchness across Europe...all our health systems will collapse and most people will probably suffer at home...but yes, in the kick off the Germans are doing quite well....
You're probably right. In the end it will be a wash.
If I had to construct a plan B (given that my North Korean autarky won't work) then I would do this: I would say to any 70 year old (or older) who presents with coronavirus; "Sorry, we cannot treat you in a hospital, here is a load of antibiotics and heroin, go home and pray".
Let God decide. But mitigate the pain.
We risk overwhelming the health system with hundreds of thousands of oldsters who may or may not live, at the expense of younger people who still have a life to live and babies to breed. Triage needs to get a bit medieval.
Comrade...why should a 70 year old or 80 year old pass over treatment in preference to a younger person???
Surely the clinical presentation takes priority--and on that basis the elderly and those with co-morbidity must be prioritised.....
No, that's wrong. This is beyond normal protocol. Save the young.
I wonder if we can resurrect Goebbels et al....the gypsies and the jews...let's not treat those...
Sorry...but just where your argument takes us Ead
Triage will have to happen at some point. If you have two candidates for the last ECMO bed, both equally ill but one is 25, the other 65 there's no contest as to which should get the bed.
The reality is that most people appearing critically ill will be older and admitted...
If this crisis forces us to lose our compassion to old people...then sadly it is a country that has lost its perspective.....
That's all very well, so are you advocating letting the 25 year old die to let the equally ill 65 year old survive, especially considering that with treatment the 25 year old should recover faster? They're hours away from having to make those calls in Italy.
The 25 year old will almost certainly survive at home with hot broth in bed anyway, the 65 year old however may need that hospital bed to survive
And that is a very important point to be honest
However - we're talking about two identically ill patients, one 25, one 65. Both will almost certainly die without the last ECMO machine. Which one do you give it to?
That is a choice for the medics as it raises a serious question of ethics
But this subject is just distastful and I would question the need to even raise it
It could be someones mother or father or close relative whose life is being discounted because they are not young
It is distasteful, and I'm not sure how it got raised. However it is a question our medics will soon be having to answer.
The younger patient could be a father, a son, a brother etc. As utterly brutal as it is, age is probably the fairest filter when deciding between identically ill patients. Young people are generally more likely to pull through, and if they do will recover quicker.
Priority 1 needs to be minimising loss of life, priority two minimising loss of years.
On both priorities is there a clear case that the younger patient should get the last ECMO.
The scores on the doors will be much of a muchness across Europe...all our health systems will collapse and most people will probably suffer at home...but yes, in the kick off the Germans are doing quite well....
You're probably right. In the end it will be a wash.
If I had to construct a plan B (given that my North Korean autarky won't work) then I would do this: I would say to any 70 year old (or older) who presents with coronavirus; "Sorry, we cannot treat you in a hospital, here is a load of antibiotics and heroin, go home and pray".
Let God decide. But mitigate the pain.
We risk overwhelming the health system with hundreds of thousands of oldsters who may or may not live, at the expense of younger people who still have a life to live and babies to breed. Triage needs to get a bit medieval.
Comrade...why should a 70 year old or 80 year old pass over treatment in preference to a younger person???
Surely the clinical presentation takes priority--and on that basis the elderly and those with co-morbidity must be prioritised.....
No, that's wrong. This is beyond normal protocol. Save the young.
The young will largely be saved anyway, coronavirus has a 0.2% death rate for under 40s, barely different from normal flu but an 8% death rate for over 70s and a 15% death rate for over 80s
If 0.2% of under 40's are dying then probably 0.5% need ICU, or 1 in 200.
If we have 1000 of those under 40's getting the virus at one time, then all those beds are gone, just on that bit of the population.
This is why the public health measures need to be harsh and soon too.
There is a vast difference between 1 in 200 needing an ICU for under 40s and potentially almost 1 in 2 over 80s needing an ICU.
You're reading, but you're not understanding. Two patients present, both identically ill - in desperate need of an ECMO to survive (the U40 being the 1 in 200, the O80 being the 1 in 2). Do you give it to the U40 or the O80, given that they're identically ill?
The scores on the doors will be much of a muchness across Europe...all our health systems will collapse and most people will probably suffer at home...but yes, in the kick off the Germans are doing quite well....
You're probably right. In the end it will be a wash.
If I had to construct a plan B (given that my North Korean autarky won't work) then I would do this: I would say to any 70 year old (or older) who presents with coronavirus; "Sorry, we cannot treat you in a hospital, here is a load of antibiotics and heroin, go home and pray".
Let God decide. But mitigate the pain.
We risk overwhelming the health system with hundreds of thousands of oldsters who may or may not live, at the expense of younger people who still have a life to live and babies to breed. Triage needs to get a bit medieval.
Comrade...why should a 70 year old or 80 year old pass over treatment in preference to a younger person???
Surely the clinical presentation takes priority--and on that basis the elderly and those with co-morbidity must be prioritised.....
No, that's wrong. This is beyond normal protocol. Save the young.
I wonder if we can resurrect Goebbels et al....the gypsies and the jews...let's not treat those...
Sorry...but just where your argument takes us Ead
Triage will have to happen at some point. If you have two candidates for the last ECMO bed, both equally ill but one is 25, the other 65 there's no contest as to which should get the bed.
The reality is that most people appearing critically ill will be older and admitted...
If this crisis forces us to lose our compassion to old people...then sadly it is a country that has lost its perspective.....
That's all very well, so are you advocating letting the 25 year old die to let the equally ill 65 year old survive, especially considering that with treatment the 25 year old should recover faster? They're hours away from having to make those calls in Italy.
The 25 year old will almost certainly survive at home with hot broth in bed anyway, the 65 year old however may need that hospital bed to survive
And that is a very important point to be honest
However - we're talking about two identically ill patients, one 25, one 65. Both will almost certainly die without the last ECMO machine. Which one do you give it to?
That is a choice for the medics as it raises a serious question of ethics
But this subject is just distastful and I would question the need to even raise it
It could be someones mother or father or close relative whose life is being discounted because they are not young
It is distasteful, and I'm not sure how it got raised. However it is a question our medics will soon be having to answer.
The younger patient could be a father, a son, a brother etc. As utterly brutal as it is, age is probably the fairest filter when deciding between identically ill patients. Young people are generally more likely to pull through, and if they do will recover quicker.
Priority 1 needs to be minimising loss of life, priority two minimising loss of years.
On both priorities is there a clear case that the younger patient should get the last ECMO.
Indeed, which is why we have to avoid getting there as far as that is humanly possible.
The scores on the doors will be much of a muchness across Europe...all our health systems will collapse and most people will probably suffer at home...but yes, in the kick off the Germans are doing quite well....
You're probably right. In the end it will be a wash.
If I had to construct a plan B (given that my North Korean autarky won't work) then I would do this: I would say to any 70 year old (or older) who presents with coronavirus; "Sorry, we cannot treat you in a hospital, here is a load of antibiotics and heroin, go home and pray".
Let God decide. But mitigate the pain.
We risk overwhelming the health system with hundreds of thousands of oldsters who may or may not live, at the expense of younger people who still have a life to live and babies to breed. Triage needs to get a bit medieval.
Comrade...why should a 70 year old or 80 year old pass over treatment in preference to a younger person???
Surely the clinical presentation takes priority--and on that basis the elderly and those with co-morbidity must be prioritised.....
No, that's wrong. This is beyond normal protocol. Save the young.
I wonder if we can resurrect Goebbels et al....the gypsies and the jews...let's not treat those...
Sorry...but just where your argument takes us Ead
Triage will have to happen at some point. If you have two candidates for the last ECMO bed, both equally ill but one is 25, the other 65 there's no contest as to which should get the bed.
The reality is that most people appearing critically ill will be older and admitted...
If this crisis forces us to lose our compassion to old people...then sadly it is a country that has lost its perspective.....
That's all very well, so are you advocating letting the 25 year old die to let the equally ill 65 year old survive, especially considering that with treatment the 25 year old should recover faster? They're hours away from having to make those calls in Italy.
The 25 year old will almost certainly survive at home with hot broth in bed anyway, the 65 year old however may need that hospital bed to survive
And that is a very important point to be honest
However - we're talking about two identically ill patients, one 25, one 65. Both will almost certainly die without the last ECMO machine. Which one do you give it to?
That is a choice for the medics as it raises a serious question of ethics
But this subject is just distastful and I would question the need to even raise it
It could be someones mother or father or close relative whose life is being discounted because they are not young
It is distasteful, and I'm not sure how it got raised. However it is a question our medics will soon be having to answer.
The younger patient could be a father, a son, a brother etc. As utterly brutal as it is, age is probably the fairest filter when deciding between identically ill patients. Young people are generally more likely to pull through, and if they do will recover quicker.
Priority 1 needs to be minimising loss of life, priority two minimising loss of years.
On both priorities is there a clear case that the younger patient should get the last ECMO.
It is unlikely it would arise as it is the elderly mainly with pre existing conditions that are falling to covid 19
But I repeat, it is distasteful and we need to move on
The scores on the doors will be much of a muchness across Europe...all our health systems will collapse and most people will probably suffer at home...but yes, in the kick off the Germans are doing quite well....
You're probably right. In the end it will be a wash.
If I had to construct a plan B (given that my North Korean autarky won't work) then I would do this: I would say to any 70 year old (or older) who presents with coronavirus; "Sorry, we cannot treat you in a hospital, here is a load of antibiotics and heroin, go home and pray".
Let God decide. But mitigate the pain.
We risk overwhelming the health system with hundreds of thousands of oldsters who may or may not live, at the expense of younger people who still have a life to live and babies to breed. Triage needs to get a bit medieval.
Comrade...why should a 70 year old or 80 year old pass over treatment in preference to a younger person???
Surely the clinical presentation takes priority--and on that basis the elderly and those with co-morbidity must be prioritised.....
No, that's wrong. This is beyond normal protocol. Save the young.
I wonder if we can resurrect Goebbels et al....the gypsies and the jews...let's not treat those...
Sorry...but just where your argument takes us Ead
Triage will have to happen at some point. If you have two candidates for the last ECMO bed, both equally ill but one is 25, the other 65 there's no contest as to which should get the bed.
The reality is that most people appearing critically ill will be older and admitted...
If this crisis forces us to lose our compassion to old people...then sadly it is a country that has lost its perspective.....
That's all very well, so are you advocating letting the 25 year old die to let the equally ill 65 year old survive, especially considering that with treatment the 25 year old should recover faster? They're hours away from having to make those calls in Italy.
The 25 year old will almost certainly survive at home with hot broth in bed anyway, the 65 year old however may need that hospital bed to survive
And that is a very important point to be honest
However - we're talking about two identically ill patients, one 25, one 65. Both will almost certainly die without the last ECMO machine. Which one do you give it to?
That is a choice for the medics as it raises a serious question of ethics
But this subject is just distastful and I would question the need to even raise it
It could be someones mother or father or close relative whose life is being discounted because they are not young
It is distasteful, and I'm not sure how it got raised. However it is a question our medics will soon be having to answer.
The younger patient could be a father, a son, a brother etc. As utterly brutal as it is, age is probably the fairest filter when deciding between identically ill patients. Young people are generally more likely to pull through, and if they do will recover quicker.
Priority 1 needs to be minimising loss of life, priority two minimising loss of years.
On both priorities is there a clear case that the younger patient should get the last ECMO.
Completely agreed. Some very tough choices are going to be have to be made, whether or not we think they are distasteful.
Thoughts on FTSE and DOW by Friday close? And low point this year?
Im thinking 5500/20000 by Friday hitting 5000/17000 as lows in late March/April
Thinking about when to get long, perhaps drip it in through the 5750 to 5000 range?
I was annoyed I didn’t get to take profits before Friday’s pre-close surge, but am pleased I didn’t now.
From the beginning I have had 24,000 as the short term target, and it looks like we will reach that this week. We need to factor in that the US and central banks will be doing everything they can to prop up the markets - another surprise US interest rate is quite likely, as is rushing out some news on a vaccine or cure before they should. I am going to hold my sell positions to 24,000 and then take a view as to what to do next. The lower the market goes, the greater the risk of a bounce, even if the longer term trend is downward.
Previous crises, the market has been on the way back well before the underlying crisis is resolved. So it’s right to be looking for the turn. But I wouldn’t however think of buying back in just yet, there is clearly worse news to come.
Thanks, think you might hit your 24000 by the open tomorrow.
The scores on the doors will be much of a muchness across Europe...all our health systems will collapse and most people will probably suffer at home...but yes, in the kick off the Germans are doing quite well....
You're probably right. In the end it will be a wash.
If I had to construct a plan B (given that my North Korean autarky won't work) then I would do this: I would say to any 70 year old (or older) who presents with coronavirus; "Sorry, we cannot treat you in a hospital, here is a load of antibiotics and heroin, go home and pray".
Let God decide. But mitigate the pain.
We risk overwhelming the health system with hundreds of thousands of oldsters who may or may not live, at the expense of younger people who still have a life to live and babies to breed. Triage needs to get a bit medieval.
Comrade...why should a 70 year old or 80 year old pass over treatment in preference to a younger person???
Surely the clinical presentation takes priority--and on that basis the elderly and those with co-morbidity must be prioritised.....
No, that's wrong. This is beyond normal protocol. Save the young.
The young will largely be saved anyway, coronavirus has a 0.2% death rate for under 40s, barely different from normal flu but an 8% death rate for over 70s and a 15% death rate for over 80s
If 0.2% of under 40's are dying then probably 0.5% need ICU, or 1 in 200.
If we have 1000 of those under 40's getting the virus at one time, then all those beds are gone, just on that bit of the population.
This is why the public health measures need to be harsh and soon too.
There is a vast difference between 1 in 200 needing an ICU for under 40s and potentially almost 1 in 2 over 80s needing an ICU.
You're reading, but you're not understanding. Two patients present, both identically ill - in desperate need of an ECMO to survive (the U40 being the 1 in 200, the O80 being the 1 in 2). Do you give it to the U40 or the O80, given that they're identically ill?
I think there is little point in pressing on with the matter.
We must just be thankful that we are not doctors and we will not have to decide.
The scores on the doors will be much of a muchness across Europe...all our health systems will collapse and most people will probably suffer at home...but yes, in the kick off the Germans are doing quite well....
You're probably right. In the end it will be a wash.
If I had to construct a plan B (given that my North Korean autarky won't work) then I would do this: I would say to any 70 year old (or older) who presents with coronavirus; "Sorry, we cannot treat you in a hospital, here is a load of antibiotics and heroin, go home and pray".
I would not recommend that approach. Diamorphine does relieve respiratory distress, but is a respiratory depressant so will kill some who would otherwise scrape through. I would recommend avoiding all respiratory depressants such as opiates, barbiturates, even benzodiazepines and alcohol.
When ICU capacity is reached, we will use operating theatres and recovery areas for overflow, but after that it gets to be a form of rationing, probably based on who is most likely to make it.
I don't think he intends the heroin to relieve respiratory distress.
lol, no, Exactly. I mean to make the end of times a little more serene.
We should be giving the crumblies the Brompton Cocktail
Yummy. And then a jazz cigarette to round it all out.
Ach ja! We are all going to die. It seems like quite a few of us are going to die unexpectedly quickly.
So be it. I would like it to be as painless as possible, and indeed a little euphoric, if that can be organised. A big fat Brompton Cocktail would sort me out completely. I love heroin. Others may like a massive big reefer.
Just allow us to choose.
I'm not ashamed to say that on the optimism/pessimism divide I'm quite close to your views. And on the Brompton Cocktail.
And on the youth aspect in the impending triage.
If you have made it to 60 in good health and seen all your children reach adulthood you have already had a better deal than almost all the human race, ever. There is nothing worse than for a young child to lose a parent or for a parent to lose a child, and therefore I don't see any conceivable basis for any rule other than: if the need is equal, the youngest gets priority.
The scores on the doors will be much of a muchness across Europe...all our health systems will collapse and most people will probably suffer at home...but yes, in the kick off the Germans are doing quite well....
You're probably right. In the end it will be a wash.
If I had to construct a plan B (given that my North Korean autarky won't work) then I would do this: I would say to any 70 year old (or older) who presents with coronavirus; "Sorry, we cannot treat you in a hospital, here is a load of antibiotics and heroin, go home and pray".
I would not recommend that approach. Diamorphine does relieve respiratory distress, but is a respiratory depressant so will kill some who would otherwise scrape through. I would recommend avoiding all respiratory depressants such as opiates, barbiturates, even benzodiazepines and alcohol.
When ICU capacity is reached, we will use operating theatres and recovery areas for overflow, but after that it gets to be a form of rationing, probably based on who is most likely to make it.
I don't think he intends the heroin to relieve respiratory distress.
lol, no, Exactly. I mean to make the end of times a little more serene.
We should be giving the crumblies the Brompton Cocktail
Yummy. And then a jazz cigarette to round it all out.
Ach ja! We are all going to die. It seems like quite a few of us are going to die unexpectedly quickly.
So be it. I would like it to be as painless as possible, and indeed a little euphoric, if that can be organised. A big fat Brompton Cocktail would sort me out completely. I love heroin. Others may like a massive big reefer.
Just allow us to choose.
I'm not ashamed to say that on the optimism/pessimism divide I'm quite close to your views. And on the Brompton Cocktail.
And on the youth aspect in the impending triage.
Hey Matthias, what's the thinking in Germany about how you've managed to keep the fatality rate so low there so far?
Some days ago authorities announced that test capacity had been raised to 12,000 a day. I don't have hard numbers but I think we're well into six figures range, therefor more finds. The quality and especially capacity of health care is quite decent, but once it really kicks off, we will probably be overwhelmed as well.
The scores on the doors will be much of a muchness across Europe...all our health systems will collapse and most people will probably suffer at home...but yes, in the kick off the Germans are doing quite well....
You're probably right. In the end it will be a wash.
If I had to construct a plan B (given that my North Korean autarky won't work) then I would do this: I would say to any 70 year old (or older) who presents with coronavirus; "Sorry, we cannot treat you in a hospital, here is a load of antibiotics and heroin, go home and pray".
Let God decide. But mitigate the pain.
We risk overwhelming the health system with hundreds of thousands of oldsters who may or may not live, at the expense of younger people who still have a life to live and babies to breed. Triage needs to get a bit medieval.
Comrade...why should a 70 year old or 80 year old pass over treatment in preference to a younger person???
Surely the clinical presentation takes priority--and on that basis the elderly and those with co-morbidity must be prioritised.....
No, that's wrong. This is beyond normal protocol. Save the young.
The young will largely be saved anyway, coronavirus has a 0.2% death rate for under 40s, barely different from normal flu but an 8% death rate for over 70s and a 15% death rate for over 80s
If 0.2% of under 40's are dying then probably 0.5% need ICU, or 1 in 200.
If we have 1000 of those under 40's getting the virus at one time, then all those beds are gone, just on that bit of the population.
This is why the public health measures need to be harsh and soon too.
There is a vast difference between 1 in 200 needing an ICU for under 40s and potentially almost 1 in 2 over 80s needing an ICU.
You're reading, but you're not understanding. Two patients present, both identically ill - in desperate need of an ECMO to survive (the U40 being the 1 in 200, the O80 being the 1 in 2). Do you give it to the U40 or the O80, given that they're identically ill?
Depends if the U40 has serious pre existing conditions, is single and the O80 is a parent or grandparent and you could even look at whether the U40 is unemployed and claiming state benefits while the O80 might have a private pension if you really want to be that brutal.
However the vast majority of U40s with CV will not need hospital treatment to survive, even most O80s will not either but more will
The scores on the doors will be much of a muchness across Europe...all our health systems will collapse and most people will probably suffer at home...but yes, in the kick off the Germans are doing quite well....
You're probably right. In the end it will be a wash.
If I had to construct a plan B (given that my North Korean autarky won't work) then I would do this: I would say to any 70 year old (or older) who presents with coronavirus; "Sorry, we cannot treat you in a hospital, here is a load of antibiotics and heroin, go home and pray".
Let God decide. But mitigate the pain.
We risk overwhelming the health system with hundreds of thousands of oldsters who may or may not live, at the expense of younger people who still have a life to live and babies to breed. Triage needs to get a bit medieval.
Comrade...why should a 70 year old or 80 year old pass over treatment in preference to a younger person???
Surely the clinical presentation takes priority--and on that basis the elderly and those with co-morbidity must be prioritised.....
No, that's wrong. This is beyond normal protocol. Save the young.
The young will largely be saved anyway, coronavirus has a 0.2% death rate for under 40s, barely different from normal flu but an 8% death rate for over 70s and a 15% death rate for over 80s
If 0.2% of under 40's are dying then probably 0.5% need ICU, or 1 in 200.
If we have 1000 of those under 40's getting the virus at one time, then all those beds are gone, just on that bit of the population.
This is why the public health measures need to be harsh and soon too.
There is a vast difference between 1 in 200 needing an ICU for under 40s and potentially almost 1 in 2 over 80s needing an ICU.
You're reading, but you're not understanding. Two patients present, both identically ill - in desperate need of an ECMO to survive (the U40 being the 1 in 200, the O80 being the 1 in 2). Do you give it to the U40 or the O80, given that they're identically ill?
I think there is little point in pressing on with the matter.
We must just be thankful that we are not doctors and we will not have to decide.
Thoughts on FTSE and DOW by Friday close? And low point this year?
Im thinking 5500/20000 by Friday hitting 5000/17000 as lows in late March/April
Thinking about when to get long, perhaps drip it in through the 5750 to 5000 range?
I was annoyed I didn’t get to take profits before Friday’s pre-close surge, but am pleased I didn’t now.
From the beginning I have had 24,000 as the short term target, and it looks like we will reach that this week. We need to factor in that the US and central banks will be doing everything they can to prop up the markets - another surprise US interest rate is quite likely, as is rushing out some news on a vaccine or cure before they should. I am going to hold my sell positions to 24,000 and then take a view as to what to do next. The lower the market goes, the greater the risk of a bounce, even if the longer term trend is downward.
Previous crises, the market has been on the way back well before the underlying crisis is resolved. So it’s right to be looking for the turn. But I wouldn’t however think of buying back in just yet, there is clearly worse news to come.
Thanks, think you might hit your 24000 by the open tomorrow.
The scores on the doors will be much of a muchness across Europe...all our health systems will collapse and most people will probably suffer at home...but yes, in the kick off the Germans are doing quite well....
You're probably right. In the end it will be a wash.
If I had to construct a plan B (given that my North Korean autarky won't work) then I would do this: I would say to any 70 year old (or older) who presents with coronavirus; "Sorry, we cannot treat you in a hospital, here is a load of antibiotics and heroin, go home and pray".
Let God decide. But mitigate the pain.
We risk overwhelming the health system with hundreds of thousands of oldsters who may or may not live, at the expense of younger people who still have a life to live and babies to breed. Triage needs to get a bit medieval.
Comrade...why should a 70 year old or 80 year old pass over treatment in preference to a younger person???
Surely the clinical presentation takes priority--and on that basis the elderly and those with co-morbidity must be prioritised.....
No, that's wrong. This is beyond normal protocol. Save the young.
The young will largely be saved anyway, coronavirus has a 0.2% death rate for under 40s, barely different from normal flu but an 8% death rate for over 70s and a 15% death rate for over 80s
If 0.2% of under 40's are dying then probably 0.5% need ICU, or 1 in 200.
If we have 1000 of those under 40's getting the virus at one time, then all those beds are gone, just on that bit of the population.
This is why the public health measures need to be harsh and soon too.
There is a vast difference between 1 in 200 needing an ICU for under 40s and potentially almost 1 in 2 over 80s needing an ICU.
You're reading, but you're not understanding. Two patients present, both identically ill - in desperate need of an ECMO to survive (the U40 being the 1 in 200, the O80 being the 1 in 2). Do you give it to the U40 or the O80, given that they're identically ill?
Depends if the U40 has serious pre existing conditions, is single and the O80 is a parent or grandparent and you could even look at whether the U40 is employed or not and whether the O80 has a private pension if you really want to be that brutal.
However the vast majority of U40s will not need hospital treatment to survive, even most O80s will not either but more will
Identical in every way. Both are siblingless married parents to one child. No pre-existing conditions. There is no difference between the two patients in any way, bar their age. Who do you pick?
The scores on the doors will be much of a muchness across Europe...all our health systems will collapse and most people will probably suffer at home...but yes, in the kick off the Germans are doing quite well....
You're probably right. In the end it will be a wash.
If I had to construct a plan B (given that my North Korean autarky won't work) then I would do this: I would say to any 70 year old (or older) who presents with coronavirus; "Sorry, we cannot treat you in a hospital, here is a load of antibiotics and heroin, go home and pray".
Let God decide. But mitigate the pain.
We risk overwhelming the health system with hundreds of thousands of oldsters who may or may not live, at the expense of younger people who still have a life to live and babies to breed. Triage needs to get a bit medieval.
Comrade...why should a 70 year old or 80 year old pass over treatment in preference to a younger person???
Surely the clinical presentation takes priority--and on that basis the elderly and those with co-morbidity must be prioritised.....
No, that's wrong. This is beyond normal protocol. Save the young.
The young will largely be saved anyway, coronavirus has a 0.2% death rate for under 40s, barely different from normal flu but an 8% death rate for over 70s and a 15% death rate for over 80s
The scores on the doors will be much of a muchness across Europe...all our health systems will collapse and most people will probably suffer at home...but yes, in the kick off the Germans are doing quite well....
You're probably right. In the end it will be a wash.
If I had to construct a plan B (given that my North Korean autarky won't work) then I would do this: I would say to any 70 year old (or older) who presents with coronavirus; "Sorry, we cannot treat you in a hospital, here is a load of antibiotics and heroin, go home and pray".
I would not recommend that approach. Diamorphine does relieve respiratory distress, but is a respiratory depressant so will kill some who would otherwise scrape through. I would recommend avoiding all respiratory depressants such as opiates, barbiturates, even benzodiazepines and alcohol.
When ICU capacity is reached, we will use operating theatres and recovery areas for overflow, but after that it gets to be a form of rationing, probably based on who is most likely to make it.
I don't think he intends the heroin to relieve respiratory distress.
lol, no, Exactly. I mean to make the end of times a little more serene.
We should be giving the crumblies the Brompton Cocktail
Yummy. And then a jazz cigarette to round it all out.
Ach ja! We are all going to die. It seems like quite a few of us are going to die unexpectedly quickly.
So be it. I would like it to be as painless as possible, and indeed a little euphoric, if that can be organised. A big fat Brompton Cocktail would sort me out completely. I love heroin. Others may like a massive big reefer.
Just allow us to choose.
I'm not ashamed to say that on the optimism/pessimism divide I'm quite close to your views. And on the Brompton Cocktail.
And on the youth aspect in the impending triage.
If you have made it to 60 in good health and seen all your children reach adulthood you have already had a better deal than almost all the human race, ever. There is nothing worse than for a young child to lose a parent or for a parent to lose a child, and therefore I don't see any conceivable basis for any rule other than: if the need is equal, the youngest gets priority.
I agree...but with this virus, the need is not equal....the elderly suffer more, ergo they are getting treated...and rightly so....
The scores on the doors will be much of a muchness across Europe...all our health systems will collapse and most people will probably suffer at home...but yes, in the kick off the Germans are doing quite well....
You're probably right. In the end it will be a wash.
If I had to construct a plan B (given that my North Korean autarky won't work) then I would do this: I would say to any 70 year old (or older) who presents with coronavirus; "Sorry, we cannot treat you in a hospital, here is a load of antibiotics and heroin, go home and pray".
Let God decide. But mitigate the pain.
We risk overwhelming the health system with hundreds of thousands of oldsters who may or may not live, at the expense of younger people who still have a life to live and babies to breed. Triage needs to get a bit medieval.
Comrade...why should a 70 year old or 80 year old pass over treatment in preference to a younger person???
Surely the clinical presentation takes priority--and on that basis the elderly and those with co-morbidity must be prioritised.....
No, that's wrong. This is beyond normal protocol. Save the young.
The young will largely be saved anyway, coronavirus has a 0.2% death rate for under 40s, barely different from normal flu but an 8% death rate for over 70s and a 15% death rate for over 80s
If 0.2% of under 40's are dying then probably 0.5% need ICU, or 1 in 200.
If we have 1000 of those under 40's getting the virus at one time, then all those beds are gone, just on that bit of the population.
This is why the public health measures need to be harsh and soon too.
There is a vast difference between 1 in 200 needing an ICU for under 40s and potentially almost 1 in 2 over 80s needing an ICU.
You're reading, but you're not understanding. Two patients present, both identically ill - in desperate need of an ECMO to survive (the U40 being the 1 in 200, the O80 being the 1 in 2). Do you give it to the U40 or the O80, given that they're identically ill?
I think there is little point in pressing on with the matter.
We must just be thankful that we are not doctors and we will not have to decide.
Triage will be commonplace in a couple of weeks. Entirely avoiding the discussion now and having it then might not be healthy as well. 'Just leave it to the doctors' might be a bit of an easy copout.
The scores on the doors will be much of a muchness across Europe...all our health systems will collapse and most people will probably suffer at home...but yes, in the kick off the Germans are doing quite well....
You're probably right. In the end it will be a wash.
If I had to construct a plan B (given that my North Korean autarky won't work) then I would do this: I would say to any 70 year old (or older) who presents with coronavirus; "Sorry, we cannot treat you in a hospital, here is a load of antibiotics and heroin, go home and pray".
Let God decide. But mitigate the pain.
We risk overwhelming the health system with hundreds of thousands of oldsters who may or may not live, at the expense of younger people who still have a life to live and babies to breed. Triage needs to get a bit medieval.
Comrade...why should a 70 year old or 80 year old pass over treatment in preference to a younger person???
Surely the clinical presentation takes priority--and on that basis the elderly and those with co-morbidity must be prioritised.....
No, that's wrong. This is beyond normal protocol. Save the young.
I wonder if we can resurrect Goebbels et al....the gypsies and the jews...let's not treat those...
Sorry...but just where your argument takes us Ead
Triage will have to happen at some point. If you have two candidates for the last ECMO bed, both equally ill but one is 25, the other 65 there's no contest as to which should get the bed.
The reality is that most people appearing critically ill will be older and admitted...
If this crisis forces us to lose our compassion to old people...then sadly it is a country that has lost its perspective.....
That's all very well, so are you advocating letting the 25 year old die to let the equally ill 65 year old survive, especially considering that with treatment the 25 year old should recover faster? They're hours away from having to make those calls in Italy.
The 25 year old will almost certainly survive at home with hot broth in bed anyway, the 65 year old however may need that hospital bed to survive
And that is a very important point to be honest
However - we're talking about two identically ill patients, one 25, one 65. Both will almost certainly die without the last ECMO machine. Which one do you give it to?
That is a choice for the medics as it raises a serious question of ethics
But this subject is just distastful and I would question the need to even raise it
It could be someones mother or father or close relative whose life is being discounted because they are not young
It is distasteful, and I'm not sure how it got raised. However it is a question our medics will soon be having to answer.
The younger patient could be a father, a son, a brother etc. As utterly brutal as it is, age is probably the fairest filter when deciding between identically ill patients. Young people are generally more likely to pull through, and if they do will recover quicker.
Priority 1 needs to be minimising loss of life, priority two minimising loss of years.
On both priorities is there a clear case that the younger patient should get the last ECMO.
It is unlikely it would arise as it is the elderly mainly with pre existing conditions that are falling to covid 19
But I repeat, it is distasteful and we need to move on
Move on to what?? Care home wage structure?
You're a nice guy Big G, and I wish you well. You probably think I am Satan. I don't care.
Coronavirus is the biggest story of the year and possibly the decade (and so on). No sensible political betting debate can be had without referencing it. So your appeal is fruitless and silly.
I do not think you are satan.
However, you seem to want to be sensational when a little more common sense would be wise
Also I strongly object to the abusive language you use from time to time to your fellow posters
We all need to be kinder and gentler and it does you no credit to indulge in unnecessary language
My wife's best friend's mum (bear with me) works with a lovely guy in some office. He's in his mid thirties, and SUPER fit. He literally runs marathons.
He got a dose of the bloody bug about 3 weeks ago, then seemed to recover, but then suddenly relapsed a few days ago. and now has critical pneumonia and is in a London hospital, at risk of dying from tested and diagnosed coronavirus. This is a true story. He's in his mid 30s.
This doesn't just affect the elderly. And, moreover, it is getting nearer to all of us.
The scores on the doors will be much of a muchness across Europe...all our health systems will collapse and most people will probably suffer at home...but yes, in the kick off the Germans are doing quite well....
You're probably right. In the end it will be a wash.
If I had to construct a plan B (given that my North Korean autarky won't work) then I would do this: I would say to any 70 year old (or older) who presents with coronavirus; "Sorry, we cannot treat you in a hospital, here is a load of antibiotics and heroin, go home and pray".
Let God decide. But mitigate the pain.
We risk overwhelming the health system with hundreds of thousands of oldsters who may or may not live, at the expense of younger people who still have a life to live and babies to breed. Triage needs to get a bit medieval.
Comrade...why should a 70 year old or 80 year old pass over treatment in preference to a younger person???
Surely the clinical presentation takes priority--and on that basis the elderly and those with co-morbidity must be prioritised.....
No, that's wrong. This is beyond normal protocol. Save the young.
I wonder if we can resurrect Goebbels et al....the gypsies and the jews...let's not treat those...
Sorry...but just where your argument takes us Ead
Triage will have to happen at some point. If you have two candidates for the last ECMO bed, both equally ill but one is 25, the other 65 there's no contest as to which should get the bed.
The reality is that most people appearing critically ill will be older and admitted...
If this crisis forces us to lose our compassion to old people...then sadly it is a country that has lost its perspective.....
That's all very well, so are you advocating letting the 25 year old die to let the equally ill 65 year old survive, especially considering that with treatment the 25 year old should recover faster? They're hours away from having to make those calls in Italy.
The 25 year old will almost certainly survive at home with hot broth in bed anyway, the 65 year old however may need that hospital bed to survive
And that is a very important point to be honest
However - we're talking about two identically ill patients, one 25, one 65. Both will almost certainly die without the last ECMO machine. Which one do you give it to?
That is a choice for the medics as it raises a serious question of ethics
But this subject is just distastful and I would question the need to even raise it
It could be someones mother or father or close relative whose life is being discounted because they are not young
It is distasteful, and I'm not sure how it got raised. However it is a question our medics will soon be having to answer.
The younger patient could be a father, a son, a brother etc. As utterly brutal as it is, age is probably the fairest filter when deciding between identically ill patients. Young people are generally more likely to pull through, and if they do will recover quicker.
Priority 1 needs to be minimising loss of life, priority two minimising loss of years.
On both priorities is there a clear case that the younger patient should get the last ECMO.
Indeed, which is why we have to avoid getting there as far as that is humanly possible.
It cannot be avoided. It is coming.
No, public health measures cannot stop it coming, but can put a lid on it. This reduces the peak and lessens the strains that are being discussed too.
The scores on the doors will be much of a muchness across Europe...all our health systems will collapse and most people will probably suffer at home...but yes, in the kick off the Germans are doing quite well....
You're probably right. In the end it will be a wash.
If I had to construct a plan B (given that my North Korean autarky won't work) then I would do this: I would say to any 70 year old (or older) who presents with coronavirus; "Sorry, we cannot treat you in a hospital, here is a load of antibiotics and heroin, go home and pray".
Let God decide. But mitigate the pain.
We risk overwhelming the health system with hundreds of thousands of oldsters who may or may not live, at the expense of younger people who still have a life to live and babies to breed. Triage needs to get a bit medieval.
Comrade...why should a 70 year old or 80 year old pass over treatment in preference to a younger person???
Surely the clinical presentation takes priority--and on that basis the elderly and those with co-morbidity must be prioritised.....
No, that's wrong. This is beyond normal protocol. Save the young.
The young will largely be saved anyway, coronavirus has a 0.2% death rate for under 40s, barely different from normal flu but an 8% death rate for over 70s and a 15% death rate for over 80s
The scores on the doors will be much of a muchness across Europe...all our health systems will collapse and most people will probably suffer at home...but yes, in the kick off the Germans are doing quite well....
You're probably right. In the end it will be a wash.
If I had to construct a plan B (given that my North Korean autarky won't work) then I would do this: I would say to any 70 year old (or older) who presents with coronavirus; "Sorry, we cannot treat you in a hospital, here is a load of antibiotics and heroin, go home and pray".
I would not recommend that approach. Diamorphine does relieve respiratory distress, but is a respiratory depressant so will kill some who would otherwise scrape through. I would recommend avoiding all respiratory depressants such as opiates, barbiturates, even benzodiazepines and alcohol.
When ICU capacity is reached, we will use operating theatres and recovery areas for overflow, but after that it gets to be a form of rationing, probably based on who is most likely to make it.
I don't think he intends the heroin to relieve respiratory distress.
lol, no, Exactly. I mean to make the end of times a little more serene.
We should be giving the crumblies the Brompton Cocktail
Yummy. And then a jazz cigarette to round it all out.
Ach ja! We are all going to die. It seems like quite a few of us are going to die unexpectedly quickly.
So be it. I would like it to be as painless as possible, and indeed a little euphoric, if that can be organised. A big fat Brompton Cocktail would sort me out completely. I love heroin. Others may like a massive big reefer.
Just allow us to choose.
I'm not ashamed to say that on the optimism/pessimism divide I'm quite close to your views. And on the Brompton Cocktail.
And on the youth aspect in the impending triage.
If you have made it to 60 in good health and seen all your children reach adulthood you have already had a better deal than almost all the human race, ever. There is nothing worse than for a young child to lose a parent or for a parent to lose a child, and therefore I don't see any conceivable basis for any rule other than: if the need is equal, the youngest gets priority.
The scores on the doors will be much of a muchness across Europe...all our health systems will collapse and most people will probably suffer at home...but yes, in the kick off the Germans are doing quite well....
You're probably right. In the end it will be a wash.
If I had to construct a plan B (given that my North Korean autarky won't work) then I would do this: I would say to any 70 year old (or older) who presents with coronavirus; "Sorry, we cannot treat you in a hospital, here is a load of antibiotics and heroin, go home and pray".
Let God decide. But mitigate the pain.
We risk overwhelming the health system with hundreds of thousands of oldsters who may or may not live, at the expense of younger people who still have a life to live and babies to breed. Triage needs to get a bit medieval.
Comrade...why should a 70 year old or 80 year old pass over treatment in preference to a younger person???
Surely the clinical presentation takes priority--and on that basis the elderly and those with co-morbidity must be prioritised.....
No, that's wrong. This is beyond normal protocol. Save the young.
The young will largely be saved anyway, coronavirus has a 0.2% death rate for under 40s, barely different from normal flu but an 8% death rate for over 70s and a 15% death rate for over 80s
If 0.2% of under 40's are dying then probably 0.5% need ICU, or 1 in 200.
If we have 1000 of those under 40's getting the virus at one time, then all those beds are gone, just on that bit of the population.
This is why the public health measures need to be harsh and soon too.
There is a vast difference between 1 in 200 needing an ICU for under 40s and potentially almost 1 in 2 over 80s needing an ICU.
You're reading, but you're not understanding. Two patients present, both identically ill - in desperate need of an ECMO to survive (the U40 being the 1 in 200, the O80 being the 1 in 2). Do you give it to the U40 or the O80, given that they're identically ill?
I think there is little point in pressing on with the matter.
We must just be thankful that we are not doctors and we will not have to decide.
Triage will be commonplace in a couple of weeks. Entirely avoiding the discussion now and having it then might not be healthy as well. 'Just leave it to the doctors' might be a bit of an easy copout.
I am not sure a random discussion with some folks on the internet on a not-so-important blog is going to change anything.
In practice, the decision will be up to doctors and health care officials.
I know what I would decide, but there is no need for me to spill the information -- as I will never be in the position in which my decision matters.
The scores on the doors will be much of a muchness across Europe...all our health systems will collapse and most people will probably suffer at home...but yes, in the kick off the Germans are doing quite well....
You're probably right. In the end it will be a wash.
If I had to construct a plan B (given that my North Korean autarky won't work) then I would do this: I would say to any 70 year old (or older) who presents with coronavirus; "Sorry, we cannot treat you in a hospital, here is a load of antibiotics and heroin, go home and pray".
Let God decide. But mitigate the pain.
We risk overwhelming the health system with hundreds of thousands of oldsters who may or may not live, at the expense of younger people who still have a life to live and babies to breed. Triage needs to get a bit medieval.
Eh? The whole point is that younger people aren't dying from it in any sort of significant numbers! So you'd be clearing the hospitals of old people for... who?
Young people who have a life ahead of them.
Read that doctor from Italy. Young people are getting this. And badly.
If we are faced with a terrible choice (and it is terrible) we have to save the young and the future.
You are simply disgusting and should be ashamed of yourself
All life is precious
I think he passed through shame and came out the other side, a couple of pseudonyms back.
The scores on the doors will be much of a muchness across Europe...all our health systems will collapse and most people will probably suffer at home...but yes, in the kick off the Germans are doing quite well....
You're probably right. In the end it will be a wash.
If I had to construct a plan B (given that my North Korean autarky won't work) then I would do this: I would say to any 70 year old (or older) who presents with coronavirus; "Sorry, we cannot treat you in a hospital, here is a load of antibiotics and heroin, go home and pray".
Let God decide. But mitigate the pain.
We risk overwhelming the health system with hundreds of thousands of oldsters who may or may not live, at the expense of younger people who still have a life to live and babies to breed. Triage needs to get a bit medieval.
Comrade...why should a 70 year old or 80 year old pass over treatment in preference to a younger person???
Surely the clinical presentation takes priority--and on that basis the elderly and those with co-morbidity must be prioritised.....
No, that's wrong. This is beyond normal protocol. Save the young.
The young will largely be saved anyway, coronavirus has a 0.2% death rate for under 40s, barely different from normal flu but an 8% death rate for over 70s and a 15% death rate for over 80s
If 0.2% of under 40's are dying then probably 0.5% need ICU, or 1 in 200.
If we have 1000 of those under 40's getting the virus at one time, then all those beds are gone, just on that bit of the population.
This is why the public health measures need to be harsh and soon too.
There is a vast difference between 1 in 200 needing an ICU for under 40s and potentially almost 1 in 2 over 80s needing an ICU.
You're reading, but you're not understanding. Two patients present, both identically ill - in desperate need of an ECMO to survive (the U40 being the 1 in 200, the O80 being the 1 in 2). Do you give it to the U40 or the O80, given that they're identically ill?
Depends if the U40 has serious pre existing conditions, is single and the O80 is a parent or grandparent and you could even look at whether the U40 is employed or not and whether the O80 has a private pension if you really want to be that brutal.
However the vast majority of U40s will not need hospital treatment to survive, even most O80s will not either but more will
Identical in every way. Both are siblingless married parents to one child. No pre-existing conditions. There is no difference between the two patients in any way, bar their age. Who do you pick?
Again, a cost benefit analysis would need to be done of their net worth, claiming of state benefits, how dependent their children were on them etc. It could be the older patient is happily married and close to his children and grandchildren and the younger patient is separated from his partner, never sees his children and an alcoholic
The scores on the doors will be much of a muchness across Europe...all our health systems will collapse and most people will probably suffer at home...but yes, in the kick off the Germans are doing quite well....
You're probably right. In the end it will be a wash.
If I had to construct a plan B (given that my North Korean autarky won't work) then I would do this: I would say to any 70 year old (or older) who presents with coronavirus; "Sorry, we cannot treat you in a hospital, here is a load of antibiotics and heroin, go home and pray".
Let God decide. But mitigate the pain.
We risk overwhelming the health system with hundreds of thousands of oldsters who may or may not live, at the expense of younger people who still have a life to live and babies to breed. Triage needs to get a bit medieval.
Comrade...why should a 70 year old or 80 year old pass over treatment in preference to a younger person???
Surely the clinical presentation takes priority--and on that basis the elderly and those with co-morbidity must be prioritised.....
No, that's wrong. This is beyond normal protocol. Save the young.
The young will largely be saved anyway, coronavirus has a 0.2% death rate for under 40s, barely different from normal flu but an 8% death rate for over 70s and a 15% death rate for over 80s
If 0.2% of under 40's are dying then probably 0.5% need ICU, or 1 in 200.
If we have 1000 of those under 40's getting the virus at one time, then all those beds are gone, just on that bit of the population.
This is why the public health measures need to be harsh and soon too.
There is a vast difference between 1 in 200 needing an ICU for under 40s and potentially almost 1 in 2 over 80s needing an ICU.
You're reading, but you're not understanding. Two patients present, both identically ill - in desperate need of an ECMO to survive (the U40 being the 1 in 200, the O80 being the 1 in 2). Do you give it to the U40 or the O80, given that they're identically ill?
Depends if the U40 has serious pre existing conditions, is single and the O80 is a parent or grandparent and you could even look at whether the U40 is employed or not and whether the O80 has a private pension if you really want to be that brutal.
However the vast majority of U40s will not need hospital treatment to survive, even most O80s will not either but more will
Identical in every way. Both are siblingless married parents to one child. No pre-existing conditions. There is no difference between the two patients in any way, bar their age. Who do you pick?
Again, a cost benefit analysis would need to be done of their net worth, claiming of state benefits, how dependent their children were on them etc. It could be the older patient is happily married and close to his children and grandchildren and the younger patient is separated from his partner, never sees his children and an alcoholic
On a positive note....I got a bit hungry just now, and dived into my Coronavirus emergency safety supplies....knor curry noodles....I splashed in some extra chilli...absolutely lovely......
Thoughts on FTSE and DOW by Friday close? And low point this year?
Im thinking 5500/20000 by Friday hitting 5000/17000 as lows in late March/April
Thinking about when to get long, perhaps drip it in through the 5750 to 5000 range?
I was annoyed I didn’t get to take profits before Friday’s pre-close surge, but am pleased I didn’t now.
From the beginning I have had 24,000 as the short term target, and it looks like we will reach that this week. We need to factor in that the US and central banks will be doing everything they can to prop up the markets - another surprise US interest rate is quite likely, as is rushing out some news on a vaccine or cure before they should. I am going to hold my sell positions to 24,000 and then take a view as to what to do next. The lower the market goes, the greater the risk of a bounce, even if the longer term trend is downward.
Previous crises, the market has been on the way back well before the underlying crisis is resolved. So it’s right to be looking for the turn. But I wouldn’t however think of buying back in just yet, there is clearly worse news to come.
Thanks, think you might hit your 24000 by the open tomorrow.
Futures currently trading at 24700.
I also missed the chance to close out before the end of Friday's session, but it doesn't seem to have mattered much.
The scores on the doors will be much of a muchness across Europe...all our health systems will collapse and most people will probably suffer at home...but yes, in the kick off the Germans are doing quite well....
You're probably right. In the end it will be a wash.
If I had to construct a plan B (given that my North Korean autarky won't work) then I would do this: I would say to any 70 year old (or older) who presents with coronavirus; "Sorry, we cannot treat you in a hospital, here is a load of antibiotics and heroin, go home and pray".
Let God decide. But mitigate the pain.
We risk overwhelming the health system with hundreds of thousands of oldsters who may or may not live, at the expense of younger people who still have a life to live and babies to breed. Triage needs to get a bit medieval.
Comrade...why should a 70 year old or 80 year old pass over treatment in preference to a younger person???
Surely the clinical presentation takes priority--and on that basis the elderly and those with co-morbidity must be prioritised.....
No, that's wrong. This is beyond normal protocol. Save the young.
I wonder if we can resurrect Goebbels et al....the gypsies and the jews...let's not treat those...
Sorry...but just where your argument takes us Ead
Triage will have to happen at some point. If you have two candidates for the last ECMO bed, both equally ill but one is 25, the other 65 there's no contest as to which should get the bed.
The reality is that most people appearing critically ill will be older and admitted...
If this crisis forces us to lose our compassion to old people...then sadly it is a country that has lost its perspective.....
That's all very well, so are you advocating letting the 25 year old die to let the equally ill 65 year old survive, especially considering that with treatment the 25 year old should recover faster? They're hours away from having to make those calls in Italy.
The 25 year old will almost certainly survive at home with hot broth in bed anyway, the 65 year old however may need that hospital bed to survive
And that is a very important point to be honest
However - we're talking about two identically ill patients, one 25, one 65. Both will almost certainly die without the last ECMO machine. Which one do you give it to?
That is a choice for the medics as it raises a serious question of ethics
But this subject is just distastful and I would question the need to even raise it
It could be someones mother or father or close relative whose life is being discounted because they are not young
It is distasteful, and I'm not sure how it got raised. However it is a question our medics will soon be having to answer.
The younger patient could be a father, a son, a brother etc. As utterly brutal as it is, age is probably the fairest filter when deciding between identically ill patients. Young people are generally more likely to pull through, and if they do will recover quicker.
Priority 1 needs to be minimising loss of life, priority two minimising loss of years.
On both priorities is there a clear case that the younger patient should get the last ECMO.
Indeed, which is why we have to avoid getting there as far as that is humanly possible.
It cannot be avoided. It is coming.
No, public health measures cannot stop it coming, but can put a lid on it. This reduces the peak and lessens the strains that are being discussed too.
The scores on the doors will be much of a muchness across Europe...all our health systems will collapse and most people will probably suffer at home...but yes, in the kick off the Germans are doing quite well....
You're probably right. In the end it will be a wash.
If I had to construct a plan B (given that my North Korean autarky won't work) then I would do this: I would say to any 70 year old (or older) who presents with coronavirus; "Sorry, we cannot treat you in a hospital, here is a load of antibiotics and heroin, go home and pray".
Let God decide. But mitigate the pain.
We risk overwhelming the health system with hundreds of thousands of oldsters who may or may not live, at the expense of younger people who still have a life to live and babies to breed. Triage needs to get a bit medieval.
Comrade...why should a 70 year old or 80 year old pass over treatment in preference to a younger person???
Surely the clinical presentation takes priority--and on that basis the elderly and those with co-morbidity must be prioritised.....
No, that's wrong. This is beyond normal protocol. Save the young.
The young will largely be saved anyway, coronavirus has a 0.2% death rate for under 40s, barely different from normal flu but an 8% death rate for over 70s and a 15% death rate for over 80s
If 0.2% of under 40's are dying then probably 0.5% need ICU, or 1 in 200.
If we have 1000 of those under 40's getting the virus at one time, then all those beds are gone, just on that bit of the population.
This is why the public health measures need to be harsh and soon too.
There is a vast difference between 1 in 200 needing an ICU for under 40s and potentially almost 1 in 2 over 80s needing an ICU.
You're reading, but you're not understanding. Two patients present, both identically ill - in desperate need of an ECMO to survive (the U40 being the 1 in 200, the O80 being the 1 in 2). Do you give it to the U40 or the O80, given that they're identically ill?
Depends if the U40 has serious pre existing conditions, is single and the O80 is a parent or grandparent and you could even look at whether the U40 is employed or not and whether the O80 has a private pension if you really want to be that brutal.
However the vast majority of U40s will not need hospital treatment to survive, even most O80s will not either but more will
Identical in every way. Both are siblingless married parents to one child. No pre-existing conditions. There is no difference between the two patients in any way, bar their age. Who do you pick?
Again, a cost benefit analysis would need to be done of their net worth, claiming of state benefits, how dependent their children were on them etc. It could be the older patient is happily married and close to his children and grandchildren and the younger patient is separated from his partner, never sees his children and an alcoholic
Presumably you would cross-reference against the canvassing reports?
The scores on the doors will be much of a muchness across Europe...all our health systems will collapse and most people will probably suffer at home...but yes, in the kick off the Germans are doing quite well....
You're probably right. In the end it will be a wash.
If I had to construct a plan B (given that my North Korean autarky won't work) then I would do this: I would say to any 70 year old (or older) who presents with coronavirus; "Sorry, we cannot treat you in a hospital, here is a load of antibiotics and heroin, go home and pray".
Let God decide. But mitigate the pain.
We risk overwhelming the health system with hundreds of thousands of oldsters who may or may not live, at the expense of younger people who still have a life to live and babies to breed. Triage needs to get a bit medieval.
Comrade...why should a 70 year old or 80 year old pass over treatment in preference to a younger person???
Surely the clinical presentation takes priority--and on that basis the elderly and those with co-morbidity must be prioritised.....
No, that's wrong. This is beyond normal protocol. Save the young.
The young will largely be saved anyway, coronavirus has a 0.2% death rate for under 40s, barely different from normal flu but an 8% death rate for over 70s and a 15% death rate for over 80s
If 0.2% of under 40's are dying then probably 0.5% need ICU, or 1 in 200.
If we have 1000 of those under 40's getting the virus at one time, then all those beds are gone, just on that bit of the population.
This is why the public health measures need to be harsh and soon too.
There is a vast difference between 1 in 200 needing an ICU for under 40s and potentially almost 1 in 2 over 80s needing an ICU.
You're reading, but you're not understanding. Two patients present, both identically ill - in desperate need of an ECMO to survive (the U40 being the 1 in 200, the O80 being the 1 in 2). Do you give it to the U40 or the O80, given that they're identically ill?
Depends if the U40 has serious pre existing conditions, is single and the O80 is a parent or grandparent and you could even look at whether the U40 is employed or not and whether the O80 has a private pension if you really want to be that brutal.
However the vast majority of U40s will not need hospital treatment to survive, even most O80s will not either but more will
Identical in every way. Both are siblingless married parents to one child. No pre-existing conditions. There is no difference between the two patients in any way, bar their age. Who do you pick?
Again, a cost benefit analysis would need to be done of their net worth, claiming of state benefits, how dependent their children were on them etc. It could be the older patient is happily married and close to his children and grandchildren and the younger patient is separated from his partner, never sees his children and an alcoholic
The scores on the doors will be much of a muchness across Europe...all our health systems will collapse and most people will probably suffer at home...but yes, in the kick off the Germans are doing quite well....
You're probably right. In the end it will be a wash.
If I had to construct a plan B (given that my North Korean autarky won't work) then I would do this: I would say to any 70 year old (or older) who presents with coronavirus; "Sorry, we cannot treat you in a hospital, here is a load of antibiotics and heroin, go home and pray".
Let God decide. But mitigate the pain.
We risk overwhelming the health system with hundreds of thousands of oldsters who may or may not live, at the expense of younger people who still have a life to live and babies to breed. Triage needs to get a bit medieval.
Comrade...why should a 70 year old or 80 year old pass over treatment in preference to a younger person???
Surely the clinical presentation takes priority--and on that basis the elderly and those with co-morbidity must be prioritised.....
No, that's wrong. This is beyond normal protocol. Save the young.
The young will largely be saved anyway, coronavirus has a 0.2% death rate for under 40s, barely different from normal flu but an 8% death rate for over 70s and a 15% death rate for over 80s
If 0.2% of under 40's are dying then probably 0.5% need ICU, or 1 in 200.
If we have 1000 of those under 40's getting the virus at one time, then all those beds are gone, just on that bit of the population.
This is why the public health measures need to be harsh and soon too.
There is a vast difference between 1 in 200 needing an ICU for under 40s and potentially almost 1 in 2 over 80s needing an ICU.
You're reading, but you're not understanding. Two patients present, both identically ill - in desperate need of an ECMO to survive (the U40 being the 1 in 200, the O80 being the 1 in 2). Do you give it to the U40 or the O80, given that they're identically ill?
Depends if the U40 has serious pre existing conditions, is single and the O80 is a parent or grandparent and you could even look at whether the U40 is employed or not and whether the O80 has a private pension if you really want to be that brutal.
However the vast majority of U40s will not need hospital treatment to survive, even most O80s will not either but more will
Identical in every way. Both are siblingless married parents to one child. No pre-existing conditions. There is no difference between the two patients in any way, bar their age. Who do you pick?
Again, a cost benefit analysis would need to be done of their net worth, claiming of state benefits, how dependent their children were on them etc. It could be the older patient is happily married and close to his children and grandchildren and the younger patient is separated from his partner, never sees his children and an alcoholic
The scores on the doors will be much of a muchness across Europe...all our health systems will collapse and most people will probably suffer at home...but yes, in the kick off the Germans are doing quite well....
You're probably right. In the end it will be a wash.
If I had to construct a plan B (given that my North Korean autarky won't work) then I would do this: I would say to any 70 year old (or older) who presents with coronavirus; "Sorry, we cannot treat you in a hospital, here is a load of antibiotics and heroin, go home and pray".
Let God decide. But mitigate the pain.
We risk overwhelming the health system with hundreds of thousands of oldsters who may or may not live, at the expense of younger people who still have a life to live and babies to breed. Triage needs to get a bit medieval.
Comrade...why should a 70 year old or 80 year old pass over treatment in preference to a younger person???
Surely the clinical presentation takes priority--and on that basis the elderly and those with co-morbidity must be prioritised.....
No, that's wrong. This is beyond normal protocol. Save the young.
The young will largely be saved anyway, coronavirus has a 0.2% death rate for under 40s, barely different from normal flu but an 8% death rate for over 70s and a 15% death rate for over 80s
If 0.2% of under 40's are dying then probably 0.5% need ICU, or 1 in 200.
If we have 1000 of those under 40's getting the virus at one time, then all those beds are gone, just on that bit of the population.
This is why the public health measures need to be harsh and soon too.
There is a vast difference between 1 in 200 needing an ICU for under 40s and potentially almost 1 in 2 over 80s needing an ICU.
You're reading, but you're not understanding. Two patients present, both identically ill - in desperate need of an ECMO to survive (the U40 being the 1 in 200, the O80 being the 1 in 2). Do you give it to the U40 or the O80, given that they're identically ill?
Depends if the U40 has serious pre existing conditions, is single and the O80 is a parent or grandparent and you could even look at whether the U40 is employed or not and whether the O80 has a private pension if you really want to be that brutal.
However the vast majority of U40s will not need hospital treatment to survive, even most O80s will not either but more will
Identical in every way. Both are siblingless married parents to one child. No pre-existing conditions. There is no difference between the two patients in any way, bar their age. Who do you pick?
Again, a cost benefit analysis would need to be done of their net worth, claiming of state benefits, how dependent their children were on them etc. It could be the older patient is happily married and close to his children and grandchildren and the younger patient is separated from his partner, never sees his children and an alcoholic
Good grief!
As I have often said, HYFUD has the requisite qualities to be Trump's Press Secretary in simply astounding quantities.
The scores on the doors will be much of a muchness across Europe...all our health systems will collapse and most people will probably suffer at home...but yes, in the kick off the Germans are doing quite well....
You're probably right. In the end it will be a wash.
If I had to construct a plan B (given that my North Korean autarky won't work) then I would do this: I would say to any 70 year old (or older) who presents with coronavirus; "Sorry, we cannot treat you in a hospital, here is a load of antibiotics and heroin, go home and pray".
Let God decide. But mitigate the pain.
We risk overwhelming the health system with hundreds of thousands of oldsters who may or may not live, at the expense of younger people who still have a life to live and babies to breed. Triage needs to get a bit medieval.
Comrade...why should a 70 year old or 80 year old pass over treatment in preference to a younger person???
Surely the clinical presentation takes priority--and on that basis the elderly and those with co-morbidity must be prioritised.....
No, that's wrong. This is beyond normal protocol. Save the young.
The young will largely be saved anyway, coronavirus has a 0.2% death rate for under 40s, barely different from normal flu but an 8% death rate for over 70s and a 15% death rate for over 80s
If 0.2% of under 40's are dying then probably 0.5% need ICU, or 1 in 200.
If we have 1000 of those under 40's getting the virus at one time, then all those beds are gone, just on that bit of the population.
This is why the public health measures need to be harsh and soon too.
There is a vast difference between 1 in 200 needing an ICU for under 40s and potentially almost 1 in 2 over 80s needing an ICU.
You're reading, but you're not understanding. Two patients present, both identically ill - in desperate need of an ECMO to survive (the U40 being the 1 in 200, the O80 being the 1 in 2). Do you give it to the U40 or the O80, given that they're identically ill?
Depends if the U40 has serious pre existing conditions, is single and the O80 is a parent or grandparent and you could even look at whether the U40 is employed or not and whether the O80 has a private pension if you really want to be that brutal.
However the vast majority of U40s will not need hospital treatment to survive, even most O80s will not either but more will
Identical in every way. Both are siblingless married parents to one child. No pre-existing conditions. There is no difference between the two patients in any way, bar their age. Who do you pick?
Again, a cost benefit analysis would need to be done of their net worth, claiming of state benefits, how dependent their children were on them etc. It could be the older patient is happily married and close to his children and grandchildren and the younger patient is separated from his partner, never sees his children and an alcoholic
Oh dear...I'm glad you are not triaging patients.....
74 year old, orange, glowing perma tan, narcissistic , obese, dangerous, abusive, rapist, lying, deranged, dangerous, psychopath...deranged .twat, motherfucker of the highest calibre....ticks all Hfud's boxes.....
The scores on the doors will be much of a muchness across Europe...all our health systems will collapse and most people will probably suffer at home...but yes, in the kick off the Germans are doing quite well....
You're probably right. In the end it will be a wash.
If I had to construct a plan B (given that my North Korean autarky won't work) then I would do this: I would say to any 70 year old (or older) who presents with coronavirus; "Sorry, we cannot treat you in a hospital, here is a load of antibiotics and heroin, go home and pray".
Let God decide. But mitigate the pain.
We risk overwhelming the health system with hundreds of thousands of oldsters who may or may not live, at the expense of younger people who still have a life to live and babies to breed. Triage needs to get a bit medieval.
Comrade...why should a 70 year old or 80 year old pass over treatment in preference to a younger person???
Surely the clinical presentation takes priority--and on that basis the elderly and those with co-morbidity must be prioritised.....
No, that's wrong. This is beyond normal protocol. Save the young.
I wonder if we can resurrect Goebbels et al....the gypsies and the jews...let's not treat those...
Sorry...but just where your argument takes us Ead
Triage will have to happen at some point. If you have two candidates for the last ECMO bed, both equally ill but one is 25, the other 65 there's no contest as to which should get the bed.
The reality is that most people appearing critically ill will be older and admitted...
If this crisis forces us to lose our compassion to old people...then sadly it is a country that has lost its perspective.....
That's all very well, so are you advocating letting the 25 year old die to let the equally ill 65 year old survive, especially considering that with treatment the 25 year old should recover faster? They're hours away from having to make those calls in Italy.
The 25 year old will almost certainly survive at home with hot broth in bed anyway, the 65 year old however may need that hospital bed to survive
And that is a very important point to be honest
However - we're talking about two identically ill patients, one 25, one 65. Both will almost certainly die without the last ECMO machine. Which one do you give it to?
That is a choice for the medics as it raises a serious question of ethics
But this subject is just distastful and I would question the need to even raise it
It could be someones mother or father or close relative whose life is being discounted because they are not young
It is distasteful, and I'm not sure how it got raised. However it is a question our medics will soon be having to answer.
The younger patient could be a father, a son, a brother etc. As utterly brutal as it is, age is probably the fairest filter when deciding between identically ill patients. Young people are generally more likely to pull through, and if they do will recover quicker.
Priority 1 needs to be minimising loss of life, priority two minimising loss of years.
On both priorities is there a clear case that the younger patient should get the last ECMO.
It is unlikely it would arise as it is the elderly mainly with pre existing conditions that are falling to covid 19
But I repeat, it is distasteful and we need to move on
Move on to what?? Care home wage structure?
You're a nice guy Big G, and I wish you well. You probably think I am Satan. I don't care.
Coronavirus is the biggest story of the year and possibly the decade (and so on). No sensible political betting debate can be had without referencing it. So your appeal is fruitless and silly.
I do not think you are satan.
However, you seem to want to be sensational when a little more common sense would be wise
Also I strongly object to the abusive language you use from time to time to your fellow posters
We all need to be kinder and gentler and it does you no credit to indulge in unnnecessary language
Big G, I do sometimes get a pissed off with the constant abuse I get, for simply stating the truth as I see it.
This particularly irks when I have been largely but not entirely right for about five weeks now, and they have all been mostly wrong. I am the messenger and I keep getting shot. In the end I lose my rag.
Pff. It matters not in the end. This crisis dwarfs us all. I wish you and yours well.
If this wretched virus pans out as I fear it will, then it could take many people that I love (including me). I pray that I am wrong. But they are prayers.
Just moderate your unnecessary language on other posters
It takes away from any message you are trying to convey
The scores on the doors will be much of a muchness across Europe...all our health systems will collapse and most people will probably suffer at home...but yes, in the kick off the Germans are doing quite well....
You're probably right. In the end it will be a wash.
If I had to construct a plan B (given that my North Korean autarky won't work) then I would do this: I would say to any 70 year old (or older) who presents with coronavirus; "Sorry, we cannot treat you in a hospital, here is a load of antibiotics and heroin, go home and pray".
Let God decide. But mitigate the pain.
We risk overwhelming the health system with hundreds of thousands of oldsters who may or may not live, at the expense of younger people who still have a life to live and babies to breed. Triage needs to get a bit medieval.
Comrade...why should a 70 year old or 80 year old pass over treatment in preference to a younger person???
Surely the clinical presentation takes priority--and on that basis the elderly and those with co-morbidity must be prioritised.....
No, that's wrong. This is beyond normal protocol. Save the young.
The young will largely be saved anyway, coronavirus has a 0.2% death rate for under 40s, barely different from normal flu but an 8% death rate for over 70s and a 15% death rate for over 80s
If 0.2% of under 40's are dying then probably 0.5% need ICU, or 1 in 200.
If we have 1000 of those under 40's getting the virus at one time, then all those beds are gone, just on that bit of the population.
This is why the public health measures need to be harsh and soon too.
There is a vast difference between 1 in 200 needing an ICU for under 40s and potentially almost 1 in 2 over 80s needing an ICU.
You're reading, but you're not understanding. Two patients present, both identically ill - in desperate need of an ECMO to survive (the U40 being the 1 in 200, the O80 being the 1 in 2). Do you give it to the U40 or the O80, given that they're identically ill?
I think there is little point in pressing on with the matter.
We must just be thankful that we are not doctors and we will not have to decide.
Triage will be commonplace in a couple of weeks. Entirely avoiding the discussion now and having it then might not be healthy as well. 'Just leave it to the doctors' might be a bit of an easy copout.
I am not sure a random discussion with some folks on the internet on a not-so-important blog is going to change anything.
In practice, the decision will be up to doctors and health care officials.
I know what I would decide, but there is no need for me to spill the information -- as I will never be in the position in which my decision matters.
Relatives of those not preferred (and the patients, of course) will be deeply concerned, it might be better for them to get prepared sooner rather than later.
The scores on the doors will be much of a muchness across Europe...all our health systems will collapse and most people will probably suffer at home...but yes, in the kick off the Germans are doing quite well....
You're probably right. In the end it will be a wash.
If I had to construct a plan B (given that my North Korean autarky won't work) then I would do this: I would say to any 70 year old (or older) who presents with coronavirus; "Sorry, we cannot treat you in a hospital, here is a load of antibiotics and heroin, go home and pray".
Let God decide. But mitigate the pain.
We risk overwhelming the health system with hundreds of thousands of oldsters who may or may not live, at the expense of younger people who still have a life to live and babies to breed. Triage needs to get a bit medieval.
Comrade...why should a 70 year old or 80 year old pass over treatment in preference to a younger person???
Surely the clinical presentation takes priority--and on that basis the elderly and those with co-morbidity must be prioritised.....
No, that's wrong. This is beyond normal protocol. Save the young.
The young will largely be saved anyway, coronavirus has a 0.2% death rate for under 40s, barely different from normal flu but an 8% death rate for over 70s and a 15% death rate for over 80s
If 0.2% of under 40's are dying then probably 0.5% need ICU, or 1 in 200.
If we have 1000 of those under 40's getting the virus at one time, then all those beds are gone, just on that bit of the population.
This is why the public health measures need to be harsh and soon too.
There is a vast difference between 1 in 200 needing an ICU for under 40s and potentially almost 1 in 2 over 80s needing an ICU.
You're reading, but you're not understanding. Two patients present, both identically ill - in desperate need of an ECMO to survive (the U40 being the 1 in 200, the O80 being the 1 in 2). Do you give it to the U40 or the O80, given that they're identically ill?
Depends if the U40 has serious pre existing conditions, is single and the O80 is a parent or grandparent and you could even look at whether the U40 is employed or not and whether the O80 has a private pension if you really want to be that brutal.
However the vast majority of U40s will not need hospital treatment to survive, even most O80s will not either but more will
Identical in every way. Both are siblingless married parents to one child. No pre-existing conditions. There is no difference between the two patients in any way, bar their age. Who do you pick?
Again, a cost benefit analysis would need to be done of their net worth, claiming of state benefits, how dependent their children were on them etc. It could be the older patient is happily married and close to his children and grandchildren and the younger patient is separated from his partner, never sees his children and an alcoholic
Oh dear...I'm glad you are not triaging patients.....
74 year old, orange, glowing perma tan, narcissistic , obese, dangerous, abusive, rapist, lying, deranged, dangerous, psychopath...deranged .twat, motherfucker of the highest calibre....ticks all Hfud's boxes.....
"Save patient B, he is the one!"
"I'm sorry Mr HYFUD sir, he passed away 45 days ago."
The scores on the doors will be much of a muchness across Europe...all our health systems will collapse and most people will probably suffer at home...but yes, in the kick off the Germans are doing quite well....
You're probably right. In the end it will be a wash.
If I had to construct a plan B (given that my North Korean autarky won't work) then I would do this: I would say to any 70 year old (or older) who presents with coronavirus; "Sorry, we cannot treat you in a hospital, here is a load of antibiotics and heroin, go home and pray".
Let God decide. But mitigate the pain.
We risk overwhelming the health system with hundreds of thousands of oldsters who may or may not live, at the expense of younger people who still have a life to live and babies to breed. Triage needs to get a bit medieval.
Comrade...why should a 70 year old or 80 year old pass over treatment in preference to a younger person???
Surely the clinical presentation takes priority--and on that basis the elderly and those with co-morbidity must be prioritised.....
No, that's wrong. This is beyond normal protocol. Save the young.
The young will largely be saved anyway, coronavirus has a 0.2% death rate for under 40s, barely different from normal flu but an 8% death rate for over 70s and a 15% death rate for over 80s
If 0.2% of under 40's are dying then probably 0.5% need ICU, or 1 in 200.
If we have 1000 of those under 40's getting the virus at one time, then all those beds are gone, just on that bit of the population.
This is why the public health measures need to be harsh and soon too.
There is a vast difference between 1 in 200 needing an ICU for under 40s and potentially almost 1 in 2 over 80s needing an ICU.
You're reading, but you're not understanding. Two patients present, both identically ill - in desperate need of an ECMO to survive (the U40 being the 1 in 200, the O80 being the 1 in 2). Do you give it to the U40 or the O80, given that they're identically ill?
Depends if the U40 has serious pre existing conditions, is single and the O80 is a parent or grandparent and you could even look at whether the U40 is employed or not and whether the O80 has a private pension if you really want to be that brutal.
However the vast majority of U40s will not need hospital treatment to survive, even most O80s will not either but more will
Identical in every way. Both are siblingless married parents to one child. No pre-existing conditions. There is no difference between the two patients in any way, bar their age. Who do you pick?
Again, a cost benefit analysis would need to be done of their net worth, claiming of state benefits, how dependent their children were on them etc. It could be the older patient is happily married and close to his children and grandchildren and the younger patient is separated from his partner, never sees his children and an alcoholic
Err, No.
That is not how it works. NHS treatment decisions are made on medical not social grounds.
The scores on the doors will be much of a muchness across Europe...all our health systems will collapse and most people will probably suffer at home...but yes, in the kick off the Germans are doing quite well....
You're probably right. In the end it will be a wash.
If I had to construct a plan B (given that my North Korean autarky won't work) then I would do this: I would say to any 70 year old (or older) who presents with coronavirus; "Sorry, we cannot treat you in a hospital, here is a load of antibiotics and heroin, go home and pray".
Let God decide. But mitigate the pain.
We risk overwhelming the health system with hundreds of thousands of oldsters who may or may not live, at the expense of younger people who still have a life to live and babies to breed. Triage needs to get a bit medieval.
Comrade...why should a 70 year old or 80 year old pass over treatment in preference to a younger person???
Surely the clinical presentation takes priority--and on that basis the elderly and those with co-morbidity must be prioritised.....
No, that's wrong. This is beyond normal protocol. Save the young.
The young will largely be saved anyway, coronavirus has a 0.2% death rate for under 40s, barely different from normal flu but an 8% death rate for over 70s and a 15% death rate for over 80s
If 0.2% of under 40's are dying then probably 0.5% need ICU, or 1 in 200.
If we have 1000 of those under 40's getting the virus at one time, then all those beds are gone, just on that bit of the population.
This is why the public health measures need to be harsh and soon too.
There is a vast difference between 1 in 200 needing an ICU for under 40s and potentially almost 1 in 2 over 80s needing an ICU.
You're reading, but you're not understanding. Two patients present, both identically ill - in desperate need of an ECMO to survive (the U40 being the 1 in 200, the O80 being the 1 in 2). Do you give it to the U40 or the O80, given that they're identically ill?
I think there is little point in pressing on with the matter.
We must just be thankful that we are not doctors and we will not have to decide.
Triage will be commonplace in a couple of weeks. Entirely avoiding the discussion now and having it then might not be healthy as well. 'Just leave it to the doctors' might be a bit of an easy copout.
I am not sure a random discussion with some folks on the internet on a not-so-important blog is going to change anything.
In practice, the decision will be up to doctors and health care officials.
I know what I would decide, but there is no need for me to spill the information -- as I will never be in the position in which my decision matters.
Except that Do Not Resuscitate forms are a thing. I have no idea what your personal circumstances are of course, but it's a question you can in theory be involved in as the patient.
The scores on the doors will be much of a muchness across Europe...all our health systems will collapse and most people will probably suffer at home...but yes, in the kick off the Germans are doing quite well....
You're probably right. In the end it will be a wash.
If I had to construct a plan B (given that my North Korean autarky won't work) then I would do this: I would say to any 70 year old (or older) who presents with coronavirus; "Sorry, we cannot treat you in a hospital, here is a load of antibiotics and heroin, go home and pray".
Let God decide. But mitigate the pain.
We risk overwhelming the health system with hundreds of thousands of oldsters who may or may not live, at the expense of younger people who still have a life to live and babies to breed. Triage needs to get a bit medieval.
Comrade...why should a 70 year old or 80 year old pass over treatment in preference to a younger person???
Surely the clinical presentation takes priority--and on that basis the elderly and those with co-morbidity must be prioritised.....
No, that's wrong. This is beyond normal protocol. Save the young.
The young will largely be saved anyway, coronavirus has a 0.2% death rate for under 40s, barely different from normal flu but an 8% death rate for over 70s and a 15% death rate for over 80s
If 0.2% of under 40's are dying then probably 0.5% need ICU, or 1 in 200.
If we have 1000 of those under 40's getting the virus at one time, then all those beds are gone, just on that bit of the population.
This is why the public health measures need to be harsh and soon too.
There is a vast difference between 1 in 200 needing an ICU for under 40s and potentially almost 1 in 2 over 80s needing an ICU.
You're reading, but you're not understanding. Two patients present, both identically ill - in desperate need of an ECMO to survive (the U40 being the 1 in 200, the O80 being the 1 in 2). Do you give it to the U40 or the O80, given that they're identically ill?
I think there is little point in pressing on with the matter.
We must just be thankful that we are not doctors and we will not have to decide.
Triage will be commonplace in a couple of weeks. Entirely avoiding the discussion now and having it then might not be healthy as well. 'Just leave it to the doctors' might be a bit of an easy copout.
I am not sure a random discussion with some folks on the internet on a not-so-important blog is going to change anything.
In practice, the decision will be up to doctors and health care officials.
I know what I would decide, but there is no need for me to spill the information -- as I will never be in the position in which my decision matters.
Except that Do Not Resuscitate forms are a thing. I have no idea what your personal circumstances are of course, but it's a question you can in theory be involved in as the patient.
Yes, DNR forms do require discussion with the patient, if they have capacity.
Resuscitation does not mean transfer to ICU though.
The scores on the doors will be much of a muchness across Europe...all our health systems will collapse and most people will probably suffer at home...but yes, in the kick off the Germans are doing quite well....
You're probably right. In the end it will be a wash.
If I had to construct a plan B (given that my North Korean autarky won't work) then I would do this: I would say to any 70 year old (or older) who presents with coronavirus; "Sorry, we cannot treat you in a hospital, here is a load of antibiotics and heroin, go home and pray".
Let God decide. But mitigate the pain.
We risk overwhelming the health system with hundreds of thousands of oldsters who may or may not live, at the expense of younger people who still have a life to live and babies to breed. Triage needs to get a bit medieval.
Comrade...why should a 70 year old or 80 year old pass over treatment in preference to a younger person???
Surely the clinical presentation takes priority--and on that basis the elderly and those with co-morbidity must be prioritised.....
No, that's wrong. This is beyond normal protocol. Save the young.
The young will largely be saved anyway, coronavirus has a 0.2% death rate for under 40s, barely different from normal flu but an 8% death rate for over 70s and a 15% death rate for over 80s
If 0.2% of under 40's are dying then probably 0.5% need ICU, or 1 in 200.
If we have 1000 of those under 40's getting the virus at one time, then all those beds are gone, just on that bit of the population.
This is why the public health measures need to be harsh and soon too.
There is a vast difference between 1 in 200 needing an ICU for under 40s and potentially almost 1 in 2 over 80s needing an ICU.
You're reading, but you're not understanding. Two patients present, both identically ill - in desperate need of an ECMO to survive (the U40 being the 1 in 200, the O80 being the 1 in 2). Do you give it to the U40 or the O80, given that they're identically ill?
I think there is little point in pressing on with the matter.
We must just be thankful that we are not doctors and we will not have to decide.
Triage will be commonplace in a couple of weeks. Entirely avoiding the discussion now and having it then might not be healthy as well. 'Just leave it to the doctors' might be a bit of an easy copout.
I am not sure a random discussion with some folks on the internet on a not-so-important blog is going to change anything.
In practice, the decision will be up to doctors and health care officials.
I know what I would decide, but there is no need for me to spill the information -- as I will never be in the position in which my decision matters.
Except that Do Not Resuscitate forms are a thing. I have no idea what your personal circumstances are of course, but it's a question you can in theory be involved in as the patient.
I have been involved in it as a relative of a seriously ill person.
I think people should reflect on such matters (as I have) -- but perhaps not at the behest of a whooping & salivating eadric on a public blog!
The scores on the doors will be much of a muchness across Europe...all our health systems will collapse and most people will probably suffer at home...but yes, in the kick off the Germans are doing quite well....
You're probably right. In the end it will be a wash.
If I had to construct a plan B (given that my North Korean autarky won't work) then I would do this: I would say to any 70 year old (or older) who presents with coronavirus; "Sorry, we cannot treat you in a hospital, here is a load of antibiotics and heroin, go home and pray".
Let God decide. But mitigate the pain.
We risk overwhelming the health system with hundreds of thousands of oldsters who may or may not live, at the expense of younger people who still have a life to live and babies to breed. Triage needs to get a bit medieval.
Comrade...why should a 70 year old or 80 year old pass over treatment in preference to a younger person???
Surely the clinical presentation takes priority--and on that basis the elderly and those with co-morbidity must be prioritised.....
No, that's wrong. This is beyond normal protocol. Save the young.
The young will largely be saved anyway, coronavirus has a 0.2% death rate for under 40s, barely different from normal flu but an 8% death rate for over 70s and a 15% death rate for over 80s
If 0.2% of under 40's are dying then probably 0.5% need ICU, or 1 in 200.
If we have 1000 of those under 40's getting the virus at one time, then all those beds are gone, just on that bit of the population.
This is why the public health measures need to be harsh and soon too.
There is a vast difference between 1 in 200 needing an ICU for under 40s and potentially almost 1 in 2 over 80s needing an ICU.
You're reading, but you're not understanding. Two patients present, both identically ill - in desperate need of an ECMO to survive (the U40 being the 1 in 200, the O80 being the 1 in 2). Do you give it to the U40 or the O80, given that they're identically ill?
Depends if the U40 has serious pre existing conditions, is single and the O80 is a parent or grandparent and you could even look at whether the U40 is employed or not and whether the O80 has a private pension if you really want to be that brutal.
However the vast majority of U40s will not need hospital treatment to survive, even most O80s will not either but more will
Identical in every way. Both are siblingless married parents to one child. No pre-existing conditions. There is no difference between the two patients in any way, bar their age. Who do you pick?
Again, a cost benefit analysis would need to be done of their net worth, claiming of state benefits, how dependent their children were on them etc. It could be the older patient is happily married and close to his children and grandchildren and the younger patient is separated from his partner, never sees his children and an alcoholic
Err, No.
That is not how it works. NHS treatment decisions are made on medical not social grounds.
The government could easily legislate for them to be made on social grounds if it came to be so bad that only one of two patients in an equal state of ill health could be saved
If everyone who can work from home does so for a few weeks, then that will do a great deal to reduce the spread. Not everyone can, but many can, and should.
As I posted on previous thread, I was contacted by a friend at a leading university, who were told this evening this was now the preferred option for spending their days. No meetings, no presentations, etc with research done from home.
I think we are going to see this rolled out pretty quickly now.
They've already stopped classes at Stanford. Lectures through WebEx is the new norm.
I would be surprised if that doesn't happen here very soon. In fact, they will be off for Easter anyway shortly. I would just cut the term now.
A lot of Universities are 2 weeks into a 3 week lecturer strike which may prove something of a blessing.
The scores on the doors will be much of a muchness across Europe...all our health systems will collapse and most people will probably suffer at home...but yes, in the kick off the Germans are doing quite well....
You're probably right. In the end it will be a wash.
If I had to construct a plan B (given that my North Korean autarky won't work) then I would do this: I would say to any 70 year old (or older) who presents with coronavirus; "Sorry, we cannot treat you in a hospital, here is a load of antibiotics and heroin, go home and pray".
Let God decide. But mitigate the pain.
We risk overwhelming the health system with hundreds of thousands of oldsters who may or may not live, at the expense of younger people who still have a life to live and babies to breed. Triage needs to get a bit medieval.
Comrade...why should a 70 year old or 80 year old pass over treatment in preference to a younger person???
Surely the clinical presentation takes priority--and on that basis the elderly and those with co-morbidity must be prioritised.....
No, that's wrong. This is beyond normal protocol. Save the young.
I wonder if we can resurrect Goebbels et al....the gypsies and the jews...let's not treat those...
Sorry...but just where your argument takes us Ead
Triage will have to happen at some point. If you have two candidates for the last ECMO bed, both equally ill but one is 25, the other 65 there's no contest as to which should get the bed.
The reality is that most people appearing critically ill will be older and admitted...
If this crisis forces us to lose our compassion to old people...then sadly it is a country that has lost its perspective.....
That's all very well, so are you advocating letting the 25 year old die to let the equally ill 65 year old survive, especially considering that with treatment the 25 year old should recover faster? They're hours away from having to make those calls in Italy.
The 25 year old will almost certainly survive at home with hot broth in bed anyway, the 65 year old however may need that hospital bed to survive
And that is a very important point to be honest
However - we're talking about two identically ill patients, one 25, one 65. Both will almost certainly die without the last ECMO machine. Which one do you give it to?
That is a choice for the medics as it raises a serious question of ethics
But this subject is just distastful and I would question the need to even raise it
It could be someones mother or father or close relative whose life is being discounted because they are not young
It is distasteful, and I'm not sure how it got raised. However it is a question our medics will soon be having to answer.
The younger patient could be a father, a son, a brother etc. As utterly brutal as it is, age is probably the fairest filter when deciding between identically ill patients. Young people are generally more likely to pull through, and if they do will recover quicker.
Priority 1 needs to be minimising loss of life, priority two minimising loss of years.
On both priorities is there a clear case that the younger patient should get the last ECMO.
It is unlikely it would arise as it is the elderly mainly with pre existing conditions that are falling to covid 19
But I repeat, it is distasteful and we need to move on
Move on to what?? Care home wage structure?
You're a nice guy Big G, and I wish you well. You probably think I am Satan. I don't care.
Coronavirus is the biggest story of the year and possibly the decade (and so on). No sensible political betting debate can be had without referencing it. So your appeal is fruitless and silly.
I do not think you are satan.
However, you seem to want to be sensational when a little more common sense would be wise
Also I strongly object to the abusive language you use from time to time to your fellow posters
We all need to be kinder and gentler and it does you no credit to indulge in unnnecessary language
Big G, I do sometimes get a pissed off with the constant abuse I get, for simply stating the truth as I see it.
This particularly irks when I have been largely but not entirely right for about five weeks now, and they have all been mostly wrong. I am the messenger and I keep getting shot. In the end I lose my rag.
Pff. It matters not in the end. This crisis dwarfs us all. I wish you and yours well.
If this wretched virus pans out as I fear it will, then it could take many people that I love (including me). I pray that I am wrong. But they are prayers.
Just moderate your unnecessary language on other posters
It takes away from any message you are trying to convey
Just jumping on that last point: that message is what, exactly?
What exactly is the result you are hoping for from us as a result of repeatedly posting about how bad the situation is, without (seemingly) much or any constructive outcome?
The scores on the doors will be much of a muchness across Europe...all our health systems will collapse and most people will probably suffer at home...but yes, in the kick off the Germans are doing quite well....
You're probably right. In the end it will be a wash.
If I had to construct a plan B (given that my North Korean autarky won't work) then I would do this: I would say to any 70 year old (or older) who presents with coronavirus; "Sorry, we cannot treat you in a hospital, here is a load of antibiotics and heroin, go home and pray".
Let God decide. But mitigate the pain.
We risk overwhelming the health system with hundreds of thousands of oldsters who may or may not live, at the expense of younger people who still have a life to live and babies to breed. Triage needs to get a bit medieval.
Eh? The whole point is that younger people aren't dying from it in any sort of significant numbers! So you'd be clearing the hospitals of old people for... who?
Young people who have a life ahead of them.
Read that doctor from Italy. Young people are getting this. And badly.
If we are faced with a terrible choice (and it is terrible) we have to save the young and the future.
One personal report vs all the medical evidence.
Death rates amongst the young are a tiny fraction of those of the elderly. You would end up with far more avoidable deaths following your plan.
Comments
Please show the link to your claims
https://twitter.com/allisonpearson/status/1236791198540496896?s=21
I believe this might actually have been written by out resident hot broth expert.
From the beginning I have had 24,000 as the short term target, and it looks like we will reach that this week. We need to factor in that the US and central banks will be doing everything they can to prop up the markets - another surprise US interest rate is quite likely, as is rushing out some news on a vaccine or cure before they should. I am going to hold my sell positions to 24,000 and then take a view as to what to do next. The lower the market goes, the greater the risk of a bounce, even if the longer term trend is downward.
Previous crises, the market has been on the way back well before the underlying crisis is resolved. So it’s right to be looking for the turn. But I wouldn’t however think of buying back in just yet, there is clearly worse news to come.
I think we know enough about it now to say it ain’t just the flu and it isn’t the Black Death either. People should be sensible take precautions and that’s all we can do.
The doom mongering on here is depressing, though. A sense of perspective wouldn’t go amiss.
But this subject is just distastful and I would question the need to even raise it
It could be someones mother or father or close relative whose life is being discounted because they are not young
If we have 1000 of those under 40's getting the virus at one time, then all those beds are gone, just on that bit of the population.
This is why the public health measures need to be harsh and soon too.
https://twitter.com/bwhytelaw/status/1236788727894114304?s=21
The younger patient could be a father, a son, a brother etc. As utterly brutal as it is, age is probably the fairest filter when deciding between identically ill patients.
Young people are generally more likely to pull through, and if they do will recover quicker.
Priority 1 needs to be minimising loss of life, priority two minimising loss of years.
On both priorities is there a clear case that the younger patient should get the last ECMO.
But I repeat, it is distasteful and we need to move on
https://twitter.com/toadmeister/status/1234852618356305920?s=21
We must just be thankful that we are not doctors and we will not have to decide.
However the vast majority of U40s with CV will not need hospital treatment to survive, even most O80s will not either but more will
Poor old Sir Keir - which way will he stumble on this ?
‘Labour 'Led By Anti-Semites And Racists,' Says Former Equalities Watchdog Trevor Phillips’
https://m.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/labour-led-by-anti-semites-and-racists-says-former-equalities-watchdog-trevor-phillips_uk_5b93cad5e4b0162f472d9037
Entirely avoiding the discussion now and having it then might not be healthy as well.
'Just leave it to the doctors' might be a bit of an easy copout.
"Tens of thousands march in Paris to protest against patriarchy"
"Gatherings of more than a thousand people banned to slow the spread of coronavirus"
However, you seem to want to be sensational when a little more common sense would be wise
Also I strongly object to the abusive language you use from time to time to your fellow posters
We all need to be kinder and gentler and it does you no credit to indulge in unnecessary language
In practice, the decision will be up to doctors and health care officials.
I know what I would decide, but there is no need for me to spill the information
-- as I will never be in the position in which my decision matters.
I also missed the chance to close out before the end of Friday's session, but it doesn't seem to have mattered much.
https://www.bloomberg.com/energy
-20%
74 year old, orange, glowing perma tan, narcissistic , obese, dangerous, abusive, rapist, lying, deranged, dangerous, psychopath...deranged .twat, motherfucker of the highest calibre....ticks all Hfud's boxes.....
It takes away from any message you are trying to convey
"I'm sorry Mr HYFUD sir, he passed away 45 days ago."
https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/five-of-six-face-masks-fail-absorbency-test?cx_testId=20&cx_testVariant=cx_2&cx_artPos=0#cxrecs_s
That is not how it works. NHS treatment decisions are made on medical not social grounds.
Resuscitation does not mean transfer to ICU though.
I think people should reflect on such matters (as I have) -- but perhaps not at the behest of a whooping & salivating eadric on a public blog!
http://mosesfarrow.blogspot.com/2018/05/a-son-speaks-out-by-moses-farrow.html?m=1
What exactly is the result you are hoping for from us as a result of repeatedly posting about how bad the situation is, without (seemingly) much or any constructive outcome?
Death rates amongst the young are a tiny fraction of those of the elderly. You would end up with far more avoidable deaths following your plan.
https://twitter.com/tedcruz/status/1235947787298189316